WOODLAND, Calif. — A dispute over the terms of a restitution agreement delayed resolution of a misdemeanor case Thursday after a Yolo County Superior Court judge ordered a transcript from a previous hearing to be reviewed to clarify what had been discussed on the record.
The accused appeared before Judge Paul Richardson for a hearing focused on restitution payments allegedly owed for damages involving a vehicle and a homeowners association claim, with Deputy District Attorney Preston Schaub stating the prosecution was seeking $2,837.07 connected to the vehicle and an additional $912.55 tied to the HOA claim.
Deputy Public Defender Martha Sequeira argued there had been earlier discussions before Judge Stephen Mock regarding how restitution would be handled once the amounts were determined.
According to Sequeira, her notes from the April 14 hearing reflected that if restitution amounts were agreed upon and adopted as a civil judgment, probation would then be terminated.
However, Judge Richardson noted that the court’s minute order from the earlier hearing stated only that restitution was still “to be determined” and did not reference any agreement involving probation termination.
Sequeira repeatedly requested that the court order the transcript from the April 14 hearing so the parties could confirm exactly what had been said on the record before Judge Mock.
She explained that neither the prosecution nor the court appeared to have notes matching her understanding of the agreement.
At one point during the hearing, Sequeira also raised concerns about the financial burden of obtaining the transcript herself, arguing that “it shouldn’t have to come out of the public defender’s budget.”
Schaub responded that his notes reflected restitution had been ordered but did not contain specific amounts or details regarding any agreement to terminate probation once restitution was converted into a civil judgment.
Judge Richardson agreed to order the transcript from the April 14 hearing to clarify what had previously been discussed before Judge Mock.
The matter was continued to July 9 at 9 a.m. in Department 7 while the parties await review of the prior hearing transcript.
