WOODLAND, Calif. — During an arraignment Wednesday in Yolo County Superior Court, Judge Danette C. Brown rejected the defense’s request to release the accused on his own recognizance and instead imposed $500 bail, despite defense arguments that the accused lacked the financial means to pay and recent California Supreme Court guidance limiting detention based on poverty.
According to court records, the accused was charged with one felony count of resisting arrest and two misdemeanor offenses involving possession of controlled substances.
Deputy District Attorney Carolyn Palumbo argued that the accused recently failed to appear in court three times, denied drug use despite controlled substances allegedly being found in his possession, and posed a high risk of reoffending.
Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira explained that the accused has a mental health condition that can make him appear to be under the influence even when he is not. Sequeira asked the court to consider the least restrictive alternatives, such as ordering the accused to stay away from law enforcement officers, which she said he had agreed to follow.
Sequeira additionally requested that the court not review the case under California Penal Code Section 22 intoxication principles, citing the accused’s mental health condition.
Palumbo noted the two questions she considered under Article I, Section 12 of the California Constitution. The first question, she said, was whether there was a threat of bodily injury, and the second was whether there was a substantial likelihood the threat would be carried out if the accused were released.
Sequeira argued that the accused was charged with an offense clearly outside Article I, Section 12. She maintained that if the prosecution believed this was an actual criminal threat case, prosecutors would have formally charged it as such.
The judge said she was uncertain whether the accused would carry out the alleged threat. However, the court viewed the likelihood of reoffending and the accused’s mental state as making him unpredictable.
As a result, the judge treated the matter as an Article I, Section 12 offense and set what she described as a “reasonably attainable” bail rather than imposing the least restrictive alternative.
Palumbo noted that the scheduled bail amount for the charges was $1,000.
Sequeira referred to the recent unanimous California Supreme Court decision in People v. Kowalczyk and emphasized that “the law states that you cannot keep people in custody because they are poor.”
She added that while $1,000 might appear attainable for individuals with resources, it was not attainable for her client.
The judge responded that bail does not necessarily need to be easily affordable or convenient for the accused and only needs to be reasonably attainable.
Sequeira argued that the accused was indigent, noting that he qualified for public defender services, had no bank account, no assets, no government assistance, and had been living at a garbage facility while helping clean the area.
Palumbo responded that defense statements regarding the accused’s finances were not evidence and argued that the court could deny bail entirely under Article I, Section 12.
Sequeira said the accused “clearly falls in the new state of the law, he clearly does.” She continued, “Your honor, I respect the decision that you make … but it is the wrong decision from the defense’s point of view.”
Sequeira again requested release on the accused’s own recognizance.
Judge Brown responded that the accused could attempt to obtain resources to post bail. She reduced the bail by half, resulting in a $500 amount, to see whether he could post bond.
Sequeira argued that setting bail based on the assumption that the accused could somehow obtain the money was speculative. She noted that although the prosecution claimed there was no evidence of indigency, the defense had offered to provide evidence for the court’s consideration.
Sequeira continued that, because courts appoint public defenders to people who cannot afford counsel, courts could also implement the unanimous Supreme Court ruling regarding indigent defendants.
She emphasized that the defense could file a declaration under penalty of perjury showing that the accused truly had no money or financial resources.
Sequeira requested a bail review in five days after the judge confirmed that the $500 bail would remain.
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.
