WOODLAND, CA – Yolo County Superior Court Judge Daniel M. Wolk Thursday rejected a defense request to dismiss a long-standing case, emphasizing the victim’s right to restitution despite an admitted lack of documentation. it was the third time the parties were in court, and the only matter remaining was a restitution hearing.
The accused is facing two felony charges—one for vandalism and the other for identity theft involving the use of personal information.
“It blows my mind.” – Defense Attorney David Nelson
Defense Attorney David Nelson commented, “It blows my mind,” as he noted the complaining witness had not provided any proof of damages or documentation regarding the restitution claim.
Nelson requested the court drop this case from the calendar, maintaining that “my client has due process rights to be given notice on what is claimed as restitution…and the right to be able to counter what is alleged.”
Judge Wolk noted that he was in the same boat as Nelson stated, stating, “I also do not have documentation from the victim.”
But, the judge quickly added that “this case is very old and restitution hearing is the only thing standing in our way…I intend to go forward,” signaling his intention to proceed with the restitution hearing despite the absence of documentation.
Attorney Nelson expressed his frustration, stating, “It blows my mind…I know there has been discovery done,” as he reiterated his concern over the lack of documentation, particularly in a “restitution hearing in which thousands of dollars have been alleged.”
Nelson further observed, “My client has been here at least half a dozen times…just when he was moving on with his life, he gets called back,” pointing out that the restitution hearing would not allow the accused to move on with his life.
In response to Nelson’s request to drop the case, Judge Wolk referred to the police report, noting that “there is some basis here and adding, “Mr. Nelson, I don’t know what to do…dropping the case from the calendar might not be the right thing to do.”
While questioning the credibility of the complaining witness’s claim, Nelson stated, “The fact that he (the victim) has not cooperated means it is not credible. In a civil situation, he (victim) would have been sanctioned…sanction could have been dismissal.”
In his final statement, Nelson commented, “I am not calling ready, I simply can’t…it is just a report where he (victim) pulls a number off his hat.”
Judge Wolk concluded, “A victim has a right to restitution,” before continuing the matter and ordering the accused to return.
