By Gracy Joslin and Daniella Dueñas
WOODLAND, CA – In Yolo County Superior Court Tuesday morning, in a motion to revoke bail hearing, two major problems were to be considered—the accused’s trouble with drug use and, as Judge David Rosenberg called it, the “drumbeat” of contact with his ex-spouse, both violations of his probation.
The accused is charged with four felonies related to stalking while a temporary restraining order is in effect, infliction of corporal injury on spouse/cohabitant and possession of controlled substance while armed with a weapon.
In addition, the accused has nine misdemeanor charges for violating a protective order and two for possession of controlled substance and possession of firearm.
At the beginning of the hearing, the court had to wait a few minutes for the accused to be brought into the courtroom, but eventually the accused arrived and the hearing began.
Defense Attorney James Granucci opened: “First of all, my client has no prior criminal history…the court heard the preliminary hearing in this case…”
And, then he was cut off by Judge David Rosenberg who replied, “I am very familiar with this case… I am also familiar with the fact this case has bounced around a lot because everyone has been sick one time or another.”
Attorney Granucci explained to the court that the accused has been trying to get into a drug treatment program, but upon losing his job he also lost his insurance and his family, and “he has really lost everything.”
Judge Rosenberg asked, “What happened with addiction intervention court? Was he in, then out?”
Attorney Granucci responded, “He really never got started… we referred him twice at the beginning of this case… he really wants to get back to the addiction and intervention court,” adding, for someone that has never been in trouble before and has been a productive member of society, “it is a really hard thing to admit that you have an addiction issue.” 
The deputy district attorney contended that the accused’s persistent contact with his ex-partner was a violation of probation, despite the excuse that his intention was to remain in contact with his children and not to harass her.
The DDA argued that the accused’s plan to seek help for his drug addiction was long overdue, adding, “It is an injustice to the victim,” referring to a previous decision made by Judge Peter M. Williams to set the accused’s bail for $35,000 with no conditions. He emphasized that this gave the accused a “windfall for violating.”
After deliberation, Judge Rosenberg declared, “I can’t find a change in circumstance since the previous ruling by Judge Williams” and he urged the accused to have absolutely no contact with his ex-partner, adding, “You have to be a choirboy.”
Judge Rosenberg did not revoke bail, thus keeping it at the $35,000 amount previously set by Judge Williams, with the condition that the accused attend a drug treatment program and have no direct, third party, or digital contact with his ex-spouse.
This case will be heard again Aug. 18, where the decision will be set for review. 
