By Cynthia Hoang-Duong
WOODLAND, CA – Judge Daniel M. Wolk began a man’s arraignment hearing this week here in Yolo County Superior Court by reciting the four drunk driving cases filed against him by the prosecutor—the recitation took two whole minutes.
Evident in the accused’s case, Vehicle Code sections 23152(a) and 23152(b) are two related offenses of driving under the influence (DUI). The first prohibits individuals from driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The second adds a minor difference to the first offense, attaching a limit on blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent or more.
Monday morning, the judge monotonically enumerated the accused’s DUI cases, starting with his first count in April 2017 for driving under the influence of alcohol with two enhancements for excessive BAC and a prior conviction.
Additionally, a related charge, Vehicle Code section 23152(b), added another count based on the minor difference that the accused drove with a BAC of 0.08 percent or higher. As a result, the same two enhancements from the first count were applied to this second one.
Third, the accused was charged with a misdemeanor for driving while his driving privileges were suspended, and fourth, the accused was slapped with an infraction for failing to provide proof of his insurance.
His second case about three months later in late June 2017 received the first three counts. He was charged with drunk driving and the two enhancements. The prosecution, again, charged him with the second offense based on the minute addition of a BAC limit, subject to the same enhancements. And he was charged with driving on a suspended license and operating a vehicle without an ignition interlock device.
In between these cases, he faced a charge of public intoxication in a third case, according to the court’s account.
And finally, in Jan. 2018, he was charged for the same first three counts and their enhancements but received another enhancement for a prior conviction of the suspended license offense.
After the enumeration of his cases and their charges Monday, the accused plead not guilty to all four cases and they were set for trial.
While the cases are pending trial, Judge Wolk instructed the accused be released on his own recognizance, subject to the standard terms and conditions. He was to obey all laws, drive with a valid license and insurance, and refrain from driving after consuming alcohol or drugs.
However, Deputy District Attorney Ashley Harvey disagreed with the conditions of the release. She complained that, at a minimum, the judge imposed a SCRAM (alcohol monitoring) condition because of the accused’s three DUI cases in Yolo County and additional DUIs and convictions in other counties.
The prosecutor added the accused was arrested earlier in March for DUI and driving without an interlock device in another county. She also cited that in November and August 2022, he was convicted of driving on a suspended license out of Sacramento and served a prison sentence for evading a police officer as a wrong-way driver.
“What we have here is someone who is not obeying the law, is not obeying his conditions of probation, and is a severe public safety risk,” stressed Harvey.
In response, Deputy Public Defender Stephen Betz reminded the court that the three current DUI cases are five years old and argued, “I understand the concern about a recent DUI but it doesn’t sound like the court in whatever county that was in, felt it was necessary to restrain his liberty or place a SCRAM device on him.”
Further, given the age of the allegations, the defense argued an installment of SCRAM was not appropriate. Had the cases been more recent and the accused repeatedly accumulated DUI charges, he would concede to the DDA’s concerns.
PD Betz suggested an alternative, that the court impose appropriate terms and conditions that prohibit the accused from driving a vehicle and possessing alcohol.
The DDA disagreed. Regarding the lack of SCRAM conditions imposed in the cases from other counties, Harvey responded that the accused has likely not received his “notice to appear” date and has yet to appear in court for those cases.
The DDA added that because he appeared in Yolo County Superior Court on Monday, based on his record, the SCRAM condition can be imposed while he is released on OR and pending his jury trial.
The defense added the accused placed himself on the court’s calendar to address the cases, proving that he was seriously considering the issues.
Judge Wolk concluded the arraignment by adding the SCRAM condition and altered the release to supervised own recognizance and for the county to pay for the SCRAM device. He ordered the accused to contact probation by Friday to install the device.
