Glenn County District Attorney's Office

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

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).

04/24/2026
04/17/2026

AS HEARD IN COURT
April 17, 2026

People vs Solorzano, Gerardo – Defendant was convicted of a felony violation of Penal Code 29800(a)(1) (Possession of Firearm by Felon or Addict) with special allegation PC 667(c)-6673(e)(1)-1170.12(c)(1) (strike prior). Defendant was sentenced to 2 years and 8 months in State Prison. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Glenn County Sheriff Deputy Chavez.

People vs Clay, Gavin – Defendant was convicted of a felony violation of Penal Code 1320(b) (Failure to Appear; Felon on OR Release) and a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code 476 (Make, Pass Etc Fictitious Check, Bill, or Note). Defendant was sentenced to 16 months County Jail for the felony violation and 69 days County Jail for the misdemeanor violation. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Glenn County Sheriff Deputy Ayres

People vs. Luna, John—Defendant was convicted of a violation of probation. Defendant was sentenced to 16 months state prison to be served in county jail per 1170(h). The case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from Glenn County Probation Officer Gray and Glenn County Sheriff’s Deputy Chavez.

People vs Billingsley, Susan – Defendant was convicted of a violation of probation. This was defendant’s fifth violation. Defendant’s probation was terminated and was resentenced for the felony violation Vehicle Code 23152(b)/23550(a) (Driving w/ 0.08% ). Defendant was sentenced to 16 months County Jail. This case was prosecuted by DDA Lara with assistance from Glenn County Sheriff Deputy Vargas and Glenn County Probation Officer Berglund.

People vs Squire, Curtis – Defendant was convicted of a felony violation of Penal Code 311.11(a)(1) (Possession or Control of Child Po*******hy). Defendant was sentenced to 120 days County Jail and 2 years formal probation. Defendant must register as a 290 s*x offender for life. This case was prosecuted by DA Stewart with assistance from CHP Officers Eckerfield and Rojo.

People vs. Rodriguez, Emilio—Defendant was convicted of a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 23152(b)/23540(a)(Driving Under the Influence), and a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2(a) (Evading). Defendant was sentenced to 120 days county jail. This case was prosecuted by ADA Coffey with assistance from California Highway Patrol Officer Servin.

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.

Share