WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County judge on Wednesday afternoon denied a defense request to release an unhoused accused man on supervised own recognizance and rejected a request to reduce his scheduled $150,000 bail in a felony assault case.
The accused faces felony assault charges, with prosecutors alleging he broke another person’s hand during the attack. He is unhoused and not a Yolo County resident.
The accused appeared in custody Wednesday and was arraigned before Judge Danette Brown. His assigned public defender, Deputy Public Defender Roberto Villa, requested that his client be released on supervised own recognizance, or SOR, a nonpunitive measure that allows an accused individual to remain out of custody while under the supervision of law enforcement.
Villa addressed potential concerns the court might have regarding release. He argued that SOR was appropriate because the accused did not pose a threat to public safety and was not a risk to fail to appear at future proceedings, citing California case law In re Kenneth Humphrey.
Villa argued the alleged assault was an isolated incident and that release would not pose a risk to the broader Yolo County community. He also said supervised own recognizance would eliminate the risk of flight despite the accused’s unhoused status.
Deputy District Attorney Carolyn Palumbo objected to the request. Palumbo cited the accused’s “extensive criminal history” and turned to Deputy Probation Officer Nichole Gauthier, representing the Yolo County Probation Department, for additional concerns.
Gauthier said her department could not adequately supervise the accused on SOR due to his unhoused status and because his typical place of residence is outside Yolo County. She added that the accused has no phone number, making routine contact with probation impossible.
Gauthier concluded by stating it was “unlikely [the accused] will return back to court.” Brown responded by asking, “How can Yolo supervise in other counties?” Palumbo interjected, “They can’t.”
Brown denied the defense request for supervised own recognizance. The court then turned to the issue of the accused’s $150,000 scheduled bail.
Villa told the court his client could not afford $150,000 bail. Again citing Humphrey, Villa argued that the court may impose only financial conditions of release that are affordable to the accused.
Palumbo and Gauthier reiterated their concerns during the bail discussion. Palumbo emphasized the risk that the accused would fail to appear if bail were reduced to an affordable level.
Despite the precedent established in Humphrey, Brown cited the court’s discretionary authority and left bail set at the scheduled amount of $150,000.
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.
