By Tanya Decendario
WOODLAND – COVID-19 raised its ugly head again, this time in the form of state judicial council pandemic orders that one defense attorney here in Yolo County Superior Court knew full well, but had to prove to a baffled judge and prosecutor.
Deputy District Attorney Robin Johnson questioned private attorney Jonathan Gonzales’ court appearance for a defendant Tuesday, claiming his client had to be there in person. Gonzales said under pandemic judicial orders that is no longer the case.
And he then searched and found the special order to prove it to the DDA and Judge Peter Williams.
“Are you counsel for Mr. Matters?” Judge Williams asked, to which attorney Gonzales said, “I am your honor, I’ve retained this matter to make a general appearance for Mr. Matters.”
Judge Williams begins with the complaint against defendant Ricky Matters, explaining he allegedly drove under the influence of alcohol or drugs, causing injury to his wife.
DDA Robin interrupted, “Your honor, was this set previously for the defendant to come in and sign a 977?” (977 allows the attorney to appear for a defendant).
Gonzales answered, “No, this case was a warrant out. We ask to recall the warrant to be on the calendar today.”
“What is your objection Ms. Johnson?” Judge Williams asked.
DDA Johnson argued, “One, he has no authority to arraign the defendant on a felony 977 and [also] to recall a warrant when the defendant hasn’t appeared.”
Attorney Gonzales disagreed with DDA Johnson, stating he is authorized to appear on behalf of Matters and maintaining he is allowed to waive appearance for the defendant, and requested the court to recall the warrant.
Judge Williams noted the emergency COVID-19 orders from the judicial council, declaring that there was a change related to the issue at hand, asking, “Mr. Gonzales, what do you know?”
Gonzales recalled a week and a half ago, when he last read the statute, that “[it] allows counsel to appear in all appearances other than capital cases on behalf of their clients if they are given the authority to do so, which my client has allowed me to appear on his behalf.”
“I don’t think that’s what it is…the initial waiver has to be done in person in court by your client, that is her (DDA) argument,” Judge William claims.
“No, that’s not the rule at all, unless it’s changed in the last two weeks, which I don’t believe it has, I can look it up right now,” Gonzales volunteered.
Judge Williams agreed, “Yeah that’d be great if you could do that right now and cite the statute.”
After searching for the statute, Gonzales discovered, “I’m reading the rule, which appears to have not changed.. I’m reading directly from the judicial council’s emergency orders…the court must accept the defense counsel’s presentation if the defendant understands waiving rights…unless the court has specific concerns to particular matters.”
“I know that’s the emergency rule. My concern is the emergency rule was rescinded a month and a half ago. I believe that was part of them being rescinded…that’s my only concern. I wish I knew that on top of my head as I’m sitting here but I don’t,” Judge Williams admits.
Gonzales responded, “I can tell you that I’ve not seen a rescinded rule.. The original rule said the rule was going to remain (intact) 60 days after the pandemic has been declared no longer a pandemic”
Judge Williams acknowledged, “You’re right” and added, “All right. Unless Ms. Johnson…has some information differently, I’m going to allow Mr. Gonzales to appear at this time for his client.”
DDA Johnson stated, “I can’t tell the court that I do, obviously I was trying to read it right now but I’m appearing in other cases so I can’t. If the court does that, that’s fine.” She continued her statement with, “I would ask the court to require the defendant present on Zoom for that preliminary hearing.”
Judge Williams set the preliminary hearing for Dec. 21.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
