WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County Superior Court judge dismissed a misdemeanor vandalism case after finding that a more than four-year delay between the filing of the complaint and the accused’s arraignment raised constitutional concerns regarding the right to a speedy trial.
During a speedy trial motion hearing, Judge Clara M. Levers ruled that the lengthy delay created a presumption of prejudice and ultimately found the accused did not contribute to the delay and asserted his rights promptly after learning of the warrant.
Deputy Public Defender Martin Guerrero explained that the alleged misdemeanor vandalism offense occurred in January 2021, with the complaint filed in April 2021 and a bench warrant issued shortly afterward. Despite this, the accused was not arraigned until October 2025.
According to the defense, the delay lasted approximately four and a half years despite the accused having multiple contacts with law enforcement and courts in neighboring counties during that period. Guerrero emphasized that the accused appeared for all of those matters, had no history of failing to appear and “was diligent in handling all of his matters.”
The defense argued that while the prosecution relied on case law stating law enforcement is not required to make heroic efforts to apprehend someone avoiding arrest, the accused here was not hiding or unreachable. Guerrero told the court that beyond issuing the warrant, there was no indication any meaningful effort had been made to bring the accused before the court.
Guerrero further argued that had authorities checked jail records, they would have discovered the accused had been incarcerated in multiple facilities following the alleged incident, including time spent in prison and neighboring county jails where he could have been made available to Yolo County.
The defense also argued that the delay caused prejudice to the accused’s ability to defend himself. Guerrero pointed to faded memories from potential witnesses and the accused himself. Guerrero further referenced discovery documents indicating certain audio records were no longer available because more than three years had passed.
Judge Levers questioned the absence of a declaration from the accused stating he had no knowledge of the outstanding warrant. Guerrero responded that the accused was prepared to answer questions directly before the court under penalty of perjury.
Deputy District Attorney Farouq Ghazzawi acknowledged there was a potentially valid possibility the accused did not know about the warrant, noting that procedures regarding out-of-county misdemeanor warrants vary between jurisdictions. However, Ghazzawi argued it was reasonable to assume the accused understood he could face charges because the alleged vandalism incident occurred while he was housed in Yolo County Jail.
The accused also testified directly before the court, stating he first learned of the warrant after being arrested in July 2025. He confirmed he had no prior knowledge of the misdemeanor warrant.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Levers conducted a constitutional analysis on the record, acknowledging that the lengthy delay created a presumption of prejudice.
Judge Levers ultimately found that the accused did not contribute to the delay and had asserted his rights promptly after learning of the warrant. The matter was dismissed.
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.
