WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County judge on April 1 issued a no-contact criminal protective order (CPO), at the request of the district attorney, for an accused person as a condition of bail, raising immediate concerns about the accused’s ability to comply.
The accused appeared out of custody for their felony arraignment, facing charges of corporal injury on a spouse with multiple enhancements, including a prior. They also appeared on charges relating to a violation of their probation.
Deputy District Attorney Carolyn Palumbo requested the issuance of a criminal protective order (CPO) against the accused as a condition of bail. The order requires that the accused have no contact with the protected person, their wife.
During the arraignment, the accused was assigned Deputy Public Defender Katie DeAnda to represent them. DPD DeAnda objected to DDA Palumbo’s CPO, seeking to modify it to a “no harassment” CPO. DPD DeAnda argued that, because the accused and their wife share the same business, the court was unsure whether the wife would cooperate with a no-contact CPO.
Judge Danette Brown stated that “[the charges] are pretty serious” and asserted that “both a no contact and a no harass would be appropriate in these circumstances.” She added that it was important to “protect public safety … as well as the safety of the victim.”
DPD DeAnda raised concerns about how the accused would navigate the criminal protective order while working in the same location as the protected person, noting that coming into contact with her would constitute a violation of the order.
DDA Palumbo asserted that if the protected person were to appear, the accused would have to vacate the premises immediately and move to a “remote location.” DPD DeAnda urged Judge Danette Brown to assist with the decision, arguing that the current circumstances would create a “hard dynamic” for the accused.
DPD DeAnda also expressed frustration with DDA Palumbo’s CPO motion, stating she felt it was “inappropriate” to raise it during the accused’s arraignment rather than at another stage, such as a bail review hearing.
Judge Brown said the decision would be made during the arraignment and issued the no-contact CPO, per DDA Palumbo’s request.
Judge Brown later adjourned the case, stating that the protective order would remain in effect until August 2027. The accused is scheduled to return to court for admission or denial of a probation violation at 9 a.m. on April 29, 2026.
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.
