WOODLAND, Calif. — In Yolo County Superior Court on Tuesday, Deputy Public Defender Stephan Betz urged the court to recognize a defendant’s efforts to seek treatment after a first-time parole violation, asking that some of the time spent in rehabilitation be credited toward the standard 60-day sentence to reduce additional jail time.
The person was accused of felony stalking, assault with a deadly weapon and other enhancements while under the influence of drugs.
However, Deputy District Attorney Arron Rojas argued it would be appropriate to sentence the accused to 18 months on the grounds that they had not completed all of the stipulations of probation, including a batterers’ program and attendance at a court-recommended treatment center focused on communication.
DDA Rojas stated he found fundamental flaws in the sentencing argument presented by DPD Betz, citing past judicial decisions in which treatment was administered through other rehabilitation programs.
Most notably, he referenced the People v. Rodgers case from 1978, in which the accused spent time at Delancey Street undergoing rehabilitation. Credit for that time was disputed because the facility was unlocked, unguarded and relied on patient compliance to maintain enrollment. DDA Rojas claimed that the center provided strict program rules that encouraged a full transformation of appearance and ego.
Not only did DDA Rojas minimize the accused’s efforts to detox and obtain treatment, but he also questioned the legitimacy of the institution and its ability to help patients develop coping skills to aid their recovery without the use of extreme corporeal measures. By pushing for additional jail time above the California Penal Code recommendation and seeking revocation of the time they spent in rehabilitation, the accused was looking at more than a year in jail.
According to DDA Rojas, the accused may have voluntarily entered treatment, but not until after the hearing in which they were found in violation of probation. The DDA speculated that the accused feigned a willingness to attend treatment in an effort to deter harsher punishment by the court.
DPD Betz responded to the claims and accusations, asking Judge Catherine Rayhill not to rely on speculation in making her decision, but rather on the evidence that the accused is enrolled in treatment and is taking accountability for past behaviors.
In addition to the accused’s participation in rehabilitation, their family asked that the protective order be lifted because they had been arrested for violating the no-contact condition of parole. Not only does the accused have familial support, but they are also making an effort to restore meaningful relationships impacted by past actions.
Despite this, DDA Rojas encouraged Judge Rayhill to strike the time served from the supplemental sentencing recommendation, stating he did not believe the circumstances warranted a time-served sanction and basing his concerns on recidivism.
Judge Rayhill stated she understands the hardship that addiction and anger place on both the family and the accused, saying the accused had acted selfishly while also recognizing that the decision to engage in treatment was sudden. The court insisted that the accused complete all conditions of probation after completing drug rehabilitation in San Diego.
The accused is currently in sober living and is working toward gaining employment to help support their family. Their parole has also been extended until March 2028 and will be transferred to San Diego.
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.
