WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County Superior Court judge reduced an accused person’s bail from $50,000 to $25,000 Friday after defense attorneys argued he had been unfairly held to an inflated bail amount following months of confusion surrounding an incomplete bail bond form that court records mistakenly treated as valid.
During the bail reduction hearing, Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt argued that the accused’s $50,000 bail had been mistakenly treated as posted for more than a month because the court filed an unfinished bail bond form while believing it was complete.
The accused was arrested after a noise complaint led to the discovery of a parole violation. He was convicted of felony possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony, with misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, and received an enhancement for circumstances in aggravation based on prior violent crimes.
The accused originally posted bail of $10,000 on Feb. 17, 2026. However, at an arraignment on Feb. 19, Deputy District Attorney Alvina Tzang moved to increase bail to $50,000, and the motion was granted. The accused remained out of custody on his previously posted $10,000 bond.
On Feb. 20, the accused pleaded not guilty at an arraignment hearing. The minute order for the hearing states, “Proof of Bail Bond provided to the People. Defendant has now posted bail in the amount required by the Court. Copy of Bail Bond provided to the Court.”
However, the same minute order also states, “Bail Bond # unknown for Bail Bond defendant posted for $50,000,” noting a bond number only for the successfully posted original $10,000 bond. The missing $50,000 bond number was not questioned until May 15, when the minute order for a motion to suppress hearing officially acknowledged that the bond had never been posted, despite the form having been filed.
From Feb. 20 to May 15, the absence of a bail bond number was repeatedly reflected in minute orders for four separate hearings, yet the issue was never further questioned by the court. It was assumed the accused had posted the $50,000 bond despite the form lacking crucial information.
On June 11, the accused’s motion to suppress evidence was denied, and he was found guilty. The accused was remanded into the custody of the Yolo County Sheriff with bail set at $50,000.
Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt then requested a bail review hearing.
At the June 12 bail reduction hearing, Van Zandt appeared visibly frustrated and described the circumstances surrounding the accused’s bail as “one of the greatest injustices seen in his 28 years.”
Van Zandt explained the accused’s assignment to $50,000 bail was based solely on the county bail schedule, without consideration of what he could actually afford. He added that a court clerk had sent an email on April 15 to Van Zandt and the deputy district attorney assigned at the time, stating the bail bond form was incomplete, yet the issue was not officially recognized in court records until a month later.
Van Zandt also noted that during the arrest, one police officer referred to the accused, who is Hispanic, as “Señor,” despite the accused speaking fluent English.
Judge Paul K. Richardson stated that the accused’s remaining out of custody because of the mistaken belief that he had posted the $50,000 bond could be viewed as fraud.
Van Zandt responded that he and other experienced public defenders would have “sniffed out if [the accused] was attempting to defraud on the court.” He also asked the court to consider supervised own-recognizance release and to reduce bail to $10,000, arguing the accused could not afford $50,000.
Judge Richardson questioned why the accused had presented the document in court as though he had posted the bond.
Van Zandt explained the accused had brought the form to court only in the event he was remanded into custody. He said the accused never represented the form as complete and that the deputy district attorney assigned at the time mistakenly believed it had been paid. Van Zandt then asked Deputy District Attorney Aloysius Patchen to justify why bail should remain at $50,000 rather than $10,000.
Patchen argued that the “false, fake papers” were intentionally presented to the court while incomplete. He defended the $50,000 bail amount by citing the county bail schedule, the enhancements attached to the case, the accused’s prior felony conviction that resulted in 18 years in prison and multiple parole violations, including possessing a loaded firearm.
Van Zandt countered that the accused never filed the form with the court and was never afforded consideration regarding his eligibility for a lower bail amount.
After a recess, Judge Richardson returned to the courtroom and stated the court did not take the incident lightly. However, he also acknowledged that both an experienced deputy public defender and deputy district attorney had failed to recognize the form was incomplete.
Judge Richardson stated, “The extent it was represented posted and the accused being present in Court and not saying so, though he does have the right to remain silent, does not reflect well.”
Judge Richardson acknowledged what he described as a significant risk that the accused could fail to appear and cited the accused’s history of violent crimes as a concern for public safety. He concluded that no nonfinancial release condition would adequately protect the public.
The judge reduced bail to $25,000, leaving the accused responsible for securing an additional $15,000 bond beyond the original $10,000 that had already been posted. Judge Richardson reasoned that if the accused could afford the $1,000 premium associated with a $10,000 bond, he could also afford the $2,500 premium required for a $25,000 bond.
Van Zandt argued that an accused person’s ability to pay a bond premium does not accurately reflect an ability to afford the underlying bail amount. He also noted the accused had driven himself to court on the day he was remanded into custody, meaning his vehicle could be towed and accumulate fees that would further hinder his ability to post bail.
Van Zandt maintained that if the accused could not afford bail, the result amounted to unlawful pretrial detention.
Judge Richardson reiterated his concerns regarding the misrepresentation of the form to the court.
The accused’s arraignment is scheduled for June 24 at 9 a.m. in Yolo County Superior Court. Van Zandt requested another bail reduction hearing on that date.
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.
