Judge Sets Bail at $1 Million for Man Charged with Rape and Domestic Violence

By Gloria Ho

On the afternoon of February 1, 2017, Judge Paul Richardson presided in Department 13 over the People’s case against defendant Wilfredo Antonio Iraheta. Mr. Iraheta is being represented by Deputy Public Defender Dean Johansson, with Deputy District Attorney Tiffany Susz representing the People.

Defendant Wilfredo Iraheta, 45, is being charged with multiple counts in this case. They include Penal Code section 273.5(a), inflicting corporal injury on cohabitant; Penal Code section 261(a)(2), rape by force and fear; Penal Code section 288(a)(2)(a), oral copulation upon a dependent person by force, violence, duress, menace or fear; Penal Code section 13700, domestic violence incident; and Penal Code section 1203.2, violation of probation. In a separately-charged misdemeanor case, Iraheta faces violations of Health and Safety Code section 11377(a), possession of methamphetamine; and Health and Safety Code section 11364, possession of drug paraphernalia.

On December 12, 2016, Mr. Iraheta allegedly sexually assaulted his unmarried cohabitant in the living of the apartment while their seven-year-old daughter was sleeping in the bedroom. In fear of being assaulted again, the victim, “MH,” called 911 the next day, December 13, 2016. MH said she was hiding from him, having used the pretense to buy milk in a Mexican market with her daughter after MH and the defendant picked the girl up from school.

The preliminary hearing resumed in the afternoon with continuing testimony from the People’s witness, Woodland Police Detective Tamara Pelle. Her testimony details the discovery of how the alleged rape happened and what MH said in their five-hour interview.

“He ordered her to take her clothes off. She tried to plead with him not to do this,” Detective Pelle told the court about what MH shared in the interview.

It was nighttime and their daughter was asleep, MH told the detective. They were in the living room where the defendant repeatedly told MH to take her clothes off, and she only complied when fear sank in. Mr. Iraheta allegedly had MH sit naked in a chair, which he moved around and positioned in the living room. The defendant told MH to do to him what he said she did for her customers, and criticized MH for not actually doing her job as a house cleaner. Mr. Iraheta accused her of giving sexual favors to her customers, and MH thought he was crazy.

“He told her to pose like she does for her customers,” the People’s witness testified.

At some point, he allegedly pulled his pants down and his shirt up, and, while he had MH pinned on the chair, he forcibly had sex with her. MH told the detective that there was no support for her head on the chair, so her head was swinging backward, causing her neck and back to hurt.

“She was terrified,” Detective Pelle said, as she described how MH said she was scared throughout the whole thing.

MH didn’t fight him, she told the detective, but she did fight the position he had her in because of the pain in her neck and back. The defendant stopped at one point, but only to reposition her and pull her closer to him.

“And then he penetrated her again?” DA Susz questioned. The People’s witness gave an affirmative answer. MH told the defendant that she had to go to the bathroom and he threw a blanket at her. She cleaned herself up in the bathroom and he entered, blocking her way to the bedroom. She said she asked Mr. Iraheta if she could go to bed.

“No, we’re not done yet,” the defendant said, according to what MH told Detective Pelle during the interview.

“What might happen to her if she didn’t comply with his request?” the People asked.

“Fear of being killed, fear of something happening to her, fear of leaving her daughter in the house with him,” Detective Pelle responded. The witness went on to describe how the alleged victim broke down a lot during the five-hour interview because she had never had anything like this happen to her in her life, let alone tell it to anyone. Throughout the whole time, she said she told him to stop what he was doing to her, but he didn’t stop.

The defendant allegedly ordered MH back into the chair in the living room, and she complied. MH told the detective that Mr. Iraheta then forcibly orally copulated with her. Detective Pelle described that MH hoped that it would end and asked to go to bed again. Mr. Iraheta, apparently behaving normally again, told MH they could go to bed together. MH went to bed lying close to her daughter, sandwiched between the child and the man who she said had just raped her.

On Tuesday morning, December 13, 2016, MH made it clear to Mr. Iraheta that she didn’t want him in the house anymore and said she wanted her key back. MH’s friend routinely comes by and picks her and her daughter up. They drop her daughter off at school and she and her friend go to work together as house cleaners. After work, MH came home to find the defendant in her apartment, and she told the detective that she created some way to get away from him because she did not want to be in an enclosed space with him. MH made an excuse to go pick up their daughter from school and go buy milk at the Mexican market on East Street. Mr. Iraheta told her he wasn’t going to let her out of his sight, so he drove her and they picked up their daughter. At the market, he went inside to get the milk and MH decided to call her friend and confide in her friend that she didn’t want to go back to the apartment with Mr. Iraheta. MH’s friend told her that she was near the police station anyway and that MH should call the police. Mr. Iraheta returned with the milk but MH said she told him that she wasn’t going to leave with him. He went to wait in the car. After some time, he left the market and she called the police. Mr. Iraheta was arrested and booked the same day.

The defense did not cross-examine the People’s witness and Detective Pelle was excused from the stand.

“Bail will be raised to $1,000,000 in light of allegations of a life sentence,” Judge Richardson stated, after holding the defendant to answer on all counts against him.

Arraignment is set for February 15, 2017, at 9:00am in Department 8 with Judge David W. Reed presiding.

About The Author

The Vanguard Court Watch operates in Yolo, Sacramento and Sacramento Counties with a mission to monitor and report on court cases. Anyone interested in interning at the Courthouse or volunteering to monitor cases should contact the Vanguard at info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org - please email info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org if you find inaccuracies in this report.

Related posts


  1. Tia Will

    Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge than I can help me understand something. This is a man who is being charged with a violent crime with the potential for severe harm to the victim ( forcible vaginal rape can result in hemorrhage leading to death). And yet there is bail set at one million dollars. While I recognize that this particular accused may not be able to raise the million dollars, from this can we not assume that if he had sufficient funds he would be able to make bail and be out in society despite being charged with such a violent crime ?  What are we thinking ? Where is the concern for the safety of the innocent members of our community ?

  2. Howard P

    Particularly when,

    Judge Richardson stated after finding the defendant guilty on all seven counts against him.

    Prelim hearing to judgement in one day!  Now THAT’s swift justice…

    1. John Hobbs

      “Prelim hearing to judgement in one day!  Now THAT’s swift justice…”

      Could be a real money saver for the county, though.

      Accurate reporting, a hallmark of the Vanguard.


  3. Claire Benoit

    Am I the only person who thinks that the way these hearings are arranged subject sexual violence victims to further humiliation and degradation? Who would want to sit in a room of strangers and share the sordid details of something like this??? I get the the whole flowery consciousness that tells victims to feel brave and empowered for speaking openly of what they’ve experienced. But outside a circle of hairy bra-less women and a handful of men in touch with their feminine sides; there is nothing empowering about this. Everyone is not of this “evolved consciousness” that feminist trends like to promote. You can promote a mindset all you want to, but human nature remains human nature. This trial process for dv and sexual violence survivors angers and irritates me to no end.

    (No disrespect to hairy bra-less women or sensitive men intended. Just trying to illustrate my point).

  4. Tia Will


    You are definitely not alone. I think that in a hearing of this type the alleged victim is almost certainly if not re-victimized at least placed in an extremely difficult emotional situation. One alternative which would be far more humane would be to clear the courtroom of anyone except the accused and representation and officers of the court for this portion of the testimony only and provide a transcript immediately following that session so that the rights of the press and public are also respected.

    On another note,  we have an issue where a rich man who is accused of such unbridled violence could walk out on bail, but a poor individual with factually the same accusation against him is incarcerated and there is only one other serious post about this case. Is no one at all concerned about this disparity ? Does no one see this as an issue of public safety ?


  5. Claire Benoit

    Thank you Tia. Yes the bail system does seem to make “justice” more about demographics and profits than community safety.

    One thing I wonder about is how much discretion is left to the judge in deciding whether bails are available and how high they are. I think there are standard amounts for certain charges, right? Or can a judge adjust these amounts?

    i have very limited experience with law, with my own current circumstance being a horrific learning experience. But now that I’m paying attention to cases more, it seems like justice is far too inconsistent state and countrywide.

    Where common sense is desperately needed, it’s often subordinated to bureaucracy. And yet, if (?) a judge can give a poor man a bail he suspects will be impossible, then it would prove that the freedom to use common sense exists but is mostly misused.

    would this same judge have given a rich man this bail? (Clarify the laws for me on this). Even if it’s possible that he wouldn’t then it seems inconsistencies like THIS might still make it easier for wealthier people to challenge fair and appropriate rulings.

    Overall judges have more power than any human should

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for