Absence at Hearings – Past and Present – Stifles Progress in Cases, Asserts Judge

By Isabelle Brady

MODESTO, CA– Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Carrie Stephens oversaw two back-to-back hearings this week that had been frustrated by the accused’s absence—one in which the suspect had failed to appear in the past, and one in which the defendant was absent possibly due to a positive COVID test.

Both are charged with a mix of misdemeanors and felonies. Kevin Patrick Thomas, was present at the courthouse. The other defendant, Anthony Dangelo, was not present because he was not transported to the court from jail.

In the first case, Judge Stephens admonished Thomas for failing to appear in the past.

“Mr. Thomas, the court is not going to, more than likely, authorize a [criminal case resolution] if you miss court again. Forgetting court is not a good reason for missing court. It really isn’t,” the judge said, adding, “And I understand you’ve got a lot of cases and maybe it’s hard to keep track of them, but we’re putting them all on the same date now so there should be no issue moving forward.”

Judge Stephens vacated any other court dates and recalled all the bench warrants that were issued in Thomas’ “various matters.” She also released him on his own recognizance for each of the misdemeanors.

Thomas waived his time in his misdemeanor and felony cases, meaning that they don’t have to happen within a specified timeframe. He is charged with six misdemeanors and one felony.

His next court date is March 18, at 8:30 a.m.

Before the hearing ended, Judge Stephens advised him to “keep in contact with your attorney. Make sure you have a good telephone number to give to them so that they can reach you if need be. We’ve gotta get these cases taken care of. It’s just too much going on, and we need to get them taken care of.”

Dangelo’s hearing went similarly, though he was not there for it because he was still at the jail. His attorney, Assistant Public Defender Andrew Kuehn, was present and had indicated before the hearing that he and Deputy District Attorney Angela Russell had reached a resolution.

As to why Dangelo wasn’t there, PD Kuehn said, “My guess is that they must have just had a new positive test.”

He asked for about two weeks to schedule the next hearing to accommodate Dangelo’s possible positive case of COVID.

Judge Stephens said, “The resolution I think is a prison term, so I don’t think it’s gonna matter for him. It’s not like he’s gonna get released if he comes back before the court earlier. I want to be judicious in when we select that date because I don’t want to have seven cases on calendar just to put over on entry of plea again.”

“Ms. Russell, I’m sure you understand what the concerns are. It’s just madness to have this many cases come back because of quarantine situations.”

Assistant Public Defender Kuehn waived time on each of the matters on behalf of Dangelo.

Judge Stephens vacated the jury trial date. The next hearing, an entry of plea, is set for March 23.

About The Author

Isabelle is a first year undergraduate student at UC Santa Barbara majoring in philosophy. Her passions include writing, criminal justice reform and reading Kurt Vonnegut. She may or may not eventually attend law school.

Related posts

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

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