YOLO, Calif. – A motion hearing Friday in Yolo County Superior Court resulted in Judge Clara Levers denying the defense’s request for the accused to be released on supervised own recognizance, despite arguments centered on the accused’s role as a parent and their current employment.
The accused faced two charges, including vandalism and unlawful entry of a dwelling.
Deputy Public Defender James Bradford emphasized the accused has “three kids [they] need to take care of” and stated the accused “wish[es] to remain with [their] children,” adding the accused currently has stable employment.
With these factors at risk, Bradford stressed the accused’s willingness to “comply with any terms the court deems,” asking the court to order supervised release.
Two statements followed from the complaining witness and their spouse. Seven neighbors attended in support.
“My home is my sanctuary,” the complaining witness said, explaining that the accused “violate[d] and destroy[ed] our safe place” when they “trespass[ed], physically destruct[ed] personal property, and violently broke into our house.”
They told the court they feared retaliation if the accused were released, “maybe not today but in the near future,” and raised concerns about their physical disability, asking whether the court would ensure their protection.
The spouse of the complaining witness said previous interactions with the accused were cordial and this event was “a complete break from that man,” describing the conduct as “erratic and unpredictable.”
Deputy District Attorney Carolyn Palumbo, representing the prosecution, objected to supervised release. Palumbo disputed the defense’s framing of the incident as a property crime, instead characterizing it as “extremely aggravated vandalism” and “very close to first degree burglary.”
She also addressed the accused’s daily substance use and untreated mental health issues, saying the combination caused them to act “different[ly] and violent[ly]” and presented a significant public safety concern. She argued the court must consider public safety “first and foremost.”
Bradford countered that the behavior described by both the prosecution and the second complaining witness was “atypical” and “more consistent with an isolated drug psychosis.”
He argued there was “no indication to assault or commit any other crime thereof” and no “allegations of threats or further violence.” The supervised release report showed no serious or violent history in the last several years.
Bradford added the accused was “already in the process of moving out of [their] residence” and “currently [has] a residence not near [the complaining witness],” which he argued reduced risk.
Judge Levers ultimately rejected the motion, stating the court was not confident the accused would comply because of what she referred to as an “acute break from reality.”
The court issued a criminal protective order. The accused is scheduled for a bail review hearing Nov. 18.
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.
