MERCED, Calif. — A Merced County Superior Court judge recalled a failure-to-appear warrant after an accused man explained that he had contacted the Public Defender’s Office about his court schedule and was told he had no upcoming hearings, while defense and prosecution attorneys also disputed the amount of restitution being sought in the case.
During the warrant recall hearing, the accused told Judge Monika S. Donabed that he had attempted to clarify his court dates by contacting the Merced County Public Defender’s Office.
According to the accused, staff informed him that no upcoming court dates were listed for his case.
Donabed explained that the accused had contacted the office after his scheduled hearing had already passed, which accounted for the absence of a pending court date. The court had issued a bench warrant following his failure to appear.
Deputy Public Defender Tabasum Akbari, who represented the accused, indicated that she had not been aware of his attempt to contact the office.
The underlying criminal case stems from a complaint filed Jan. 31, 2025, alleging attempted murder and firearm-related allegations involving the infliction of great bodily injury.
During the hearing, Donabed emphasized that the accused was responsible for keeping track of his scheduled court appearances.
The circumstances also raised questions about the resources available to public defenders handling criminal cases in Merced County.
According to the California Department of Justice’s Criminal Justice Personnel data, Merced County reported 15 attorneys and no full-time investigators assigned to its institutional public defender operation in 2024.
By comparison, the Merced County District Attorney’s Office reported 29 attorneys and 20 investigators.
Those staffing figures provide context for the resources available to the two offices, although the hearing did not establish that staffing levels contributed to the communication problem described by the accused.
The National Public Defense Workload Study has also raised concerns about longstanding public defense caseload standards, including historical guidelines under which attorneys were expected to handle as many as 150 felony cases or 400 misdemeanor cases annually.
The study examined whether those decades-old standards adequately reflected the time and resources necessary to provide effective legal representation.
In addition to the warrant issue, the court addressed a dispute concerning restitution.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, restitution generally refers to court-ordered compensation for financial losses directly resulting from criminal conduct, including certain medical expenses, lost income and property damage.
Deputy District Attorney Natalia Enero presented a restitution amount to the court.
Akbari questioned the amount, explaining that she had not been informed of the figure being presented and that the amount previously discussed was approximately half as much.
The defense requested additional time to review the restitution amount and discuss it with the accused before proceeding.
Akbari also asked Donabed to recall the outstanding bench warrant, citing the accused’s explanation for missing the earlier hearing.
Donabed granted the request to recall the warrant and agreed to continue the matter.
The case is scheduled to return to Merced County Superior Court on Nov. 30 in Department 1.
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.
