WOODLAND, CA – The prosecution opposed a defense request here in Yolo County Superior Court to release an accused man from custody, despite the defense arguing that the prosecution’s offer was “outrageous” and was “ten times the standard” amount of custody time for what a normal PRCS violation entails.
The accused is facing a misdemeanor DUI charge with enhancements for excessive blood alcohol levels and a felony charge for the violation of Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS).
While referencing the accused’s history, Deputy Public Defender Stephen Betz asserted Deputy District Attorney Martha Wais and the probation department were making invalid associations between the accused’s prior cases and the ongoing case.
In the same sentence, DPD Betz pointed out revisiting the accused’s past violations and making this case about the complaining witness from a prior case was unreasonable because these were cases “in which (the accused) had already served prison time.. and was already resolved.”
DPD Betz argued, despite being in court for “a misdemeanor and a PRCS violation…there is an idea to keep the accused in custody for as long as possible which is inappropriate.”
In the same sentence, DPD Betz remained adamant there was not an adequate effort to find alternative and “less restrictive” means of monitoring the accused on the probation’s behalf.
Betz stated that “probation did not do an in-depth analysis into the least restrictive means,” adding, “Instead they just reached a bold conclusion that it’s inappropriate to release him,” noting that in the probation report, less restrictive means were not mentioned at all.
Speaking on behalf of his client, DPD Betz also argued, “He (the accused) has been willing…to take responsibility for his conduct but he’s not willing to accept 64 days which is the offer from the government and for a DUI where the blood alcohol level was a .27.
“He did end up on the sidewalk, no one was hurt and right now he has a total of 41 days in custody which is over 10 times the standard disposition for a DUI,” noted Betz, insisting that keeping the accused in jail would be “not appropriate” based on the low-level charges.
Considering an alternative solution in the event that the court did not resolve the case on that day, DPD Betz re-emphasized his request the court consider the “least restrictive terms,” including the court could “release the accused with a SCRAM device.”
DPD Betz also told the court the accused was looking at the Anti-Recidivism Coalition in Sacramento as a “resource to get him hooked up with a job, treatment, and staying out of trouble.”
Betz stated that if released, the accused would have a stable place to reside at his grandmother’s residence in West Sacramento.
In her rebuttal to DPD Betz’s arguments, despite conceding that the accused’s DUI was “factually” a misdemeanor, DDA Wais said the accused was “uncooperative” with the arresting officer after the incident that occurred in daylight.
“I realize that it is a misdemeanor DUI. However, this was an incident that took place in the middle of the day in Woodland near the JC Penny in an area that is heavily trafficked by pedestrians and vehicles.
“He crashed into a sidewalk concrete barrier. Fortunately, he did not strike any pedestrians or any other vehicles. However, he was extremely intoxicated at the time,” DDA Wais stated to Judge Cortés.
DDA Wais also claimed it took a “number of officers” to detain the accused and then referenced one of the accused’s past cases where he was allegedly intoxicated while operating a vehicle.
Offering clarification to the court, DPD Betz noted that, contrary to DDA Wais’s belief, it did not take a number of officers to detain the accused, stating, “There was a solo officer who was on scene and initially who made contact with (the accused).
“He was placed in the car. It’s not unreasonable to understand why someone with a .27 blood alcohol level might not be cooperating with officers if they are so impaired. It doesn’t mean that somehow he was combative or fought with the officers.”
Once again emphasizing his disagreement with the prosecution’s request, DPD Betz noted, “To say that 60 days for this violation when a standard is four days and this is 10 times the standard based on the custody credits he has right now, I think is just outrageous…I don’t agree with the offer at all.”
Instead, DPD Betz suggested, “Probation should be looking to release him with the appropriate support in place because if the concern is substance use disorder or alcohol use disorder, then those supports should be put in place now.”
After hearing arguments from both DPD Betz and DDA Wais, Judge Sonia Cortés confirmed that this was the accused’s first DUI with an enhanced blood alcohol content (BAC) and was also the accused’s first PRCS violation.
Judge Cortés agreed to release the accused from jail and place him back on the terms and conditions of his PRCS.
The accused will remain out of jail on PRCS with SCRAM ankle monitoring and will appear in court March 3 for a trial readiness conference.
