WOODLAND, Calif. — In a recent hearing in Yolo County Superior Court, Judge Stephen L. Mock denied a request for residential drug program rehabilitation for a repeat drug offender. The defense contends this may point to a broader problem in how addiction-related offenses are addressed in Yolo County.
The accused returned to court Tuesday, June 24, 2025, facing charges of drug possession, destruction of evidence and possession of drug paraphernalia.
These new charges were filed just weeks after a previous release on supervised own recognizance with an ankle monitor, during which he again possessed methamphetamine, a controlled narcotic.
Yolo County Deputy Public Defender Lisa Lance requested the supervised release be renewed, possibly with continued electronic monitoring. Lance argued the accused is not currently working and is on workers’ compensation as he awaits placement in a residential drug treatment program.
Judge Mock questioned whether the accused had previously undergone drug treatment and asked Parole Agent Jose Cedillo, “Is Garcia on your caseload?”
Cedillo stated that while the accused was not directly under his supervision, the parole office was awaiting an opening in a residential program. “The results of [the probation treatment] were yet to be determined,” he said.
Deputy District Attorney Aimee McLeod dismissed the option outright, arguing that even if the court ordered a residential treatment placement, the facility was unsecured and the accused could “easily walk out,” posing a risk to public safety and others in the program.
McLeod cited three prior failures to appear and emphasized that supervised release had failed to prevent repeat offenses. “What we have so far clearly has not worked,” she said.
Judge Mock agreed, calling the prior supervised release decision “ill advised.” Instead of suggesting a more secure treatment placement or considering alternatives to custody, he imposed bail at $20,000 per case — $50,000 in total — leaving the accused in custody.
The court’s position highlights a broader trend in how jails and courts manage drug-involved individuals.
A 1992 report commissioned by the Institute of Medicine noted that “up to 90 percent of all inmates had drug and alcohol problems that were related to their offense.” Yet only a small portion are assessed for treatment, and even fewer gain access due to limited staffing and program space.
This systemic underinvestment in treatment access may be reflected in this case, where a parole office acknowledged willingness to place the accused in a residential program, but a lack of immediate availability, combined with court skepticism, led to jail instead.
While the court acknowledged the accused’s struggle with substance use and the parole office indicated willingness to place him in treatment, no concrete steps were taken to pursue this route.
The defense raises concerns that incarceration remains the default, even when the system identifies addiction as a central factor in ongoing criminal behavior.
