OAKLAND, Calif. — An Alameda County Superior Court judge maintained a criminal protective order despite claims the complaining witness objected to the order and lacked the financial resources and consistent phone access needed to seek its modification. Deputy Public Defender Palden Ukyab said the accused and the complaining witness were engaged in “consensual contact” at the time of the accused’s most recent arrest.
The accused was charged with two misdemeanors for domestic battery and disobeying a court order.
Ukyab began the arraignment hearing by waiving the accused’s formal arraignment rights and asking the court to entertain a disposition, or proposed resolution to the case. Ukyab said the accused would admit to the probation violation if Judge Bentrish Satarzadeh dismissed the underlying domestic battery case.
Deputy District Attorney Olivia Suraci objected, noting that the case involved allegations of domestic violence, which were the basis for the criminal protective order, or CPO.
Ukyab claimed the complaining witness did not initially want the CPO; rather, the court mandated it against her wishes. Ukyab added that, leading up to the accused’s recent arrest, an “anonymous person” reported “suspicious circumstances” at the accused’s residence, suggesting the call was made by a third party rather than the complaining witness.
Thus, Ukyab said he did not have any “concern for victim safety” should the accused be released and monitored through probation.
Ukyab argued that, according to the precedent established in Rockwell v. Superior Court, the defense may ask the court to dismiss a case via application if the “dismissal would be in furtherance of justice.” The public defender said the court would still hold the accused accountable for his probation violation by monitoring him, but the previous misdemeanor would be “clogging” the court calendar unnecessarily.
Suraci said the accused has “blatantly disrespected a court order” in the past, citing a former 10-year CPO involving the same complaining witness that was dismissed as part of a plea. She added that CPOs must be modified in court, and the accused and the complaining witness were still violating the CPO by having private, consensual contact.
Suraci maintained that the case should not be dismissed.
Ukyab referenced his past experience with individuals who were unable to access district attorney offices to modify CPOs because of “intense poverty” and a lack of a consistent phone number, both of which may allegedly apply to the complaining witness in this case. Ukyab said the complaining witness did not leave contact information on any court documents, which Suraci confirmed.
According to Transformative Private Law, the digitalization of the justice system risks excluding individuals with “limited digital skills, disability, low income, unstable connectivity or language barriers,” which may delay court procedures and prohibit individuals from exercising their rights. Transformative Private Law suggests an inclusive design that allows for multiple options to access the court, including “[p]aper-based or in-person routes.”
Ukyab emphasized that, because of the lack of contact information, the complaining witness has demonstrated an inability to modify the CPO terms with the court, and the court should consider her desire for contact with the accused on the date of his arrest. The pending domestic battery case would be unnecessary if the accused will be held accountable for his probation violation, Ukyab maintained.
Judge Satarzadeh asked Suraci whether she had been in contact with the complaining witness, to which the deputy district attorney replied in the negative. Judge Satarzadeh said she has observed a “higher chance that a victim will get killed” in cases involving repeated CPO violations, even if the complaining witness does not object to the CPO.
The judge moved to maintain the CPO.
Ukyab said the accused was no longer admitting to the probation violation if the underlying case was not resolved. The public defender entered a not guilty plea and requested the accused’s release on his own recognizance, or OR, which releases individuals without requiring bail.
Judge Satarzadeh set the CPO as a condition of the accused’s OR release.
Judge Satarzadeh told the accused to contact a lawyer if he and the complaining witness wished to modify the terms of the CPO.
The case is set for Sept. 11 at 9 a.m.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Categories: Alameda Court Watch Breaking News Court Watch Northern California Court Watch Vanguard Court Watch Tags: access to justice Alameda County Superior Court Criminal Protective Order Domestic Violence Poverty Public Defender