By Cynthia Hoang-Duong
MODESTO, CA — At the conclusion of a case management conference in Stanislaus County Superior Court this week, Judge Carrie Stephens decided to maintain the high bail despite defense concerns about the accused’s financial responsibilities and the prosecution’s charges.
The prosecution alleges that, on the day of the incident, the accused punched a woman, stole her phone when she attempted to contact law enforcement, and took their child.
Deputy Public Defender Rafael Bito began his bail motion by expressing his disagreement with the prosecution’s PC § 211 charge: theft with force.
He stated, “I would note to the court that the 211 is weak, even according to the police report.”
As documented in the report, the accused grabbed the victim’s hand and phone before tossing it across the street.
Based on such facts of the case, DPD Bito claimed the offense does not constitute robbery because “there was no permanent taking of the cell phone.”
He also informed the court about the alleged victim’s position on the case, noting, “She wants (the accused) to be released, says that there was no robbery, (and) was complaining about why he was charged with that. She’s not afraid of him (and) would like him released if possible.”
Because the two share children, the accused is the main provider for the family, said the DPD, adding, the victim is disabled and thus is unable to work and care for her children.
Meanwhile, the accused is employed full-time, working as a handyman, said the DPD, noting however, because the accused is in custody for the charges, he is losing clients and as a result, is losing the financial support he provides for his family, including the victim. Without the accused’s financial support, the family could risk losing their home, said the DPD.
The DPD turned to the accused’s prior strike—as used by the prosecution for the PC § 211 charge, alerting the court that the alleged strike is over 10 years old and the incident likely occurred when he was a juvenile.
Looking at the accused’s criminal records, Judge Stephens noted he was arrested in March and asked the deputy district attorney about the offense.
DDA Vita Palazuelos reported that the accused has been arrested several times for domestic violence—the most recent arrest was in May for a violation of his restraining order.
Regarding the March arrest, the DDA informed the court that it was the same victim but the district attorney’s office did not prosecute the case.
As for the instant case, she argued, “One of the most concerning parts is that this domestic violence happened in front of the children.”
She highlighted his criminal history, citing his imprisonments and arrests for offenses such as robbery and possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. He also appeared unsuccessful on probation, claimed DDA Palazuelos, adding that he had multiple violations.
Although he is no longer on probation, she insisted he has “not necessarily been a law-abiding citizen” and there are “serious concerns about (his) criminality.”
She also declared her intentions of amending the complaint and adding a count for corporal injury of a cohabitant and another for intimidating a victim.
After hearing the parties’ arguments, the judge declared the court would not make a ruling based on a traditional robbery offense but instead domestic violence because the case involves the alleged assault of a vulnerable individual in a public setting.
Before she continued with her decision, DPD Bito interrupted with a response to the DDA’s argument, noting that although the complaining victim wishes to have contact with him, the accused is willing to stay away. He has a place of residence and would abide by the court order.
Further, he noted that his client has completed probation and only has two felony convictions, none for domestic violence.
Because of the arguments provided, the defense requested that the court consider reducing the bail to $25,000 or releasing the accused.
However, Judge Stephens stressed her concerns about the domestic violence in the case.
Although admitting that the court does not ordinarily refer to prior arrests that do not result in a conviction as a basis for its decision, she stated, “When an arrest is for domestic violence, and when the allegation is a violation of (a) criminal protective order, domestic violence cases are just different. And they have different risk factors.”
Because she is concerned about future violence, even if the court grants a criminal protective order, the judge decided to set bail at $100,000.
Although it is slightly lower than the original amount, she emphasized this decision “does not suggest that (she doesn’t) view this as being a very significant public safety concern.”
