WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County Superior Court judge granted a motion to dismiss a conviction under California Penal Code §1203.4 but denied a request to reduce the offense from a felony to a misdemeanor during a motion hearing this week, despite the accused successfully completing probation and having no prior criminal history.
The hearing centered on a request made by Criminal Defense Attorney Candice Fields, who sought to reduce the accused’s conviction of felony embezzlement by a clerk/agent under Penal Code §17(b). This statute allows certain “wobbler” offenses to be reclassified from felonies to misdemeanors at the court’s discretion.
According to Attorney Fields, the accused had met all legal requirements necessary for the court to consider the reduction, including completing all three years of probation and fulfilling every term imposed by the court. The defense emphasized that the accused is a mother of four and faces ongoing financial demands as she attempts to rebuild her life following her conviction.
Defense Attorney Fields also noted that the accused has maintained employment through temporary work since her conviction but has struggled to obtain stable, full-time employment due to the felony on her record.
Counsel argued that the discretionary reduction process exists to allow individuals who demonstrate efforts toward rehabilitation to move forward without facing the lasting burdens that come with a felony conviction.
“The system enables the convicted with a wobbler charge to request a reduction,” Attorney Fields stated, adding that the accused’s rehabilitation efforts and personal circumstances provide reasonable grounds for relief.
Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin made it clear that she did not oppose the motion to dismiss the conviction under Penal Code §1203.4, acknowledging that the accused successfully completed probation.
However, DDA Serafin told the court that the People opposed the request to reduce the conviction under §17(b), arguing that the underlying offenses remained too serious to be treated as a misdemeanor.
According to DDA Serafin, the accused was charged with misconduct related to fraud and embezzlement in 2020, which resulted in approximately $108,000 in losses to the victim over the course of a year. Serafin argued that the nature of the crime involved a breach of trust that has had lasting impacts on the victim, according to the impact statement submitted to the court.
“When you have this type of crime, especially with elements of being trusted with property, it is impactful to victims because it is someone they trusted,” DDA Serafin argued to the court, adding that the discovery of such conduct had enduring consequences for the victim.
Attorney Fields emphasized the responsibilities the accused carries, including caring for her four children. She made it clear that with only temporary employment, which has been the only option since the felony charges, the accused can only do so much to support her family.
Although the court recognized the accused’s compliance with her probation and the work she has done to reflect on her actions, Judge Danette Brown stated that “there hasn’t been a lot of time for showing rehabilitation,” noting it has only been a year since the accused was released from probation in April 2025.
Judge Brown stated that although the accused has no criminal history, due to the seriousness of the offense and the limited time for demonstrating rehabilitation, the court does not yet see a reason to label the crime as anything less than a felony.
Judge Brown acknowledged the effort made by the accused to rebuild her life, adhere to probation, and reintegrate into society. She also recognized the severity of the offense and the harm endured by the victim.
Despite this, Judge Brown ultimately denied the accused’s request to reduce the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor. Even so, she made it clear that her decision should not hinder future attempts to petition for a reduction at a later time.
The lasting effects of the decision mean that the accused will continue to struggle to find full-time employment, as tolerance for felony records varies by employer. With ongoing difficulty securing stable work, the challenge of supporting her family will intensify. The circumstances of the case reflect the broader consequences of felony charges on individuals’ well-being.
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.
