By Alyssa Eng and Britney Cao
WOODLAND, CA – In Yolo County Superior Court this week, a woman—not identified by The Vanguard to protect the identity of the victim—was granted supervised pretrial release at her arraignment after being charged with felony child abuse and endangerment that “inflicted unjustifiable physical pain and mental suffering and likely to produce great bodily harm and death.”
Judge Roy Hashimoto appointed Deputy Public Defender James Bradford to represent the accused and learned “she did agree to pretrial diversion in that case but she never completed it so it was a pretrial diversion failure, so that case is still active.”
The DPD asserted the allegations are specific to one minor who is currently in CPS (Child Protective Services) custody, and noted, “As summarized by probation, there is a serious question as to whether or not the facts in this case would support probable cause for a felony 273a(a), as opposed to 273a(b).” He stated that he does not “think the court should have as great of a concern when it comes to assessing the viability of [the accused’s] release.”
The DPD asked the court to grant the accused supervised release on the condition that she participate in drug treatment.
Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hays responded that the minor has been removed and should attend a detention hearing on Tuesday, but “the People are concerned about [the accused] due to her past failure to appear in a drug case, as well as her responses to probation regarding her drug use or lack thereof.”
The DDA added the release of the accused is concerning because of the “threat” she poses to the public if she does not undergo any type of drug treatment. Hays concluded it would be difficult to trust the accused to appear in future court hearings if less restrictive means were imposed.
Countering the DDA’s statement, DPD Bradford said the accused indicated she would be open to drug treatment as a condition for her release if the court found it appropriate.
After the short intermission, the accused’s probation officer requested to speak to the accused to see if she would accept the pretrial services’ supervised own recognizance (SOR), since it is a volunteer program in which she needed to agree to participate.
The accused’s probation officer returned and told the court the accused accepts “supervised release with conditions that are set forth before the court on our contract. An additional number 21 was added to take an exam abided by the direction of HHSA [Health and Human Services Agency] and abided by CPS directives.”
Addressing the accused directly, Judge Hashimoto said he “would not let [the accused] out normally” but that he will go along with the counsel’s recommendation. He warned the accused that “if [the accused] screws up, she will be back in custody.”