NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — A judge granted a conditional release under the Pre-Arraignment Release System over prosecutorial objection Friday, as the defense argued the accused could not meet bail in time to care for his mother following surgery.
Judge Jeannie M. Joseph and Deputy District Attorney Alexandra Tunaru raised concerns over the PARS release request, citing the accused’s prior “crime-on-crime” history at the Newport Beach Harbor Justice Center, while Deputy Public Defender Kate Robison maintained he could not afford bail in time to care for his mother.
The accused appeared in custody before the court for a bail review hearing on an open case alleging a violation of Penal Code section 487(c), grand theft. The felony count was committed on June 6, 2024, and the accused pleaded not guilty on Sept. 20, 2024. The court addressed the accused’s prior history of eight open cases with misdemeanors and felonies related to the possession of drugs, theft and vandalism.
A bail review hearing is an important part of the pretrial process. It is a court procedure in which the judge evaluates bail conditions and reconsiders whether the accused should remain in custody or be released. The judge makes a holistic risk assessment to ensure individuals are not held solely due to financial circumstances by considering their criminal record, community ties and likelihood of appearing in court before deciding on release.
The defense requested that the accused be released on PARS, the Pre-Arraignment Release System, arguing he was eligible due to his nonviolent criminal record and strong ties to the community. His eight open cases were mostly misdemeanors. The defense reminded the court that his past misdemeanor for possession of drugs dated back to 2002, reiterating that he posed no danger to the public, as neither his prior misdemeanors nor his current grand theft case involved violence.
According to the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, PARS is a program that assists in the release of individuals in custody for probation or pretrial supervision by monitoring them to deter reoffending and ensure court appearances.
Judge Joseph expressed concern about the accused’s “crime-on-crime” pattern, stating that his prior offense of picking up a new case while on release presented a problem for the court. The judge determined that PARS alone was insufficient to allow release because of his criminal history and suggested additional conditions to ensure public safety and deter further offenses.
The defense assured the court that the accused had previously been out on bond and had never failed to appear in court. Counsel emphasized the urgency of the bail review, informing the court that the accused’s mother was scheduled to undergo eye surgery on May 5.
It was disclosed that the mother is diabetic and has a disability and is dependent on the accused, along with his brother, to care for her during her three-week recovery following surgery. The defense emphasized that his family obligations left him without the means to post bail in time before his mother’s procedure.
Despite the request for PARS release based on the accused’s need to care for his ill mother, the deputy district attorney opposed release from custody and maintained the legal position supporting denial of the bail review request.
The judge considered both legal arguments and decided to give the accused another opportunity, setting conditions for release. He was warned that failure to comply with court orders would result in revocation of release and a return to custody for the remainder of the time.
The court ordered that the accused meet with a probation officer within 24 hours after his late-night release, commit no violations and maintain contact with his attorney. He was granted court-ordered release on PARS, allowing him to leave custody under conditions that he attend three self-help classes per week, as suggested by the defense, to encourage compliance, and submit to PARS testing twice a month.
In addition, the accused waived time on his open grand theft case and for his prior felonies. This waiver allows the court, with the accused’s agreement, to continue the case and set trial within 10 days of a mutually agreed-upon date.
Pretrial was set for June 8 and the preliminary hearing for June 10 on all felony counts, both at 8:30 a.m. in Department 2.
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.
