By Ramneet Singh
WOODLAND, CA – In a plea hearing, Judge Tom Dyer in Yolo County Superior Court referenced a victim’s statement concerning the accused’s alleged behavior and the negative consequences it has caused.
According to the court calendar, the county charged the accused with a misdemeanor “breach of peace,” disruption in September 2020. (Note: The Vanguard does not normally identify misdemeanor accused.)
Randall Burton was the private defense attorney in the case while Gustavo Figueroa the deputy district attorney.
Burton stated this was a no contest plea “under certain conditions with judgment deferred for one year…she will enroll in at least 30 hours of anger management counseling.” Burton noted that the accused had already been attending.
Concerning restitution, DDA Figueroa stated the estimated amount was $1,319.50, but Burton understood there to be a later hearing to determine the actual amount.
A victim provided a statement that concerned a violation of a “no harass restraining order,” explaining this occurred at an elementary school in front of children.
The victim stated that the accused “historically alters the truth” in reference to the alleged lie that the victim stole the accused’s car. Afterwards, the victim focused on the accused’s mental health.
The victim noted the accused lied about the stolen car to the police and supposedly became “hostile” after she was confronted, according to the police report. The victim explained she did not want the accused to be arrested in front of the children for the sake of their mental health.
Focusing on her child, the victim stated her concern and stated “however, for her children this was very much their norm as they’re used to their mom flying off the rails” in similar situations.
The victim noted that her child went to therapy and had PTSD, adding “she was scared about what (the accused) looked like and was fearful of the threats (the accused) had made about burning down the house with us in it.”
While audibly emotional, the victim moved on to later incidents. From earlier cases, the victim stated “the judge filed an emergency order removing the kids out of her custody and granted them to my boyfriend in our household.”
The victim noted she wanted to try the option through neighborhood court, but that this was nullified as the accused slandered the victim on social media.
The victim focused on the accused’s children and how the victim cares for them. She expressed her love for them and wants to protect them from the accused.
The victim found the case’s resolution to be “fitting,” and focused on restitution.
The victim again noted a PTSD diagnosis for the children and the need for therapy; she described their mental health experience.
The victim repeated her desire to see the accused participate in an anger management program.
Ending with a statement on a protective order, the victim wanted the accused’s behavior to stop and her need to correct course.
Judge Dyer affirmed that “it’s not just a piece of paper, it has the force of law,” referring to a CPO.
Dyer would go over aspects of the plea deal, including a “no contact order” for the victim that would be active for one year.
Concerning restitution, Burton would respond with the need to parcel out certain details. Defense Attorney Burton noted the victim was already in therapy and questioned “the severity of what she claims to be PTSD” among other challenges.
Dyer confirmed a contested hearing on July 12 with a potential continuance.
