WOODLAND, CA – A Yolo County judge denied a motion for pretrial release Thursday, despite arguments from the defense that the accused’s constitutional rights had been violated under Article I, Section 12 of the California Constitution.
During a review hearing at Yolo County Superior Court, Deputy Public Defender K. Deande contended that the accused remained in custody even after meeting conditions for release on supervised own recognizance (SOR). However, Judge Catherine Hohenwarter ultimately sided with the prosecution, which opposed the SOR motion.
The accused faces eight charges: obstructing an executive officer, possession of paraphernalia, providing false identification to an officer, receiving stolen property, resisting an officer, violating a university curfew as a non-affiliate, equipment violations for bicycles, and circumstances in aggravation.
In opposition to a prior ruling by Judge Lever on April 10, 2025, DPD Deande argued that the accused remained detained because the court had set unattainable conditions for release—specifically, that the accused could be released once a bed and a proper facility became available. Deande asserted that the conditions had been met but no action had been taken to release the accused.
Challenging District Attorney A. Mcleod’s position that the accused posed a threat to public safety, DPD Deande argued that there was no current evidence to support this claim. Deande noted that the court had previously deemed the accused eligible for SOR release and that the accused had met the stipulated requirements.
Deande further emphasized that the accused had not engaged in any physical altercation with law enforcement and had demonstrated willingness to address underlying mental health issues. “The accused is willing to engage in treatment… and wants to address his mental health issues,” Deande stated.
In response, DDA Mcleod urged Judge Hohenwarter to deny the motion, arguing that there had been no change in circumstances since the case was initially presented. Mcleod also cited the accused’s prior criminal history and highlighted that the accused sought placement in a different facility than the one originally recommended by the court.
Deande countered that a change in circumstance did exist: namely, the accused remained in custody despite fulfilling the court’s conditions for release. Deande argued that the conditions were effectively unattainable due to the lengthy waitlist at the court-recommended facility, which prompted the accused to seek alternative placement.
The accused’s probation officer also testified, clarifying that probation is not responsible for securing placements in treatment facilities. Contrary to common assumptions, the probation officer said, it is the defendant’s responsibility to work with a social worker to obtain placement in a program.
Ultimately, Judge Hohenwarter ruled that without formal acceptance into the court-recommended facility with probation’s approval, the accused must remain detained until trial, set for May 15, 2025—despite defense arguments that this effectively penalizes the accused for systemic delays in placement.
