By Gabriel Johnson and Rena Abdusalam
WOODLAND, CA – Yolo County Superior Court Judge Sam McAdam added another 30 days to a man’s 41-day sentence here Monday after the accused’s second violation of probation, despite the accused’s apparent confusion and homelessness in Sacramento.
Earlier in the hearing, Deputy Public Defender Daniel Hutchinson asked the court to impose a reinstatement of less than the maximum of 86 days, arguing the accused had a “hiccup” and now understands his duty to report.
“I just wanted to note that this is [the accused’s] second violation,” Deputy District Attorney David Wilson charged. “I think the 86 days at this point is warranted in the sense that this isn’t [the accused’s] first time at the rodeo.”
The DDA added, “That particular first violation was for missing a meeting with probation. So, there just seems to be a disconnect and a lack of seriousness on his obligations to stay in contact and meet with probation. I think the 86 days is appropriate based on that history.”
In response, Judge McAdam stated he was flummoxed. He acknowledged the importance of the accused staying in touch with probation, but asked if there were any other incentives that could be used.
“Well, your honor, I think the strongest incentive is that if he does not continue to report, he could go to prison not because he committed new crimes, but because he simply did not live up to his obligations to stay in contact,” answered DPD Hutchinson.
“He understands that the 41 days at a minimum is going to be imposed today… My argument to the court is that an additional 45 days is not needed to make that point clear. He is prepared to admit the violation, but I would ask the court to impose something less than 86 days,” DPD Hutchinson resumed.
When Judge McAdam asked about the accused’s transient circumstances, DPD Hutchinson replied the accused is still unsheltered in Sacramento.
DPD Hutchinson also noted that the accused not providing probation with his new phone number was one cause of his violation.
Judge McAdam then posed a similar question to Probation Officer Vanessa Flores, noting, “I’m not convinced that additional jail time is our best tool, it’s one of the tools that we have. What else can we do to promote facilitation and contact between this defendant and your office?”
“Your Honor, I honestly can’t think of anything in addition. We’ve had communication with the probationer, he understands his terms and conditions, it’s on his end,” said Flores.
Judge McAdam also asked, “Does he have a phone?” DPD Hutchinson confirmed, “He does now,” informing the court the accused has the new number and will provide it to probation for contact purposes.
But the phone number information was not enough to avoid the “incentive” of jail time—although the judge added just 30 days to the 41-day original sentence, not the additional 45 days requested by the DDA..
Acknowledging that part of the problem is the accused is living homeless on the streets of Sacramento County, not Yolo County, Judge McAdam also asked if the accused would be “best supervised by Yolo County, or should it be Sacramento County?”
PO Flores replied, “Back in February there was a conversation with him about possibly transferring his case to Sacramento County, but that was never followed through with.”
DPD Hutchinson then told the court, “That confirms something (the accused) told me at arraignment last week…that, he thought he was to report in Sacramento. He does have misdemeanor grants there in Sacramento,” meaning the accused already has a probation officer in Sacramento.
When imposing sentence, Judge McAdam admitted “these cases, we have a huge calendar, we move them along,” and that he wasn’t “[c]onfident there was a huge difference in justice between 30 days and 45 (extra days).”
