By Ramneet Singh
WOODLAND, CA – The “bad news” here in Yolo County Superior Court this week for “John Doe” is that he’ll apparently miss a “very nice Christmas dinner”—as described by Deputy District Attorney Carolyn Palumbo.
The “good news” for “Doe” is that he’ll be free on Christmas Eve.
(NOTE: “John Doe” is being used to describe the accused because The Vanguard’s policy is not to normally use real names for most misdemeanor crimes).
The court calendar for Doe had a misdemeanor case with counts of trespassing and public possession of an open alcoholic beverage infraction from Dec. 12. This case was on for arraignment.
After noting these charges, Dyer stated there was a “violation of your misdemeanor probation with the two alleged crimes that I already stated to you.”
The court calendar had another misdemeanor case listed for Doe with two counts of violation of probation and trespassing on Jan. 10, 2020. This case minute order reflects a Violation of Probation (VOP) arraignment.
Defense Attorney James Granucci, a member of the conflict panel, and DDA Palumbo discussed an offer in the case—an admission of violation, 30 jail days, dismissal of the most recent case, and “stay away” orders from a liquor store.
Granucci asked about the probation hold and Probation Officer Jennifer Martinez stated that it expired this Friday.
Granucci inquired about the potential for a work project, which Judge Dyer stated he did not oppose. Palumbo noted that the responsibility of that would be on the Sheriff’s Dept., and then asked, “Would the court…authorize his release with a surrender date after the first of the year so that he can sign up for the work project?”
Dyer confirmed he was asking about the “surrender date” of about five weeks. He described it as “standard in misdemeanor matters,” and Attorney Granucci understood that these weren’t “crimes of violence” and reiterated the probation.
Palumbo wanted to make sure that Doe knew the consequences of further trespassing and a “no alcohol clause.”
Granucci needed time to discuss with Doe and presented a counter offer. With similar conditions he asked, “Can we do 24 days and he’ll remain in custody and then he’ll be time served on the 24?”
DDA Palumbo responded, “Well I think that the jail serves a very nice Christmas dinner on the 25th.” Granucci responded, “That’s not what I’m asking.”
Judge Dyer referenced stay away orders, stating, “I’m really disappointed that I make the order and you’re still hanging around there…” Dyer said he understood potential personal circumstances but that this was an issue.
The judge noted that probation did not oppose the six day cut. Granucci said that this was accepted.
Within this, DDA Palumbo brought up the prosecution’s dismissal of charges and that the 24 days condition “should come from the People and not from the court.” Palumbo would agree to do so.