By Kiana Khatibi
WOODLAND, CA – An arraignment of a man with multiple felony theft charges was dragged out here in Yolo County Superior Court this week, ultimately resulting in an accused with no money, no means of employment, and no permanent home given two weeks to appear physically in court.
The accused, who appeared via Zoom in Monday’s court proceeding, was arraigned in a codefendant felony case where he was accused of purchasing or receiving a stolen vehicle and the theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle. He also had two case enhancements for prior felony convictions.
Deputy District Attorney Carolyn Palumbo expressed confusion on the accused’s Zoom appearance, a warrant that was issued and then recalled, and whether he was currently out of custody on bail.
She inquired further, noting, “On March 3, the only thing we show in our system is that he failed to appear and a $50,000 bench warrant was issued for him… what happened between March 3 and today?”
Judge Daniel M. Wolk assigned Deputy Public Defender Stephen Betz to represent the accused, and ordered that they revisit the case once the accused had an opportunity to call and consult with DPD Betz.
The matter of the accused was recalled several cases later, with DDA Betz explaining how the accused was appearing on Zoom because he was given extremely short notice that he was to appear in court, stating, “Release happened on Thursday so he was not given a lot of time to be able to make any sort of transportation arrangements to get here in person.”
The defense continued to explain the difficulties the accused had been facing, saying, “Right now he is unhoused, he is not employed, and would certainly appear via Zoom and make better efforts to be here in person. It is just with the limited time frame he had to work with, Zoom was his best option, certainly for today, and would be appreciated going forward.”
Despite this, DDA Palumbo continued to argue for the accused to appear for arraignment in person, noting that “the court does have the authority to order defendants to appear in person.”
Palumbo also cited his record: “He has a lengthy criminal history. He has several felony convictions… the People are asking that he appear in person and that if he is to be released, he post bail.”
DPD Betz stood his ground, arguing, “Obviously [the accused] made efforts to be here today. Certainly, it sounded like this was set in very short order but he still made it here… being a person who is unhoused, I think that speaks a lot for (the accused), to suggest that he is not trying to avoid the court system. In fact, he is trying to put himself forth and deal with the allegations in the best way that he can.”
He also addressed Palumbo’s repeated argument about the prior record of the accused: “I’m asking [the court] to give (his client) sufficient time to be here. Regardless of what his criminal history is, I don’t see how based on the allegations here the court could say (the accused) is a public safety risk. These are property crimes… not seeing anything assaultive in nature…(the accused) is not employed, he doesn’t have any money in the bank right now. Even when I asked him about $20 in bail, he said he might even have to sell his bike to come up with $20.”
DPD Betz asked the court to release the accused on own recognizance, and that if the court isn’t inclined to do that, the accused should at least be given four weeks to arrange for transportation to get to Yolo County.
Palumbo struck back once again, and upon bringing up the accused’s felony convictions one last time, concluded, “People’s property is at jeopardy with him out of custody.”
Judge Wolk ordered the accused to appear in Court and refused to arraign him in this hearing, giving him two weeks to appear in person instead. Further arraignment is set for May 1.
