Fresno Judge Brian Alvarez finds Fresno man was unconstitutionally denied the right to bail

The opinion breaks new ground on whether misdemeanants can be held "no bail."

On October 5th, a three judge panel of Fresno Superior Court’s appellate division, led by Chief Judge Brian Alvarez, held that Fresno Judge Elizabeth Egan’s order denying Brian Woodruff bail violated the California Constitution.

Woodruff was charged with one count of misdemeanor exhibiting a firearm, a violation of penal code 417. At this first court date, Judge Egan preventatively detained Woodruff because, in her words, “there was a weapon, it was brandished.” Woodruff was held at Fresno County Jail without the opportunity to get out.

I filed a writ of Mandamus with the Appellate Division challenging Judge Egan’s ruling. I argued that her reasoning—if you can call it that—turned the presumption of innocence on its head and failed to articulate why Woodruff could be stripped of his constitutional right to release under Article 1 Section 12 of the state constitution.

Two weeks later, I hit a procedural hiccup: Woodruff’s case was rendered “moot” because he was released from custody by a different judge. How could I continue to ask the panel to grant Woodruff’s release if the very relief sought—to be released from custody—had been granted? But I wasn’t done.

I asked the panel to hear Woodruffs case even though it was technically dead. Judge Egan, I argued, should not be let off so easy, especially where, as here, the public’s interest in fairness and constitutional rights are implicated. I asked the panel to issue an opinion to the Fresno Bench clarifying whether defendant’s charged with misdemeanor conduct can be denied without bail prior to trial.

Judge Alvarez responded. In a concise, well-reasoned opinion, the Chief judge found Judge Egan’s decision “fatally flawed in several respects.” Alvarez writing shows a deep understanding of the legal issues involved. The opinion cites the newest case law regarding bail, notes pending cases before the California Supreme Court, and eviscerated Egan’s facile reasoning.

In holding that Judge Egan’s detention order violated The California Constitution, Judge Alvarez made several significant findings regarding pretrial detention for misdemeanor offenses.

First, Judge Alvarez noted that “historically, a misdemeanor defendant’s right to be released on bail prior to conviction has ben recognized as almost self-evident:

This make logical sense, Alvarez writes; because misdemeanor defendants are entitled to bail after conviction, a fortiori the are entitled to bail prior to trial when their interest in liberty is at its zenith:

Second, the opinion notes that had Woodruff been charged with a felony, Egan’s detention order would still have been unconstitutional because it failed to apply Article 1 Section 12’s rigorous test to detain:

Third, Judge Alvarez reasoned that misdemeanors don’t qualify for pretrial detention by negative implication. Because, by its own terms, the detention scheme requires proof of a qualifying felony, it follows that misdemeanors can’t serve as the predicate for detention:

Alvarez ended by noting that Judge Egan failed to make “any of he required findings or an appropriate record.” Woodruff’s detention was clearly unconstitutional":

Although Judge Alvarez declined to publish the panel’s opinion in the official California Reporter of Decisions, I appreciate his well-written, thorough response. Judge Alvarez has a real understanding of the issues involved. The opinion should be read by the all the judges of Fresno County.