WOODLAND, CA — In a Yolo County Superior Court hearing on Wednesday, Judge David Rosenberg denied a motion under Penal Code section 17(b) that sought to reduce a felony charge to a misdemeanor.
The defense argued that the accused had demonstrated sustained efforts toward personal reform after gaining access to substance abuse programs and moving into a sober living facility.
Despite acknowledging the life circumstances and struggles the accused had faced, Judge Rosenberg declined to grant the motion.
In November 2024, the accused was charged with felony grand theft with an aggravating enhancement due to prior felony convictions. The stolen merchandise, mostly over-the-counter medications including contraceptive pills and medicine for her sick father, was valued between $1,350 and $1,600.
Deputy District Attorney Rachel Meyers called a witness who had worked in loss prevention at the retail store. Meyers asked the witness to identify the accused, which he did after viewing CCTV footage from the day of the theft.
The footage showed the accused placing items into her purse. A second video clip showed her leaving to grab a Target tote bag before returning to the over-the-counter aisle. In a third trip, she grabbed a trash can and filled it with items.
Meyers asked the witness whether the accused paid for any of the items. The witness replied that she “did scan items, but I don’t remember her paying.” At that point, the witness had stepped out of the surveillance room to wait for the accused outside, while a coworker continued monitoring the footage.
Meyers asked for the value of the stolen goods. The witness responded, “around $1,350.”
When the accused exited the store, she was stopped and detained by the Woodland Police Department.
The witness confirmed that all the items were recovered and were resellable. Asked whether the accused seemed remorseful, the witness said, “Yes, very remorseful, and she apologized.”
Trained to identify Organized Retail Crime, the witness questioned the accused’s intent, noting the high volume of contraceptive pills.
The accused admitted she intended to sell the stolen items to pay for her father’s medicine. When pressed about whether that was the full truth, she said it was both true and untrue—also admitting the theft was to support her drug habit.
Meyers then called a second witness, a Target security specialist, who also identified the accused.
This witness remained in the surveillance room while his colleague waited with police outside.
He observed the accused taking a “large amount of medicine” and testified that she scanned only a soda at self-checkout. When asked if she paid for anything, the witness said, “No, (the accused) just looked around and exited.”
The third witness was Officer Dalbinder Dulai of the Woodland Police Department.
When asked about the initial call, Officer Dulai said he responded to a report of a “shoplifting incident” involving a woman who had changed clothes in the dressing room.
Upon making contact, Officer Dulai said the accused had a cart, a purse, and a trash can, all containing items. He confirmed that her purse contained Plan B, a contraceptive medication.
During cross-examination, Deputy Public Defender Martin asked whether the accused had cooperated and if the items were returned. Officer Dulai responded affirmatively to both.
When asked for an estimate of the stolen merchandise’s value, Officer Dulai said, “Ballpark $1,600,” and confirmed everything had been recovered.
Martin argued that the 17(b) motion was appropriate given the accused’s addiction at the time and her subsequent treatment and transition into sober living.
He said, “This case boils down to a difficult time, she was cooperative, remorseful, answered questions, and merchandise was recovered and resold.” He added that while the accused had prior theft charges, none had occurred since she began receiving services.
Meyers countered that the accused was not a suitable candidate due to a history of offenses from 2016 and again from 2018 to 2021. She emphasized that the quantity of contraceptive pills suggested they were not for personal use and could have endangered others without proper oversight.
Meyers also cited 10 additional theft-related charges across various counties between 2018 and 2021, along with other felonies and misdemeanors.
Judge Rosenberg asked the accused her age, to which she replied, “Twenty-nine years old.”
He acknowledged her period of sobriety from 2016 to 2021 and said he believed in second chances.
He said he understood the accused had experienced a “rough patch” due to addiction, but Meyers pointed out her record from 2021 to 2024 was not clean.
Martin responded that the accused was still unhoused during that period.
Judge Rosenberg described the case as “a close call in my mind,” but ultimately concluded that he “can’t in good conscience think she was a good candidate for the 17(b) motion.”
An arraignment is scheduled for July 31, 2025, before Judge Daniel Wolk.
