WOODLAND, Calif. – In Yolo County Superior Court on Wednesday afternoon, Judge Paul K. Richardson declined to consider potentially exculpatory evidence that could have lifted a Penal Code hold, maintaining a $25,000 bail for an accused individual, with the hold remaining in place.
Judge Richardson noted that the accused currently has 14 additional cases pending in Yolo Superior Court, with total bail set at $136,000 across all cases.
In Wednesday’s cases, the accused faces charges of first-degree burglary, grand theft, theft with accomplice, additional circumstances in aggravation, shoplifting with two prior convictions, petty theft, and a sentencing enhancement.
Deputy District Attorney Aimee Carrazco called two Best Buy employees to testify about alleged thefts on Oct. 30, 2024, and March 6, 2025, at the Woodland store.
Both witnesses identified the accused in court as the person seen shoplifting in security camera footage on the relevant dates.
The first witness, a Best Buy sales associate working on Oct. 30, testified that she was monitoring security cameras around 4:52 p.m. and observed the accused in the electronics section. She stated he took interest in a Lenovo Tablet, valued at approximately $120.
The witness said the accused attempted to remove the magnetized security wrapping from the tablet, which can only be removed at the register.
Although the witness didn’t recall whether the accused ultimately concealed or purchased the item, she testified he wandered through the store, repeatedly trying to remove the security wrapping.
During cross-examination, Deputy Public Defender Courtney Leavitt asked how the witness first noticed the accused. The witness said she couldn’t remember whether a floor worker alerted her or if she noticed the activity herself.
Leavitt asked whether the accused actually removed the security packaging. The witness replied that he did not.
Carrazco then called a second Best Buy employee who worked in inventory management on March 6, 2025. That witness testified that a Lenovo Tablet was present in the system before that date, but went missing.
The witness said she reviewed security footage and saw the accused enter the bathroom with two items: the Lenovo Tablet and a drone, which he had brought with him.
She testified that the accused stayed in the bathroom for about 10 minutes and then exited holding the drone, the tablet, and its packaging.
The witness said he disposed of the tablet’s packaging in the gaming section and walked out of the store holding the drone and the tablet without paying.
During cross-examination, Leavitt raised the possibility of other unexplained inventory discrepancies. The witness acknowledged that camera angles are not always sufficient and that footage does not always go far back enough to clarify every incident.
Carrazco also called Woodland Police Officer Melad Khalil, who responded to the store on March 7, 2025. Officer Khalil said he was provided security footage from both incidents and recognized the same individual in each. He identified the accused in court.
Khalil said his partner also recognized the accused from past contact.
After the testimonies, Leavitt argued against a holding order for either date, particularly Oct. 30, stating there was insufficient evidence to prove the accused took anything or intended to steal. She pointed out the first witness never saw the accused leave with a tablet.
Leavitt also requested that the March 6 case be reduced to a misdemeanor, arguing that the tablet’s low value does not support felony charges.
She cautioned against assuming that an alleged theft in March proves intent or guilt in the October case, calling it an “improper theory of relevance.”
Carrazco conceded that the October incident was “somewhat circumstantial” but said the testimony and footage were strong enough to support the charge.
She opposed reducing the March case to a misdemeanor, citing the accused’s extensive record in California and Colorado and the fact that he is on two active probations.
Judge Richardson ruled there was sufficient evidence to justify holding orders and declined to reduce the charges to misdemeanors. He said prior thefts and the principle of “taking things that belong to others” supported maintaining felony charges.
Leavitt then turned to the Penal Code §1275.1 hold, which applies when the magistrate believes bail funds may come from unlawful sources.
She presented pay stubs from the accused’s wife, who has been covering the bail bonds, as evidence the funds are lawful.
Carrazco objected, saying she hadn’t received proper notice to prepare for a hearing on the matter and that the prosecution was entitled to a full hearing.
Leavitt countered that the issue had been raised in court on July 15 in Carrazco’s presence but was delayed due to the absence of a bail bond agent.
Judge Richardson stated that both sides should receive notice to prepare for such a hearing and declined to proceed with lifting the hold.
Leavitt argued that Penal Code §1275.1 does not require prior notice and that the defense is allowed to present evidence at any time showing bail funds are legitimate.
Judge Richardson responded, “Well, this magistrate thinks at least each side is entitled for some notice so at least each side has time to prepare arguments.”
The hold and bail hearing was continued to Aug. 4, 2025, when Leavitt is expected to present additional evidence in hopes of removing the hold and seeking a bail reduction. The accused’s wife is currently only able to afford 10 percent of the $25,000 bail.
