By Ramneet Singh
WOODLAND, CA – Judge Tom Dyer of Yolo County Superior Court heard an in-court statement from Mariah Marie Murreyclark’s grandmother Friday that noted Murreyclark’s history of alcohol and drug abuse going back to her early teens, and homelessness.
The grandmother said Murreyclark can’t be trusted to return to court if released.
Initially, Dyer listed the charges against Murreyclark, stating she had allegedly “committed a felony, burglary in the second degree on or about Sept. 22 of this year.” The court calendar listed this as an arraignment.
Yolo County Deputy Public Defender Dave Muller represented Murreyclark, while Carolyn Jean Palumbo represented the prosecution.
PD Muller noted that “…probation is recommending that she be released on straight OR (own recognizance, no bail required).”
Deputy District Attorney Palumbo acknowledged family members in court and stated Murreyclark’s grandmother wished to be heard.
“Mariah has had a very severe drug and alcohol problem since her mid-teens, if not since earlier than that…she is now homeless. It is not possible for her to live with any of us…if she is released, the chances of her showing up for a court date are slim to nonexistent. Therefore, if the choice were ours, we would not have her released,” the grandmother said.
Judge Dyer asked about Murreyclark’s housing situation, and the grandmother confirmed what she said and reaffirmed Murreyclark potentially not making her court appearance. Dyer thanked her for the statement.
Palumbo initially considered the “OR (own recognizance) report.” In light of the family’s concerns, she asked “where would she go? I mean, where would she be?”
DDA Palumbo added “the hope would be maybe she could be transported some place from in custody to a treatment facility.” In acknowledging the difficulty of creating a solution, she noted “…she’s not a public safety risk, she’s maybe a risk to herself…”
Judge Dyer directed his attention to the probation officials, and one stated that they had not received the “family statement” beforehand.
Dyer mentioned the possibility of a GPS device, but understood the limitations of it, and then asked PD Muller to respond to the family’s statement.
Muller noted that sparse availability for treatment “within the county jail. She may be able to get that assistance through the probation department, which she cannot do while in custody.”
After a request, one of the probation officials discussed the potential limitations and opportunities with the in-custody option, noting how probation could help her enter a “treatment program.”
The official stated “concerns” of OR, and the potential inability to utilize a “SCRAM” device immediately. They also brought up the need to cautiously approach treatment for alcohol abuse. The official wanted more information.
Muller noted the services of the public defender’s office.
In considering the family, Dyer had “some concerns about Ms. Murreyclark’s condition at this point and how that plays a role in her appearing in court in the future and also potentially committing additional crimes and maybe harming herself.” And then denied release without bail.
Concerning bail, Dyer acknowledged the defender’s “transient” status and changed the amount from the standard $10,000 to $7,500, adding “Ms. Murreyclark can be released irrespective of that bail amount if there is a bed available for mental health/substance abuse treatment.”
Per request, Dyer noted “SCRAM (device) at discretion of probation.”
The next court date is Oct. 6 in Dept. 7 at 9 a.m. and preliminary hearing at 1:30 p.m.