WOODLAND, Calif. — On April 30, during a pretrial conference, a dispute arose between the prosecution and defense regarding how to proceed with an alleged parole violation tied to a DUI arrest, as well as whether the accused should be taken into custody as the prosecution pushed for remand despite no new violation.
This case involved overlapping petitions to revoke parole. These petitions were both filed in Yolo County and Alameda County.
Defense attorney Daniel Hutchinson argued that these petitions are duplicates and that Alameda County has not formally withdrawn its filing, while the prosecution maintained that Alameda officials intended to dismiss their petition so the matter can proceed in Yolo County.
Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin argued that the accused is a “life parolee” and has violated the terms of his parole by consuming alcohol, then being arrested for driving under the influence without notifying his parole officer. The prosecution requested that the court remand the accused, citing public safety concerns and the seriousness of the alleged violations.
The defense opposed the request, stating that the accused had already been released on OR twice by both Alameda and Yolo counties and that there were no new charges or circumstances to warrant a new detention. The defense further emphasized that the Alameda County petition has not been formally dismissed.
DDA Serafin referenced email correspondence with Alameda County officials. The email indicated that the petition would be withdrawn after Yolo County filed its own.
The defense challenged the reliance on informal communications. They restated that this was the first time they were hearing about this and that they had no official records.
Judge Danette C. Brown questioned the lack of formal documentation, calling it “informal,” and expressed concern.
The prosecution further reiterated its position that the accused posed a public safety risk and should be taken into custody.
The defense disputed this and labeled it “a gross misinterpretation of the facts,” stating the accused has not had any new violations and is in good standing with his parole officer. Furthermore, the defense stated there was insufficient basis to reverse a prior release decision and “could not believe the misrepresentation” of the accused.
The court scheduled a hearing for May 14 and indicated that further proceedings may depend on any future developments in Alameda County.
The matter remains unresolved as both county proceedings overlap.
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.
