WOODLAND, Calif. — A miscommunication over a court appearance nearly resulted in a warrant, a $10,000 fine and a felony allegation against an accused person during a pretrial conference Tuesday in Yolo County Superior Court, before Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira challenged the request and clarified the circumstances.
The accused was scheduled to appear in court on two misdemeanor DUI charges and an admission to consuming alcohol while on supervised own recognizance release, or SOR.
After Judge Danette C. Brown called the accused’s name and case number, it was determined the accused was not present in the courtroom.
“That’s a felony,” Deputy District Attorney Martha Wais said, requesting a warrant and a $10,000 fine.
Deputy Public Defender Sequeira intervened, seeking clarification regarding the alleged revocation of the accused’s SOR and the events leading to the failure to appear. Sequeira noted the accused had not been offered medical services while on SOR, suggesting the initial probation violation may have been an attempt at self-medication to mitigate severe and potentially dangerous alcohol withdrawal symptoms.
The nature of the accused’s prior convictions pointed to a possible substance abuse issue, which often requires medical intervention. The accused was not reported to have been driving when the incident occurred, but admitted to consuming seven beers in violation of probation conditions.
Judge Brown confirmed she had never signed the motion to revoke SOR.
Nonetheless, Wais maintained her position, reiterating that the accused should not be in the general public while facing two DUI charges.
Sequeira then asked that the jail be contacted regarding the initial notice to appear, seeking to determine whether the accused had ever been properly informed of the hearing. Probation had allegedly told the accused to appear in court at 1:30 p.m., but that hearing did not appear on the court calendar.
Sequeira reiterated her objection, stating that not only was the accused not on the court calendar, but the matters were misdemeanors and there was no documentation explaining what had occurred beyond statements made in court by Wais and Probation Officer Ivan Lowry.
“It’s unfair,” Sequeira said.
Lowry then provided an update. The accused had allegedly been at the courthouse earlier that morning for a 9 a.m. hearing, where an officer told him he did not have court until May 28, 2026. Confused, the accused then reported to the probation office and was allegedly instructed to return to court later that afternoon at 1:30 p.m. At that time, the accused was not present in court or in jail.
After hearing the explanation, Sequeira proposed setting a new court date without further penalty, giving the accused another opportunity to appear. Sequeira was identified as appearing pursuant to Penal Code section 977 on behalf of the client.
The matter was continued to April 22. No further objections were raised, and the requested warrant and $10,000 fine were not imposed after the court received additional information about the scheduling confusion.
As of Tuesday, the accused remained on SOR under the same previously imposed conditions.
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.
