WOODLAND, Calif. — During a pretrial release motion Friday at the Superior Court of California in Yolo County, Judge Stephen J. Mock denied a request that would have allowed the accused to address warrants issued in Sacramento County, which were preventing the accused from entering inpatient treatment.
Deputy Public Defender Katie DeAnda filed the motion for pretrial release on Sept. 25, noting that the accused faced warrants from Sacramento County due to probation violations. DeAnda explained that the warrants were issued while the accused was already in custody in Yolo County, leading to failures to appear in Sacramento court in August.
DeAnda said there was no formal bail hearing because there was no felony bail hold, and that was the only information released to her by the Sheriff’s Department since it was new information in the docket.
Before being charged with the felony, DeAnda said the accused was required to check in after their release in August under the terms of supervised own recognizance but failed to do so. “(The accused) is in a different position than they were a month ago,” DeAnda said.
“A month ago, there was not this sort of recognition, at least on (their) part, as to the root causes and underlying factors,” DeAnda said.
DeAnda emphasized that the accused is now on a waitlist for an inpatient treatment bed and is facing challenges because of the Sacramento warrants that are preventing them from entering treatment.
“The only way to (address warrants) is if we release them here, to go to Sacramento to take care of their warrants. And then they can address the probation violations, and then we can address the underlying issues, which is the legislative intent (Prop 36),” DeAnda said.
DeAnda also noted that the accused would have housing after inpatient treatment, which they did not have previously, and added that the accused was about to become a grandparent — a new incentive to “stay clean and sober.”
DeAnda repeated the request for pretrial release or supervised own recognizance.
Judge Mock clarified that even if the accused were granted supervised own recognizance, they would still be held in custody in Sacramento County.
Deputy District Attorney Nicholas J. Spatola called the request “not efficient,” “a waste of resources,” and a “delay tactic,” emphasizing that the court trial was scheduled in 17 days.
Spatola pointed to the accused’s history of failing to appear in court, theft probation in three different counties, and five theft-related convictions over 16 months.
He said the $10,000 bail was a “reasonable amount” and should not be lowered.
“This is not the crime of the century,” DeAnda replied.
With a total of $180 allegedly stolen from Target, DeAnda referred to the charge as a “felony of essentially petty theft,” noting that the accused had already been in custody for 70 days and would be released soon.
Referencing the Humphrey decision and the California Constitution, DeAnda argued that the amount stolen did not present a public safety risk.
She also pointed out that the accused had consistently appeared in court for misdemeanor charges for a year, showing they were “not trying to evade the process.”
Judge Mock denied the motion for pretrial release, citing the accused’s prior convictions, despite the defense’s argument that pretrial release would allow the accused to receive inpatient treatment by addressing the Sacramento warrants. However, he reduced bail to $1,500 for the felony charge and $1,000 for the misdemeanor charges.
The next court date is scheduled for Oct. 22 at 9 a.m.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
