WOODLAND, CA – Deputy District Attorney Preston Schaub used the accused’s prior drug-related convictions from 2000 and 2013 to successfully oppose Deputy Public Defender Stephen Betz’s motion to reduce a felony charge to a misdemeanor in a preliminary hearing on Tuesday in Yolo County Superior Court.
The accused is charged with a felony for possession of hard drugs with two prior convictions under Proposition 36, a misdemeanor for providing false identification to a peace officer, and enhancements for prior felonies and aggravation.
Under questioning from DDA Schaub, a West Sacramento police officer alleged the accused and his co-accused were riding a bicycle against traffic when the officer made a traffic enforcement stop.
The officer said the accused and co-accused gave him their names, and while he did identify the co-accused, the officer said they were unable to confirm the identity of the accused, but found a nickname in the known persons database, or “Web KPF.”
The KPF database, according to the officer, contains information for the police including a photograph, name, arrest history, address, and more.
When DDA Schaub asked the officer about the name of the accused identified using this database, DPD Betz objected on the grounds of hearsay.
According to DPD Betz, the moniker given to the officer by the co-accused could not be disqualified as a valid identity for the accused, and there was a lack of foundation as to how the identified name was associated with the nickname.
DPD Betz’s concerns were acknowledged, and the officer then explained how he waited for backup officers, and claimed the accused “grew uneasy,” put the backpack down, and his tone of voice changed.
The accused reportedly said he “did nothing wrong” and “should be free to go.” DPD Betz’s objection on the grounds of speculation was overruled by the judge.
The officer said they saw the accused “unzipping something at his chest” as he went in for a hug with his co-accused, and once the backup officers arrived, they conducted pat down checks on both accused—the co-accused admitted a bag of marijuana was passed from the accused during the hug, alleged the officer.
The search revealed another bag on her person, testified the officer, who said tests revealed it to contain 10.47 grams of methamphetamine, and a search of the accused revealed a scale covered with a substance identified as methamphetamine, as well as multiple bags in his backpack which did not match the bag found on the co-accused.
According to the officer, the co-accused said that the bag of methamphetamine did not belong to her or the accused, and she did not have it prior to the hug.
The officer, when questioned by the defense, said he had not seen any bulges or residues on the accused’s person, and did not believe the accused was under the influence.
Concluding his questioning, DPD Betz asked if the co-accused knew marijuana was passed to her, to which the officer replied the female “believed” marijuana was passed to her.
DDA Schaub then provided as evidence a certified rap sheet to Judge Daniel M Wolk, containing the accused’s entire criminal history.
Referring to the felony charge, DDA Schaub claimed the transfer that happened during the hug provided circumstantial evidence of the accused’s possession of a controlled substance, stating that “more than one person can possess something at the same time,” implying the methamphetamine was in the possession of both the accused and the co-accused.
As for the misdemeanor charge, DDA Schaub asserted that KPF databases are law enforcement databases, and thus are a valid way to identify someone. He also claimed that for the purposes of a preliminary hearing, there is no legal requirement to prove who the accused is; there is only a requirement to identify him as the person who allegedly committed the crime.
Given this, DDA Schaub recommended for the accused to be held to answer for both charges.
Responding to DDA Schaub’s arguments, DPD Betz agreed two people could possess something at the same time, but claimed the co-accused had an incentive to be untruthful.
According to DPD Betz, there was no evidence of methamphetamine found on the accused other than the statement made by the co-accused claiming the bag belonged to him. DPD Betz stated that “it certainly could be the meth was hers.”
Regarding the misdemeanor charge, DPD Betz said it must be proven that the identity given was false for this charge to apply.
DPD Betz asked Judge Wolk to consider how old the past convictions are, from the years 2000 and 2013, and the fact that he had the minimum number of priors required by Proposition 36—only two.
DPD Betz also asked Judge Wolk to look at how egregious the conduct was in this case. According to him, even if the methamphetamine was possessed by both the accused and the co-accused, “10 grams isn’t substantive between two people.”
DPD Betz asked for the charges to be reduced to a misdemeanor under California Penal Code section 17(b), claiming that it was “definitely not felony conduct.”
DDA Schaub objected, and chronicled the accused’s entire criminal history, and emphasized that, while he only had two prior drug-related convictions, he still had a lot of other charges, with the most recent being from 2022.
According to DDA Schaub, the age and number of priors should only be one factor in the decision. He claimed that drug priors with no other criminal history are very different from drug priors with continued bad conduct, and the context of a larger picture is needed.
Judge Wolk first overruled DPD Betz’s objection to the use of the KPF database, claiming it counts as an official record.
Judge Wolk also found that there was sufficient evidence to hold the accused accountable for a felony under Proposition 36. He agreed DPD Betz made a good point regarding prior convictions, but stated “it is a pretty significant rap sheet that does contain a strike.”
Given this, Judge Wolk denied DPD Betz’s motion to reduce the felony charge, and set the next hearing date for March 25.
