WOODLAND, Calif. — In a probation violation hearing Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2025, at Yolo County Superior Court, Judge David Rosenberg reviewed the case of a woman on probation for a misdemeanor petty theft conviction from 2022. The accused attended remotely via the court’s Lifesize stream dressed in medical scrubs and was represented by Deputy Public Defender Joseph Gocke.
Deputy District Attorney Candace Guthmiller urged the court to revoke the accused’s release on her own recognizance, citing a pattern of noncompliance with the conditions of her probation. The prosecution argued that repeated violations demonstrated an unwillingness to meet her obligations under supervision and requested that the court reconsider her release status while reviewing her cases from 2017 and 2022.
Gocke countered that the accused had made significant efforts toward rehabilitation since her 2022 conviction. He emphasized that her theft offense occurred during a period of emotional and financial stress following her mother’s death. Gocke noted that the accused has since been working to rebuild her life through stable employment as an oncology medical assistant and by regaining her professional license. He argued that her progress warranted dismissal rather than further punishment.
While the accused demonstrated rehabilitation through steady work and licensure reinstatement, the prosecution was reluctant to acknowledge those efforts as grounds for immediate closure. Guthmiller maintained concerns about the accused’s overall growth and compliance.
Despite the prosecution’s push for revocation, Judge Rosenberg ruled that the accused would remain free on her own recognizance while the case proceeds. A further violation of probation hearing is scheduled for Dec. 4, 2025.
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.
Half an article. What are the ongoing failures to comply with the terms of probation? Are the terms of probation unreasonable? Also, and this isn’t a new idea, what kind of theft does not rob a victim of a sense of security and well-being? I feel like the reporting is framing the offense as so minor that continuing her probation is unduly harsh. Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but a full report would fill in some of those blanks.