WOODLAND, Calif. — An arraignment addressing a violation of probation and a misdemeanor theft charge at Yolo County Superior Court on Thursday resulted in the accused remaining in custody despite indigent circumstances. The violation of probation hearing was one of four cases being arraigned.
The accused was present in custody facing charges including possession of a controlled substance, unlawful possession of a shopping cart and petty theft of retail merchandise. Court-appointed Deputy Public Defender Joseph Gocke requested that the accused be granted OR release, with conditions.
Deputy District Attorney Robin Johnson argued against release, emphasizing the accused’s history of noncompliance with court orders. According to the DDA, the accused had failed to appear in court on three prior occasions. DDA Johnson also stated there had been a “lack of cooperation with probation officers,” further raising concerns about the accused’s likelihood to appear in court if released.
Based on this record, DDA Johnson stated that releasing the accused would present a risk that he would not return for future hearings. DDA Johnson therefore requested that the court remand the accused in custody.
In response, Deputy Public Defender Joseph Gocke presented mitigating factors related to the accused’s circumstances at the time of the alleged offense. The DPD stated that the accused was unhoused and had just started a new job on the day of the arrest. If released, the accused would be able to earn a steady income and emphasized willingness to engage in any mental health or substance use treatment services recommended by the court.
The accused addressed the court directly and pleaded for another chance. He reiterated that he had just begun employment and believed he could get back on his feet and comply with court orders if given another opportunity.
During the hearing, Judge Danette C. Brown acknowledged the context described by the defense and considered possible motivations behind the alleged theft. The judge stated that the accused may have been “trying to survive out there” and questioned whether “he was stealing because he was hungry.” The court did not indicate that the accused posed a threat to public safety.
Despite these considerations, the court focused on the accused’s prior record. The judge stated there was “no assurance” that the accused would cooperate with the court or appear for future proceedings, given the history of missed court dates.
The court denied release and set bail for the violation of probation charge at $5,000. As a result of the ruling, the accused will remain in custody unless bail is posted.
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.
