Woodland, Calif. — A preliminary conference was held Monday afternoon at Yolo County Superior Court, where Deputy Public Defender Danielle Craig’s attempt to reduce charges against her client was denied by Judge Rosenberg despite arguments over procedural delays, prosecutorial disputes, and the fiscal implications of California’s Proposition 36.
The accused faces one felony count for possession of hard drugs with two prior convictions, one misdemeanor count for unlawful possession of paraphernalia, and an enhancement charge related to circumstances in aggravation.
DPD Craig opened the hearing by expressing frustration that Deputy District Attorney Aloysius Patchen had previously refused to acknowledge a defense motion to suppress. DDA Patchen told the court he had no record of such a motion being filed in the four prior preliminary hearings.
Craig maintained she had submitted the motion and that it had been referenced at least once during those hearings. DDA Patchen said he did not recall it.
“Today is the first time I am hearing a 1538 motion to suppress is being filed,” Patchen said. “I am looking through all of my court notes, but I am not seeing a mention of a motion to suppress or 1538 anywhere.”
Craig responded, “I have pulled up the transcript from May 8 that acknowledges the mention of the 1538, and ‘suppressed’ was mentioned once on the transcript.”
After reviewing the transcript and hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Dave Rosenberg proposed that the preliminary hearing proceed while the motion to suppress be scheduled for a later date. Both parties agreed.
Following the agreement, DDA Patchen called West Sacramento Police Officer Antonio Silveria to the stand.
Asked what drew his attention the morning of the accused’s arrest, Silveria testified, “It is an infraction to ride bikes on the sidewalk, and I happened to see the accused riding his bike that morning, so I conducted a traffic stop.”
Patchen asked whether a records check was performed. Silveria replied, “Yes, and I found out that the accused had several misdemeanor warrants, so I detained him and confirmed the warrants were his.”
Silveria also testified, “The accused informed me that he had methamphetamine and a pipe on him, and I searched him afterwards, finding both items.”
On cross-examination, Craig asked Silveria, “You conducted a traffic stop on the accused because you saw him riding his bike on the sidewalk?”
“Yes, I saw him riding his bike on the sidewalk,” Silveria confirmed.
Craig followed up, “So, did you see the accused pedaling the bike?”
Silveria responded, “I do not recall seeing if he was pedaling, but he was on the bike.”
Craig asked, “Or is it possible that the accused was maybe walking with his bike in between his legs?”
Silveria acknowledged, “He was on the bike, but that could be a possibility.”
Later, Craig asked, “He was compliant, he told you his name, so did you confront him about the warrants?”
“Yes, he was compliant and I did inform him about the warrants,” Silveria said.
After Silveria’s testimony, Craig requested a charge reduction, asking the court to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor. She cited procedural issues, the accused’s cooperation with police, prosecutorial confusion, and the intended goals of Proposition 36.
Craig argued that the timing of the charges intersected with the fiscal and rehabilitative aims of Proposition 36, which allows felony charges for drug possession if the person has two prior drug or theft convictions. She quoted the California Voter Guide, noting the fiscal impact was estimated at tens to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
DDA Patchen pushed back, stating, “It is not the fault of the voters that Mr. Barner was found with meth on this date, and it is not unfortunate that he was arrested after the law came into effect. It is unfortunate that he was in possession of methamphetamine.”
Craig responded, “Fundamentally, Prop 36 was proffered to the voters as an opportunity for treatment, and it was done on the bankrolls of corporations like Target and Walmart who used limited media coverage of smash-and-grabs to proliferate the idea that California was falling under some evil.”
She concluded, “We opened the floodgate for felony charges without any new and novel way in which we can help people, and the accused unfortunately falls in this scenario.”
Judge Rosenberg ultimately denied the request, stating, “I hope he is offered his treatment that Proposition 36 promised, but we will see.”
An arraignment will be rescheduled, with a pre-hearing conference set for Tuesday, July 29, 2025, at 9 a.m.
