Yolo County, Calif. — During an arraignment hearing this week in Yolo County Superior Court, Judge Danette Brown denied release for an accused woman based in part on her housing status and set bail at $5,000 despite arguments regarding her financial hardship.
The accused is facing one felony charge of second-degree robbery and a misdemeanor charge of resisting or obstructing a public officer.
According to Deputy Public Defender Steven Betz, there was not enough evidence to satisfy the “substantial likelihood to cause great bodily injury” burden under the Kowalczyk precedent. DPD Betz requested that the accused be released on supervised own recognizance (SOR), or on her own recognizance (OR).
DPD Betz also noted a preference for OR because the accused splits her time between Sacramento and Butte counties.
Deputy District Attorney Carolyn Palumbo asserted that the accused had a number of prior arrests for battery and a history of failing to appear in court. Given the accused’s history and the current case, in which she allegedly “committed violence against another individual,” DDA Palumbo noted concern that, should the judge grant release, a “similar response would occur.”
Probation Officer Michael Morgan added that he would not advise SOR because he would be unsure how to supervise the accused, given her housing situation, and he would not advise OR because of her history of failing to appear in court.
He stated, “[The accused] should remain in custody; she has no ties to this county.”
In response, DPD Betz argued that the accused’s criminal history was “not relevant” to the current case. Additionally, while the accused had arrests in another county, she had no warrants or holds, meaning those cases were resolved and should not impact the current one.
In reply to Officer Morgan, DPD Betz also stated, “Whether they live in this county, or not, or they are unhoused, it should not determine their probation status.”
Ultimately, Judge Brown denied release, arguing there was enough evidence to satisfy the “substantial likelihood” standard given the accused’s at least five failures to appear.
Because GPS monitoring is not possible without SOR, Judge Brown decided to “keep her in custody,” but “set [her] bail at an attainable amount,” which was originally scheduled to be set at $50,000.
DPD Betz responded, saying that “according to what [DDA] Palumbo was indicating and the Probable Cause Declaration,” the accused was unhoused and splitting time between two counties, and for that reason she was “not in a position to have any resources this county,” thus proposing bail be set at $25.
DDA Palumbo argued there had not been any evidence presented that “talks about her financial condition,” and asked for bail to be set as scheduled.
After the matter briefly passed, DPD Betz brought the court a document filled out by the accused indicating that “she has less than $20 on her books,” and therefore asked for bail to be set at $5.
In response, DDA Palumbo argued that bail does not have to be “easily attainable” but rather “reasonable.”
DDA Palumbo continued, saying the court did not even have to set bail in this case because the court found it to be an Article I, Section 12 matter. Even if it did, she argued, the court could consider information on criminal history or failures to appear to “determine a reasonable bail even if it’s not necessarily easily acceptable.”
“If the court is going to set bail, even though the court doesn’t have to, that it be set at an amount that’s going to ensure that she comes back to court,” said DDA Palumbo.
In regard to the $5 bail request, she added, “it’s not, so that’s not reasonable. So it should be set at a minimum of $10,000.”
DPD Betz pointed out that the accused’s criminal history referenced only arrests, not convictions.
“Given the information that’s on the form […], I’m asking the court to set bail at an amount that is reasonable under financial needs and given individual circumstances,” DPD Betz said.
Judge Brown confirmed that, according to the form, there was “no indication of any income coming in or expenses going out,” and therefore the court was going to set bail at an amount that the accused, according to Kowalczyk, could reasonably attain with or without nonfinancial conditions.
Ultimately, Judge Brown found that a $5 bail amount would not be enough to assure the accused’s presence in court. She set bail at $5,000, an amount she ruled was not necessarily what the accused could “afford or what’s comfortable. It’s what she can reasonably attain.”
The accused will remain in custody until her bail review hearing on May 20 and will have a pre-hearing conference on the charges May 26.
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.
