WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County Superior Court judge on Tuesday declined a prosecution request to keep a strict criminal protective order in place, instead allowing lawful contact between the accused and his father after testimony showed that contact was welcome and part of the accused’s progress.
During the morning hearing, the prosecution urged the court to maintain a no-contact criminal protective order barring the accused from interacting with his father, despite the father’s statements that he supported continued contact.
The accused is facing misdemeanor charges, including a violation of public order and a violation involving a police officer. The alleged violation involves the accused’s contact with his parents. He entered a not-guilty plea, and Deputy Public Defender Daniel Hutchinson submitted declarations supporting probation, noting a long history of shifting protective orders that alternated between no-contact and no-harassment provisions.
The accused’s father was present in court and testified that the accused lives with him on and off. He said he did not want a prohibitive order against his son. He described their relationship as a “trial and error situation” but said the accused had recently made improvements, including coming to him earlier that morning to ask for a ride to court.
Despite the father’s testimony, Deputy District Attorney Zachary Gazda argued for keeping the restrictive order in place. The prosecution maintained that the existing no-contact order — which includes exceptions for “exchange and social security benefits” — already allowed the type of contact the father described.
Judge Clara M. Levers disagreed with the prosecution’s position, saying, “That’s not what I heard.” The court rejected the request to keep the order unchanged and modified it to a no-harass order, allowing lawful contact while prohibiting stalking, threats, harassment, annoying contact and similar conduct toward the accused’s father.
Judge Levers ordered the accused released on his own recognizance and required him to continue treatment with Communicare and take his medication as prescribed. The existing protective order involving the accused’s mother remained a no-harassment order.
She warned the accused that any violation of the new conditions could result in a new criminal case and a return to custody. The ruling to allow contact stood in contrast to the prosecution’s request to maintain the stricter terms.
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.
