WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County Superior Court judge granted judicial diversion during a pretrial conference to a 23-year-old man accused of driving with a suspended license, overruling prosecution objections that prior driving-related charges made him ineligible for the program.
The hearing, the second pretrial conference in the case, focused on a motion by Certified Law Student Attorney White and Deputy Public Defender James Bradford to pause proceedings and allow the accused to participate in a judicial diversion program.
The accused faces a misdemeanor charge for driving with a suspended license, along with several infractions, including possession of an open container while driving and a speeding violation.
Student Attorney White argued the accused was a suitable candidate for diversion because of his age, his ongoing efforts to complete alcohol education classes, and his desire to better understand the dangers of drinking and driving. White framed diversion as a structured opportunity for accountability and education rather than an attempt to avoid responsibility.
Bradford also supported diversion, arguing that multiple charges at such a young age could create lasting barriers, particularly as the accused works toward compliance with the law and reentry into the workforce.
When asked for her position, Deputy District Attorney Stefanie DeCillis opposed diversion, arguing that the accused’s prior DUI charges rendered him ineligible, despite the defense’s position that diversion could promote rehabilitation without the burden of a lasting conviction.
DeCillis suggested that, despite the accused’s youth, diversion alone would be insufficient to ensure rehabilitation or prevent future offenses.
Following the objection, Judge Daniel Maguire asked the defense to articulate practical benefits of diversion beyond the obvious advantage of avoiding formal charges on the accused’s record.
In passing, Judge Maguire noted that even without diversion, the accused was young enough that his record could later be expunged, allowing him to move beyond the charges.
Bradford responded that diversion would offer concrete benefits, including education that could help the accused regain lawful driving privileges, while emphasizing that both the current charge and the prior DUI would not be eligible for expungement, meaning a conviction could carry long-term consequences.
Bradford argued that granting diversion with the condition that the accused reinstate his driver’s license upon completion would significantly reduce the risk of reoffending.
Judge Maguire then raised concerns about the police report from the night of the incident, which stated the accused was driving at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour.
DeCillis argued that if diversion were granted, the accused should be required to install an ignition interlock device in any vehicle he drives to prevent future incidents of impaired driving.
She maintained that an ignition interlock device was necessary because diversion alone was inadequate for rehabilitation and that the court should impose additional safeguards.
Judge Maguire gave the suggestion serious consideration, agreeing that if the accused were allowed to avoid formal charges, multiple provisions should be imposed to protect public safety.
Despite Bradford’s reminder that the accused currently does not own a vehicle, Judge Maguire granted judicial diversion with additional conditions, including a requirement that the accused notify the court of any vehicle ownership. If the accused acquires a vehicle, Maguire ruled, the installation of an ignition interlock device would be a reasonable safeguard.
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.
