Defendant in threats case pleads not guilty

Albert Varelas, 34, is accused of making threats against Santa Maria police and their families

By NEIL HARTSTEIN NEWS-PRESS STAFF WRITER

A Santa Maria man pleaded not guilty Tuesday for the second time to felony charges that he made criminal threats against the lives of Santa Maria police officers and their families and stalked them.

Albert Varelas, 34, already pleaded not guilty after his initial arraignment following his arrest on Feb. 18. Since then, a preliminary hearing judge found that prosecutors presented enough evidence against him that the case should proceed to trial.

Defendants are given a second chance to enter a plea after their preliminary hearing.

“Mr. Varelas was arraigned on the Information (called a complaint before a preliminary hearing) … and in California, a defendant has a right to a trial within 60 days of the arraignment on an Information unless the defendant waives time,” Senior Deputy District Attorney Scott E. Donahue said.

“Mr. Varelas did not waive time, and consequently a trial will need to commence no longer than 60 days from today, and the judge wants to ensure we have enough time to set a trial date if needed.”

Mr. Varelas is due back in court on April 6 to set a trial date. That might not be necessary — at least not yet — because the defendant is challenging the preliminary hearing judge’s ruling that he should stand trial. He filed a motion for a different judge than the one who presided at his preliminary hearing to review the hearing transcripts “and make a determination whether there was sufficient evidence presented …” Prosecutor Donahue said. A hearing on that motion was set for April 19.

“Once the judge hears that motion and if that judge also feels enough evidence (was) presented at the preliminary examination, then the case would proceed to trial if the parties do not reach an agreement,” the prosecutor said. On the other hand, the reviewing judge could grant the defense motion as to some or all of the charges.

“We would then proceed with prosecution on the remaining charges, if any, or we could dismiss the entire case and refile it,” according to Supervising Deputy District Attorney Lara Clinton.

“Either side could request the Court of Appeal review the decision on the … motion by filing a writ of mandate,” she said.

The complaint filed against Mr. Varelas alleges that between Jan. 24 and Feb. 17, he threatened to commit a crime against police officers “which would result in