Glenn County District Attorney's Office

Call Directions Website

Glenn County District Attorney's Office Our mission is to prosecute criminal violations of law with integrity and to support and protect the rights of victims of crime within Glenn County.

Glenn County District Attorney's Office

10/01/2026

Parole Denied to High Risk S*x Offender
Inmate Brian Kenneth Michaud was previously convicted of a violation of Penal Code Section 288(c)(1) (Oral Copulation on a child under 14 years of age with the victim being 10 years younger than the defendant.) On July 10th, 2020, the inmate was sentenced to 6 years in state prison. He was later paroled in May of 2023, but deemed a high risk s*x offender and given a 20-year parole period. The inmate violated his parole less than 2 months after release and was returned to prison.

On December 8th, 2023, a reconsideration hearing was held for the Parole Board to consider releasing the inmate back onto parole. The hearing was attended by Assistant District Attorney Michael Coffey who on behalf of the People of Glenn County argued the inmate posed an unreasonable risk to the public and therefore should be kept in prison. The Parole Board ruled that the inmate did continue to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety and denied his parole.

On November 6th 2024, a first subsequent reconsideration hearing was held for the Parole Board to consider releasing the inmate back onto parole. The hearing was attended by Assistant District Attorney Michael Coffey who on behalf of the People of Glenn County again argued the inmate posed an unreasonable risk to the public and therefore should be kept in prison. The Parole Board ruled that the inmate did continue to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety and denied his parole.

On October 14th, 2025 a second subsequent reconsideration hearing was set to be held to consider if Inmate Michaud was suitable for parole. Assistant District Attorney Michael Coffey was present and prepared to oppose the inmates release, however the hearing was not held as the defendant stipulated that he was not suitable for parole at this time, so his parole was denied by the parole board. He will be eligible for parole again in 1 years time.

On September 30, 2026, a third subsequent reconsideration hearing was held. District Attorney Dwayne R. Stewart was present and opposed the inmates release. The Board related the inmate lacked insight into his crimes, he had no realistic plans, and had done minimal self help while in prison. The Inmate was denied parole. He will be eligible for parole in one year.

09/21/2026
09/17/2026
09/11/2026

AS HEARD IN COURT
September 2026
People vs. Garcia, Esteban—Defendant was convicted of a felony violation of Penal Code section 664/187 in the 2nd Degree (Attempted Murder) with great bodily injury. Defendant was sentenced to 10 years state prison. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Orland Police Officer Flores.

People vs. Gallegos, David—Defendant was convicted of two felony violations of Penal Code section 273.5(a) (Spousal Abuse), a felony violation of Penal Code section 422 (Criminal Threats), a felony violation of Penal code section 29800(a)(1)(Possession of a fi***rm by A Felon or Addict), a felony violation of Penal Code section 30305(Felon with Ammo), and a misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (Driving Under the Influence). Defendant was sentenced to 7 years state prison for the felony violations and 180 days to be served concurrently for the misdemeanor violation. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Glenn County Sheriff’s Deputy Peterson.

People vs. Sickels, Billy—Defendant was convicted of two felony violations of penal code section 243.4(a) (S*xual Battery By Restraint). Defendant was sentenced to 5 years state prison. He will be a registered s*x offender for life per 290. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Glenn County Sheriff’s Detective Lopeteguy.

People vs. Hicks, Richard—Defendant was convicted of a Felony violation of Penal Code section 452(c)(Reckless Causing Fire to Structure or Forest Land). Defendant was sentenced to 16 months State Prison. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Orland Police Officer Martindale.

People vs. Aguilar, Jesus—Defendant admitted to a misdemeanor violation of penal Code 647(a) (lewd conduct with a minor). Defendant was sentenced to I year informal probation and 90 days county jail. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Orland Police Officer Pinedo.

People vs Smith, Logan – Defendant was convicted of two violations of PRCS and a violation of probation. Defendant was sentenced to 180 days County Jail for each case for 360 days total and PRCS was reinstated. This case was prosecuted by ADA Coffey with assistance from Glenn County Probation Officer’s Pfyl.

People vs. Bippus, Gordon—Defendant was convicted of a Felony violation of Vehicle Code section 23153(a) (Driving Under the Influence Causing Death or Injury), Defendant was sentenced to 180 days county jail. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from California Highway Patrol Officer Ramirez.

People vs. Brown, Zachary—Defendant was convicted of two violations of post release community supervision. Defendant was sentenced to 180 days county jail for each violation to be served consecutively and reinstated on PRCS. The case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Glenn County Probation Officer Pfyl.

People vs Cooper, Ashton – Defendant was convicted of misdemeanor violations of Penal Code 484(a)/490.2(a) (Petty Theft)) and Penal Code section 1320 (failure to appear in Court). Defendant was sentenced to 120 days county jail and 1year court probation. This case was prosecuted by ADA Coffey with assistance from GCSO Deputies Peterson, Partch and Goodwin.

People vs. Mungia, Jose—Defendant was convicted of a violation of probation. Defendant was sentenced to 93 days County Jail. The case was prosecuted by ADA Coffey with assistance from Glenn County Probation Officer Gray.

People vs. Alcaraz, Laura—Defendant was convicted of a Felony violation of Penal Code section 459 (2nd Degree Burglary). Defendant was sentenced to 90 days county jail. This case was prosecuted by ADA Coffey with assistance from Glenn County Sheriff’s Deputy Rasmussen.

Come out and join us for an evening of fun, food, and games at the Orland Library Park as we celebrate National Night Ou...
08/05/2026

Come out and join us for an evening of fun, food, and games at the Orland Library Park as we celebrate National Night Out!
Bring your family, meet your neighbors, enjoy great food, and take part in activities for all ages. It's a wonderful opportunity to connect with the community and celebrate together.
The event will be 6pm to 9pm today.

We can't wait to see you there!

08/03/2026

AS HEARD IN COURT
July 2026

People vs. Halvorson, Mariah—Defendant was convicted of a felony violation of Penal Code section 273a(a) (Child abuse likely to produce great bodily harm/death), and a violation of probation. Defendant was sentenced to 4 years state prison. This case was prosecuted by ADA Coffey with assistance from Glenn County Sheriff’s Deputy Rasmussen and Glenn County Probation Officer Gray.

People vs. McCardle, William—Defendant was convicted of a felony violation of Penal Code section 496(a) (Receive Stolen Property). Defendant was sentenced to 2 years 8 months State Prison. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Glenn County Sheriff’s Deputies Ramirez and Cordova.

People vs Green, Stephen – Defendant was convicted of a felony violation of Health and Safety code 11395(b)(1) (Possession of Drugs). Defendant was sentenced to 2 years county jail. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Orland Police Officer Martindale.

People vs. Yakimov, Andrey—Defendant was convicted of a felony violations of Penal Code section 459(Second Degree Burglary). Defendant was sentenced to 1 year State Prison consecutive to other cases. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Orland Police Officer Martindale.

People vs Collins, Rickey, Jr – Defendant was convicted of a violation of Penal Code 273.6(a) (Violation of a Protective Order). Defendant was sentenced to 240 days County Jail. Case was prosecuted by ADA Coffey with assistance from Glenn County Sheriff’s Deputy Tuma.

People vs. Callahan, Angelica—Defendant was convicted of a Felony violation of Vehicle Code section 23153(a) (Driving Under the Influence Causing Injury), Defendant was sentenced to 240 days county jail. This case was prosecuted by ADA Coffey with assistance from California Highway Patrol Officer Servin.

People vs. Hansen, James—Defendant was convicted of a violation of probation. Defendant was sentenced to 180 days County Jail. The case was prosecuted by ADA Coffey with assistance from Glenn County Probation Officer Gray and Glenn County Sheriff’s Deputy Rasmussen.

People vs. Wallis, Ray—Defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 242/243(e)(1)(Spousal Abuse). Defendant violated probation and was sentenced to 180 days county jail with probation being terminated. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Orland Police Officers Pinedo and Flores.

People vs Esparza, Jesus – Defendant was convicted of a violation of PRCS. Defendant was sentenced to 180 days County Jail. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Glenn County Probation Officer Pfyl.

People vs Ramirez,Juan—Defendant was sentenced to 4 years probation for guilty pleas to 273a(a) Penal Code (child abuse) and 647(a) Penal Code (annoy/molest a minor). This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Glenn County Sheriff’s Deputy Rassmussen.

People vs. Dock, Riley —Defendant was convicted of PRCS (Parole Supervision violation). Defendant was sentenced to 135 days count jail. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart.

People vs. Gammon, David—Defendant was convicted of a felony violation of vehicle Code 4463(a) (Alters/Forges Registration/Permit ), a misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code section 14601.1(a) (Driving with a suspended/revoked license) and a second misdemeanor violation of Health & Safety code 11377 (Possession of Controlled Substance). Defendant was sentenced to 120 days county jail. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Orland Police Officer Martindale.

People vs. Springer, Jeffrey—Defendant was convicted of a Felony violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2(a) (Evading) and a misdemeanor violation of Health & Safety code 11377(Possession of Controlled Substance). Defendant was sentenced to 120 days county jail. This case was prosecuted by ADA Coffey with assistance from Orland Police Officer Sutton.

People vs Raygoza, Austin – Defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code 273.6(a) (Violation of a Protective Order) and two violations of probation. Defendant had one prior violation of probation Defendant was sentenced to 90 days County Jail and placed on formal probation for a period of 3 years. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Glenn County DA Chief Investigator Dicharry and Glenn County Probation Officer Chavero.

Jacob Karl Weiss was sentenced today to a term of 36 years in state prison with a lifetime s*x registration (290) requir...
07/15/2026

Jacob Karl Weiss was sentenced today to a term of 36 years in state prison with a lifetime s*x registration (290) requirement. The sentence was composed of the midterm (6 years), consecutive, for six of the s*xual assaults. Two of the s*xual assaults were determined to be committed on the same occasion without reflection. These two counts received the midterm (6 years); but were concurrent to the other terms. Because the offenses were considered violent, the Defendant will serve 85% of the sentence.
Jacob Karl Weiss had been found found guilty of all charges with aggravating factors.

On October 30, 2025, after a three day jury trial, the Defendant was found guilty of one felony count of Penal Code 289(a) (S*xual Pe*******on by Force), three felony counts of Penal Code 286(c)(2)(A) (So**my by Force) and four felony counts of 261(a)(2) (R**e by Force). The Defendant is facing a maximum sentence of 64 years in state prison with a lifetime s*x offender registration. The case was prosecuted by DA Dwayne R. Stewart with assistance from Glenn County Sheriff’s Deputy Chavez and Victim Witness Advocate D. Perez-Palomares.

06/05/2026

On June 5th, 2026 inmate Steve Burdell Currier was denied parole. He will serve an additional 3 years before parole will be considered again. Assistant District Attorney Coffey attended the hearing and argued against parole on behalf of the People of Glenn County.

Inmate Currier, now 68 years old, was previously convicted of murder and sentenced to 31 years to life. On November 6, 1984, 26 year old Steve Currier was harassing and threatening to kill a patron (S.M.) at the crossroads bar in Willows California. The inmate told S.M. he “would take care of him” and revealed a knife, threatening to “cut his heart out” and saying that it was nothing for him to take a life. Another patron, Todd Stewart, stood up and began to put on his coat as Mr. Stewart remarked that Inmate Currier was not really going to stab anyone, Inmate Currier responded by stabbing Mr. Stewart, who succumbed to his wounds later that night. Inmate Currier meanwhile threatened the bartender, who locked herself in the bar’s office telling her, “If you snitch on me I’ll cut your heart all the way out.” The inmate stated to a registered Nurse who was drawing his blood that night, “I finally got my wish, I got someone.” Inmate Currier had previously been convicted in 1978 of assault with a deadly weapon on an Officer, for shooting (non-fatally) a Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy. Previous to this life crime, Inmate Currier had spent most of his adult life incarcerated in the prison system.

05/29/2026

AS HEARD IN COURT
May 31, 2026

People vs Dees, Savannah—Defendant was sentenced to the midterm of 6 years state prison for the grossly negligent killing of her 5 year old son in a driving under the influence case. Defendant had pled guilty to Penal Code 191.5(a) (vehicular homicide with gross negligence). The Defendant’s blood alcohol level was .16. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from California Highway Patrol Officers Blanken and Walsh.

People vs. Gallegos, David—Defendant was convicted of two felony violations of Penal Code section 273.5(a) (Spousal Abuse). Defendant was sentenced to 3 years state prison. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Glenn County Sheriff’s Deputies Tuma and Chavez.

People vs. Zarate, Jose—Defendant was convicted of a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2(a) (Evading). Defendant was sentenced to 248 days county jail. This case was prosecuted by ADA Coffey with assistance from Glenn County Sheriff’s Deputy Trebler.

People vs. Franklin, Conner—Defendant was convicted of a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2(a) (Evading). Defendant was sentenced to 240 days county jail. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Orland Police Officer Martindale.

People vs. Velazquez, Karina—Defendant was convicted of a Felony violation of Vehicle Code section 23153(a) (Driving Under the Influence Causing Death or Injury), Defendant was sentenced to 180 days county jail. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from California Highway Patrol Officer Molina.

People vs. Rodriguez, Anthony —Defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2 (reckless evading.) Defendant was sentenced to no probation & 180 days on electronic home monitoring. This case was prosecuted by ADA Coffey with assistance from California Highway Patrol Officer Rice.

People vs. Drage, Derrick—Defendant was convicted of a felony violations of Penal Code section 459(2nd Degree Burglary). Defendant was sentenced to 180 days county jail. This case was prosecuted by ADA Coffey with assistance from Glenn County Sheriff’s Deputy Trebler.

People vs. Gillis, Edwin—Defendant was convicted of a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 10851(a) (Vehicle Theft). Defendant was sentenced to 120 days county jail. This case was prosecuted by ADA Coffey with assistance from California Highway Patrol Officer Henriques.

People vs. Blair, James—Defendant was convicted of a felony violation of Penal Code section 30305(Felon with Ammo) and a violation of probation. Defendant was sentenced to 90 days county jail for the felony and 30 days county jail for the violation of probation. This case was prosecuted by ADA Coffey with assistance from Glenn County Probation Officer Chavero.

People vs. Lopez-Hernandez, Florindo —Defendant was convicted of misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (driving under the influence of alcohol) and Health and Safety Code Section 11377 (possession of m**h). Defendant was sentenced to no probation & 60 days on electronic home monitoring. This case was prosecuted by ADA Coffey with assistance from Orland Police Officer Sanchez

04/29/2026

Too Fast, Too Furious: Attorney General Bonta, California District Attorneys Issue Consumer Alert on E-Bike Safety, Legal Requirements
Contact: (916) 210-6000, [email protected]
If it’s too fast, it’s not an e-bike — you might be riding illegally

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, together with Marin County District Attorney Lori Frugoli, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, and San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe today issued a consumer alert to remind manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and parents that California has important safety laws regarding the sale and use of electric bicycles, also known as e-bikes. Two-wheeled vehicles that go over 28 miles per hour with pedal assistance or 20 miles per hour with throttle assistance are not e-bikes — under California law, they are mopeds or motorcycles and require additional licensing and age requirements to operate and sell. Importantly, modifying an e-bike to exceed the speed or power limits mentioned above is dangerous, may transform the e-bike into a motorcycle or moped under California law, and may be a crime if riders do not have appropriate licenses.

“Sometimes, what looks like an e-bike or is marketed as an e-bike is not a bike at all. We are seeing a surge of safety incidents on our sidewalks, parks, and streets. Bike riders and parents: If your or your teen's electric two-wheeled vehicle goes too fast, it might be a motorcycle or a moped — not an e-bike,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “To ride a motorcycle or moped, you need to have the appropriate driver’s license and comply with rules of the road. With the popularity of e-bikes booming, I highly encourage manufacturers, retailers, and especially parents to review the consumer alert today and ensure they and their kids are complying with California law.”

“I’m proud of the actions Marin’s community leaders, schools, and cities have already taken to improve e-bike safety,” said Marin County District Attorney Lori Frugoli. “But to keep everyone safe while enjoying our shared streets, trails, and open spaces, we must make sure that products marketed and sold as e-bikes are truly legitimate e-bikes — not electric motorcycles.”

“Electric bicycles can be an economical, enjoyable, and convenient way to get around,” said San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins. “Unfortunately, many retailers are marketing and selling two-wheeled vehicles as ‘e-bikes’ when they do not qualify as electric bicycles in California. Consumers, and especially parents of teenage children, should carefully check that the product they want to purchase legally qualifies as an electric bicycle. If not, it may actually be a motorcycle (or motorcycle equivalent), which requires a license, registration and insurance. This is a matter of both consumer protection and public safety.”

“Legally operated e-bikes can be a fun and environmentally friendly transportation option," said San Mateo District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. “However, San Mateo County has seen many illegal motorcycles and mopeds which are marketed and sold as e-bikes. The safety of our communities requires manufacturers, sellers, and buyers, including parents, to know and comply with California’s e-bike laws.”

All About E-Bikes:

Bicycles, including e-bikes, are part of California’s commitment to alternative forms of transportation that reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

E-bikes are bicycles equipped with an electric motor that provide power assistance while pedaling, with some models featuring a throttle which can allow riders to power their e-bike without pedaling. They make cycling faster, easier, and more accessible by reducing effort. E-bikes can expand access to California’s roads, open spaces, and trails, offer transportation options to riders with reduced mobility, and are less expensive to purchase and maintain than cars.

However, because of their higher speeds, e-bikes can pose a dangerous risk, especially if they are modified to go faster, transforming them into motorcycles or mopeds. A study by the University of California, San Francisco found that rider injuries from e-bikes nearly doubled each year from 2017 to 2022, and a University of California, San Diego study showed injuries in San Diego among e-bike riders under 18 soared by 300% from 2019 to 2023.

E-bikes fall into three classifications:

Class 1, also known as low-speed pedal-assisted e-bikes, provide assistance only while being pedaled and only at speeds under 20 miles an hour.
Class 2, also known as low-speed throttle-assisted e-bikes, provide power assistance up to 20 mph but have a throttle that allows the rider to engage the motor without pedaling.
Class 3, also known as speed pedal-assisted electric bicycles, are like Class 1 bicycles except that the motor assistance must stop when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour.
All e-bikes sold in California must have a permanent label that discloses the bike’s classification number, identifies the e-bike’s top assisted speed and the wattage of its motor.

While people of all ages may ride Class 1 or Class 2 e-bikes, Class 3 e-bikes may only be ridden by people who are 16 years old or older and who are wearing helmets. Cities, counties, and other local governments including schools and parks districts may have additional rules and ordinances regarding where and how e-bikes can be ridden.

NOT all two-wheeled vehicles with electric motors are considered e-bikes under California law. If a two-wheeled vehicle with an electric motor has any of the features mentioned below, it may require registration with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and proper licensing:

Provides pedal assistance beyond 28 miles per hour;
Provides throttle assistance beyond 20 miles per hour;
Has a motor with more than 750 watts of power; or
Does not have operable pedals.
For Retailers:

Sellers may only advertise or sell vehicles as “e-bikes” if they fall within one of the three classes listed above. Sellers must also not advertise or sell as “e-bikes” vehicles that are intended to be modified to exceed applicable limits. Misrepresenting the characteristics of a bicycle or other vehicle, converting one for illegal use, or selling one without the required DMV occupational licenses is a crime. The DMV has specific requirements for dealer and salesperson licensing.

For Parents:

Attorney General Bonta and the District Attorneys encourage all parents to carefully ensure any bicycle or e-bike that they are purchasing for their children is safe and legal for their children to ride. Children under 16 may only ride Class 1 or Class 2 e-bikes. Class 3 e-bikes may only be ridden by people who are 16 years old or older and who are wearing helmets.

If a vehicle does not qualify as an e-bike, because it lacks pedals or exceeds the power or speed thresholds mentioned above, it may be considered a motorcycle or moped under California law. In that event, the owner or operator must observe all requirements that pertain to those vehicles, including possession of an M1 or M2 operator’s license, adequate insurance, and registration with the DMV.

Parents should also be aware that some school districts have rules regarding bicycles, including rules that restrict unsafe and overpowered bicycles from campus grounds. Modifying an e-bike to exceed the speed or power limits mentioned above is dangerous, may transform the e-bike into a motorcycle or moped under California law, and may be a crime if riders lack the appropriate DMV licenses (available only to people 16 years old or older).

Address

125 S Murdock Avenue
Willows, CA
95988

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 5pm
Tuesday 8am - 5pm
Wednesday 8am - 5pm
Thursday 8am - 5pm
Friday 8am - 5pm

Telephone

(530) 934-6525

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Glenn County District Attorney's Office posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share