Yolo criminal cases dismissed — DA blames it on shortage of courtrooms, judges
A Yolo County judge was forced to dismiss two criminal cases set for trial because the county did not have enough judges or courtrooms at Superior Court in Woodland, according to the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office.
Judge Tom Dyer dismissed the two misdemeanor cases because state law requires misdemeanor trials to begin within 30 days after charges are filed, the DA’s Office said in a statement Wednesday. The deadline to start the trials was Tuesday.
The dismissals represented “a denial of justice to the victims in each of these cases,” District Attorney Jeff Reisig said in a statement. “It is also an extreme waste of resources for all involved, including the victims, to prepare for trial, be ready for the case to start, and find out the case will be dismissed because there are not enough judges.”
The dismissals also “present bad incentives for the system as a whole,” Assistant Chief District Attorney David Wilson said. Defendants are less likely to accept plea deals if they think their case could be dismissed outright because courts cannot meet legal deadlines, he said.
Both cases were filed against the same defendant, Israel Alvarez. In one case, Alvarez was charged with violating a domestic violence restraining order 11 times. He allegedly violated the order by using a blocked number to call and text the victim, which he admitted to, according to the District Attorney’s Office.
The other case stemmed from a Jan. 9 incident in Davis. Alvarez was one of three people found near a vehicle that allegedly ran a stop sign and went off the road. Prosecutors charged him with obstructing a peace officer and public intoxication. Alvarez was on parole for a domestic violence conviction when the charges were filed last month, according to the District Attorney’s Office.
The dismissal due to scheduling constraints requires notification to the Judicial Council, the state body that oversees county courts.
The Yolo Superior Court is limited in what it can say about pending cases, court CEO Shawn Landry said. The dismissals were required under state law and did not lead to the defendant’s release from custody, he said. “The Court explored available options, including whether the matters could be continued,” he said.
The state Judicial Council determines how many judges a county Superior Court needs, but those calculations may not account for time- and resource-intensive motions filed under laws such as California’s Mental Health Diversion Act or the Racial Justice Act, Wilson said. That means prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys spend more time per case, so even as the rate of new cases remains steady, the court falls further behind, he said.
Landry said he has also seen more complex cases with more motions and fewer quick plea deals. “Declining settlement rates have resulted in a greater number of cases proceeding to trials, increasing the demand on limited courtroom resources,” he said.
The Yolo court has tried to accommodate more criminal trials by assigning criminal cases to other judges. Dyer, the judge assigned to the dismissed cases, presides in the juvenile division, Landry said.
“The court remains committed to the fair and lawful administration of justice and ensuring accurate public understanding of court proceedings,” Landry said.
Before 2019, there were six judges in the criminal division, Wilson said. Now there are four. Yolo County criminal courts are busy enough that cases occasionally risk passing their statutory deadlines, Wilson said, but such a dismissal had not occurred in recent memory.
“This is unprecedented,” Reisig, the DA, said. “And to my knowledge has never happened before in Yolo County during my tenure as District Attorney.”
This story was originally published February 19, 2026 at 8:06 AM.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story said that similar backlogs in Alameda and San Francisco counties had led to case dismissals. In Alameda County, cases were dismissed after prosecutors failed to file charges before the statute of limitations expired. Those dismissals were not related to courtroom or judicial staffing shortages. The passage has been removed.
