WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County Superior Court judge on Wednesday assigned reduced bail to an unhoused woman after a heated courtroom debate over the California Supreme Court’s recent In re Kowalczyk ruling and whether the accused could realistically afford to remain out of custody.
The accused appeared in custody at the Yolo County Courthouse facing charges of felony petty theft and grand theft. She was also on probation during the alleged crimes.
Deputy Public Defender Ava Landers, representing the accused, requested that she be released on supervised own recognizance, or SOR. Landers also added that the accused was willing to have a global positioning system, or GPS, ankle monitor installed.
Deputy District Attorney Carolyn Palumbo argued that SOR was not appropriate. Palumbo argued that the accused has failed to report to probation since October 2025.
“She continued to commit theft and she continues to not show up [to court],” said Palumbo.
Landers responded by arguing that, previously, the accused was unhoused and did not have the means to report to probation or appear in court. Landers emphasized the accused’s willingness to wear a GPS monitor and said the court should “give [the accused] the opportunity” to remain out of custody.
Judge Dannette C. Brown responded to the arguments by asking, “What would compel [the accused] to report to probation this time around?”
Judge Brown then ruled that SOR would not be appropriate based on the accused’s history of failing to appear. The court’s discussion then shifted to bail.
DPD Landers opened arguments by saying, “Giving her any bail is not going to do any good … she cannot afford any bail.” She argued that minimum bail was no bail and that the accused had no resources or means to pay any amount of bail.
DPD Landers reported that the accused has no income, receives no government benefits and has no financial assistance from friends or family.
DDA Palumbo fired back, asserting that “[Landers’] statements are not evidence, they have the burden of proof.”
Landers then offered to have the accused sworn in to testify regarding her lack of resources, to which Palumbo and Judge Brown expressed concern as a deviation from the proceedings.
“We will be here all day questioning her testimony,” Palumbo said.
Judge Brown said the court would have to “[t]ake it as it is,” and accepted that the accused had no income, no job and no resources.
Judge Brown, recognizing both In re Humphrey and In re Kowalczyk, reduced bail on all charges faced by the accused. The felony grand theft bail was reduced from $50,000 to $5,000, the felony petty theft bail was reduced from $10,000 to $1,000, and the probation violation bail was reduced from $25,000 to $2,500.
Under the California Constitution and the recent California Supreme Court ruling in In re Kowalczyk, bail cannot be set solely as a means to keep a person accused of a crime in custody. Bail must be, while not necessarily “affordable” or “convenient,” reasonably payable. The accused must demonstrate how and why the scheduled bail or the bail proposed by the state is not “reasonably payable.”
Landers argued in objecting to the scheduled bail that there was “no way” to prove the accused’s lack of financial capacity. In other words, Landers argued that the absence of proof was itself proof because there were no documents to appraise or locations to assess.
Kowalczyk, decided April 30, has unsettled courts across the state as judges adjust to new expectations regarding bail determinations.
Judge Brown scheduled a prehearing conference for June 5 to further discuss bail issues and the future of the accused’s case.
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.
