WOODLAND, CA – A defense motion to reduce a felony to a misdemeanor was denied in Yolo County Superior Court Monday by Judge Catherine Hohenwarter, despite Deputy Public Defender Danielle Craig citing prior alleged history as nonviolent.
In addition to DPD Craig’s argument, the defense insisted that, since multiple individuals had been arrested in the vehicle with the accused, there was no way to indicate the content in the searched backpack belonged to the accused after testifying officers admitted they did not confirm this was the right backpack.
The accused is currently charged with possession of drugs with two prior convictions, petty theft with two prior convictions, and possession of a controlled substance (misdemeanor).
During questioning from DPD Craig, an officer claimed he had retrieved a black Adidas backpack containing 10 grams of methamphetamine and other miscellaneous items, which the officer said they had not inventoried.
Although the officer alleged the bag belonged to the accused and the accused had specified he wanted the officer to retrieve an “Adidas” backpack, he had never shown the backpack to the accused to confirm it was his nor found any identification on the bag linking the accused to it, said the officer, who confirmed he had not searched the accused during the arrest.
The accused was not the only individual inside the vehicle the day of the incident/backpack search, said the witness, adding the vehicle had multiple pipes in it.
DPD Craig had objected to an exhibit, noting it had been notarized by an employee associated with Deputy District Attorney Patchen.
Craig said, “An individual has to come into court and testify that it was maintained in scope. Whoever notarized it has not, and cannot testify to how this information is reliable. If this was notarized from a DOJ employee, I’d have no objection. This was notarized from his office,” adding there has not been any shown case law indicating a party to action can certify a business record.
However, Judge Hohenwarter let the exhibit stand.
Further remarks from DPD Craig stated four other individuals had been arrested along with the accused and a variety of paraphernalia had been found in the vehicle at the time.
DPD Craig argued there was no confirmation the backpack belonged to the accused and, therefore, there is insufficient evidence to hold him on the drug possession charge.
“No evidence shows that the accused had ownership of the entirety of the backpack versus some portion of the content. There is no evidence that confirms who the backpack actually belonged to and the contents and who it belonged to, there were multiple people in the vehicle who could have had access to the substances that were found,” said Craig.
In addition, DPD Craig cited a prior history consisting of nonviolent charges while asking the court for a reduction from a felony to a misdemeanor.
“The reasons why I am asking for a reduction are facts of merit based reduction, there were four people in the car and three pipes, I will give, a modest amount of controlled substance given the amount of people in the vehicle,” said Craig, adding the accused had been candid with officers and the basis for the arrest had been unrelated.
DPD Craig said the prosecution would suggest Prop 36 (allowing increased sentences for particular drug crimes) is meant for individuals to get treatment, but that although this was approved by voters, she believes voters would have decided differently had they been more aware that there is no added funding to Prop 36, referencing one story of an individual currently 60th on the waitlist for a treatment program, and commenting, “Many people try to seek help and they do not get it.”
Deputy District Attorney Aloysius Patchen argued the officer had been instructed to retrieve a “black, Adidas backpack” which he assumed belonged to the accused, and the bag requested had consisted of methamphetamine.
DDA Patchen objected to the charge reduction, noting the accused had five separate probation violations over a three-year term.
“This is a continuing pattern. This is not as if these are a few random drug convictions and nothing else. The last granted probation period was not even a month prior to this crime. I see number after number of probation violations and different convictions,” said the prosecutor.
DPD Craig countered that the accused’s history of felonies is “not serious” —one was for driving on a suspended license, and another one for the possession of substance charge.
Judge Hohenwarter ruled not to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor, stating, “He does have a significant history of drug use and drug possession.” An arraignment on the case will be heard on April 1 in Dept 9.
