WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County Superior Court judge denied an accused’s request for release to attend a residential drug rehabilitation program, despite the defense arguing the individual met the requirements for diversion, posed no history of violence and had already been granted affordable bail in a separate proceeding.
Supervising Public Defender Martha Sequeira advocated for the accused’s ability to attend a rehabilitation program dedicated to parents with substance use disorders, which the court ultimately denied. Sequeira called the court’s actions unjust, citing The State of California v. Gerald Kowalczyk and an Assembly bill supporting alternatives to incarceration and the accused’s eligibility for diversion.
The accused is currently being held for a felony parole violation. On July 15, the accused was granted affordable bail of $1,000 and was released on the condition that they comply with parole and attend rehabilitation for substance use under a different judge.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation recognizes that people with substance use disorders rarely achieve recovery after their first time in rehabilitation and are at risk of reoffending if their addiction goes untreated.
The defense also explained that the accused has a 1-month-old child whose mother also struggles with addiction. The accused expressed fear that the child will not have stability while they are incarcerated and said they have found the motivation to take rehabilitation seriously because they now have a dependent.
SPD Sequeira noted that the accused does not have a history of violence, calling it unjust to hold the accused in jail for an unrelated charge. Instead, the defense suggested the accused participate in the Sacramento Bridges Program, a rehabilitation center that offers specialized recovery services for families.
The accused had qualified for the program’s services. The individual needed supervised own recognizance (SOR) release and immediate release from jail in order to participate in the program. In opposition, Deputy District Attorney Adrienne Perez argued that the accused’s parole should be revoked immediately.
SPD Sequeira suggested additional stipulations to keep the accused accountable but was denied on all fronts. Judge Paul K. Richardson stated the accused was a flight risk and a danger to the public because of their combined criminal history.
The accused spoke in court. They claimed that although the court preaches less restrictive means, it denied them bail that would allow them to support their 1-month-old child.
According to The Marshall Project, the Kowalczyk ruling states that “most people accused of crimes [have] a right to pretrial release, and that judges cannot make that right meaningless by setting bail at an amount that the person can prove is financially impossible for them to meet.” In this case, the accused’s incarceration would disrupt their life because they could not afford bail, perpetuating economic instability.
The accused would also qualify for diversion under California Penal Code Section 1001.08 to address their substance use disorder. The court’s denial of SOR and bail will derail the accused and their family, according to DPD Sequeira.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to 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.
