WOODLAND, Calif. — During a probation violation hearing, a judge weighed competing arguments over whether the accused should be taken into custody for residential treatment or released on his own recognizance to continue working and supporting the family, ultimately allowing another opportunity for outpatient care. The accused faces charges of possession of a controlled substance and related misdemeanor probation violations.
Deputy Public Defender Ava Landers argued that the accused has not committed any new offenses since last year and has been working full time to provide for his family. The defense emphasized that incarceration could have serious consequences for his household, stating, “They have to decide: are they going to leave their family without support, meaning no place to live and no food on the table, and risk going to treatment?”
The defense further argued that the accused should be allowed to remain on probation while addressing his prior misdemeanor matter, stating that there are alternative approaches that would allow him to continue compliance without removing him from his job. The defense expressed concern that if the accused is taken into custody, his family could lose their housing and means of support, calling that outcome inappropriate given his current circumstances.
Deputy District Attorney Alvina Tzang noted that the accused has been on probation for less than a year and argued that residential treatment is necessary due to repeated issues with outpatient compliance. The prosecution emphasized that the accused has failed to consistently attend treatment programs, stating, “He is putting his job first and clearly treatment second, later, or never.”
The deputy district attorney further argued that continuing probation without stricter intervention would be ineffective, stating, “Why do we have to keep him on probation? He can simply just serve his time in prison,” while recommending residential programming over outpatient treatment due to repeated violations and terminations from prior programs.
In response, Deputy Public Defender Landers argued that missed treatment appointments were the result of scheduling conflicts between employment and outpatient program requirements, not a refusal of treatment. The defense stated that there should be better alternatives that allow the accused to attend treatment outside of working hours.
The defense restated that the accused is not refusing treatment but is attempting to balance recovery with maintaining employment and family stability. The defense again requested release on his own recognizance with continued probation, arguing that incarceration would place the family at serious risk of homelessness.
Judge Danette C. Brown acknowledged that the accused has a substance use issue but ultimately allowed another opportunity at outpatient programming and declined to take the accused into custody at this time.
The court set the next hearing for a pretrial conference on May 22, 2026.
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.
