WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County Superior Court judge on Wednesday granted an accused man release on his own recognizance after concluding state law required the least restrictive means of ensuring his appearance, then reversed the decision minutes later after learning of a pending felony case in another county, ordering him held on $60,000 bail across two cases.
The accused, who appeared in custody with the assistance of a Spanish-language interpreter appearing remotely, is charged with one felony count of failure to appear while released on his own recognizance, with enhancements alleging the offense was committed while on bail or OR release and circumstances in aggravation. He pleaded not guilty and denied all enhancements.
The failure-to-appear charge stems from an older Yolo County case, also on calendar for review at the same hearing, in which the accused is charged with felony grand theft and conspiracy to commit a crime, with enhancements alleging more than one act of theft or shoplifting and circumstances in aggravation.
Deputy Public Defender Roberto Villa asked the court to release the accused on his own recognizance or on supervised own recognizance, noting the charge is not among the violent offenses that permit pretrial detention without bail under the California Constitution. Villa said the accused’s father lives in San Jose and has been in contact with the public defender’s office.
Addressing the failure to appear at the center of the case, Villa told the court the accused missed his Yolo County preliminary hearing in February because he was in custody in another county at the time.
Deputy District Attorney Alvina Tzang opposed release, saying the court had previously released the accused on his own recognizance with conditions to stay away from all Ulta stores in Northern California and to report to Santa Clara County probation. Tzang said the accused’s record showed multiple warrants from late last year in different jurisdictions for theft-related offenses and failures to appear, and that a previous supervised release report had recommended against OR release.
Villa responded that the accused did report to Santa Clara County probation after his earlier release and met with probation weekly. He argued that supervised release with regular check-ins would be “a good middle ground” compared with keeping the accused in custody on nonviolent charges.
Judge Danette C. Brown initially agreed. Because the charge does not qualify for no-bail detention, the judge said, the court was required to consider the least restrictive means of assuring the accused’s appearance. With the probation department unable to supervise a San Jose resident from Woodland, the judge concluded the only least restrictive means available was straight OR release.
Judge Brown granted the release, admonishing the accused to appear in person at future court dates, maintain contact with his attorney and obey all laws.
The ruling unraveled almost immediately. Probation Officer Noe V. Lopez, who said she had looked up Santa Clara County court records during the hearing, reported that the accused had been transported to the Yolo County Jail from the Santa Clara County jail on the current warrant and that he has a new felony case in Santa Clara County in which he failed to appear May 14, with a plea hearing scheduled for Aug. 4.
Lopez opposed supervised release, saying there was “not a lot of active supervision we could do from Woodland to San Jose.”
Judge Brown then reversed course, saying the accused would remain in custody so he could address the Yolo County case “in short order” before returning to Santa Clara County.
When Villa asked that the accused instead be released and brought back in October, Judge Brown declined, saying, “This court has no confidence he’s gonna come back in October.”
The defense did not waive time, meaning the preliminary hearing must be held no later than July 16. Tzang objected to setting the hearing within five court days, telling the court the prosecution would not be ready, and the matter was set for a preliminary hearing preconference Friday, July 10, at 9 a.m. in Department 9.
The accused was remanded to the custody of the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office, with bail set at $50,000 on the failure-to-appear case and $10,000 on the theft case — amounts that will keep him jailed on nonviolent charges, including a failure to appear that his attorney said resulted from being in custody in another county, minutes after the court itself concluded release was the only least restrictive means permitted under the law.
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.
