Filed 6/30/16 P. v. Casler CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

GREGORY CASLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

 H042864

 (Monterey County

 Super. Ct. No. SS111286A)

In 2012, defendant Gregory Casler was convicted by jury of inflicting corporal 

injury on a cohabitant, making a criminal threat, and battery (Pen. Code,1§§ 273.5, subd. 

(a); 422; and 243, subd. (d)). The jury also found true an allegation that defendant had 

personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). At sentencing, the court 

imposed a seven-year prison sentence, suspended execution of that sentence, and granted 

defendant four years probation. Defendant did not appeal that judgment.

In 2014, while on probation, defendant was charged in two new felony cases with 

additional acts of domestic violence, assault, assault with a deadly weapon, and violating 

a protective order (§§ 273.5; 245, subds. (a)(1), (4); and 166, subd. (c)(1)). Both times, 

the prosecution filed a petition charging defendant with violating his probation based on 

the new criminal charges and on other non-criminal acts. The court revoked probation. 

After defendant pleaded no contest to some of the charges in the new cases, the court

 

1

 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise stated.
2

found that he had violated his probation, lifted the suspension, and ordered that the 

previously imposed seven-year sentence be executed. Defendant challenges that order in 

this appeal.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel 

filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), which 

stated the case and the facts but raised no specific issues on appeal. We notified 

defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. The 

30 days have elapsed, and we have received no written argument from defendant. After 

reviewing the entire record, we will conclude there is no arguable issue on appeal and we 

will affirm the order lifting the suspension on the previously imposed prison sentence and 

ordering execution of that sentence. We will also direct the clerk of the court to correct 

clerical errors on the abstract of judgment and the minute order of the sentencing hearing.

FACTS

In December 2010, defendant and L. C. (Victim) met at a residential drug and 

alcohol treatment program. They were both in recovery. Defendant was addicted to 

prescription drugs. Victim abused alcohol.

Three months later, defendant moved in with Victim. Shortly thereafter, 

defendant’s 17-year-old daughter (Daughter) moved in with them. Defendant and Victim

lived together for about three months and then broke up. Thereafter, defendant

maintained his sobriety, but Victim relapsed and started abusing alcohol again. After the 

break up, defendant and Daughter moved out of Victim’s home, but because Daughter 

preferred living with Victim, she returned to live with her.

On June 11, 2011, defendant went to Victim’s house. Defendant was angry 

because Victim had broken her sobriety and was “sheltering” Daughter. He told Victim, 

“If you don’t let me take my daughter, I’m going to kill you.” Defendant then punched 
3

Victim in the face, causing her to fall and hit her head on an unknown object. When

Victim was on the floor, defendant kicked her multiple times and said, “You don’t 

deserve to live.”

Victim did not report the assault to the police, but she told her father about it. 

Two days after the assault, Victim’s father asked the police to do a welfare check on 

Victim. When police officers contacted Victim on June 13, 2011, they observed a golfball-sized contusion on the back of her head, dried blood in her hair, a gash on her nose, 

abrasions near her right eyebrow, lacerations near her right eye and on her right nostril,

and bruising and swelling of her right foot. At the hospital, Victim’s injuries were 

diagnosed as (1) contusions to the back of her head, face, left foot, and right shoulder;

(2) a non-displaced fractured of her jaw; and (3) a closed head injury. Victim also 

suffered post traumatic stress and required counseling. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant was charged with three felonies: (1) inflicting corporal injury on a 

cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a), count 1), with an enhancement allegation that defendant

personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)); (2) battery with serious 

bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d), count 2); and (3) making a criminal threat (§ 422, 

count 3). The case went to trial in May 2012. The jury found defendant guilty on all 

three counts. The jury also found true the allegation that defendant personally inflicted 

great bodily injury. 

Defendant filed a motion for new trial, in which he argued there was insufficient 

evidence to support the verdict on the criminal threats count. He contended that the

statement he had made––“You don’t deserve to live”––reflected his opinion of Victim 

and was not a threat. The court denied the new trial motion. 
4

At sentencing, the probation department reported that defendant’s criminal history 

included nine misdemeanor convictions between 1996 and 2007, the majority of which 

resulted in grants of probation. His prior offenses included damaging or tapping a 

telephone or cable television line (§ 591), violating a protective order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)), 

public intoxication (§ 647, subd. (f)), driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, 

subd. (b)), driving without a license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)), and reckless driving 

(Veh. Code, § 23103.5, subd. (a)). While this case was pending, defendant was arrested

in two separate incidents for: (1) misdemeanor theft, and (2) driving on a suspended 

license and using a false registration. 

The court imposed a seven-year prison sentence, which included: (1) a three-year

term for inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant; (2) a consecutive four-year term for 

the bodily injury enhancement; and (3) a concurrent two-year term for the criminal threat. 

The court stayed the punishment on the battery count under section 654. The court then 

found that there were “unusual circumstances” that warranted suspending execution of 

the sentence and granting probation. The court granted four years probation with terms 

and conditions that defendant agreed to, including one year in county jail, and no 

possession or use of alcohol or other controlled substances. The court also imposed fines 

and fees, including a restitution fine of $720 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), and reserved 

jurisdiction to order victim restitution. Defendant did not appeal the judgment. At a later 

hearing, the parties stipulated to victim restitution in the amount of $40,000.

On June 8, 2014, while on probation, defendant was once again arrested for 

domestic violence. The prosecution filed a new felony complaint (case No. SS141456A)

charging defendant with corporal injury on a cohabitant (§ 273.5), assault with force 

likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and assault with a deadly weapon 

(§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The prosecution also charged defendant with probation violations
5

(§ 1203.2) in this case based on the new criminal offenses and for possessing and 

consuming alcohol. 

In October 2014, defendant admitted that he had violated his probation by 

possessing alcohol. The district attorney stated that she was satisfied with the admission 

and would not prosecute the other alleged probation violations. 

In November 2014, the prosecution filed a third felony complaint 

(case No. SS142863A) charging defendant with: corporal injury on a cohabitant 

(§ 273.5), assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)),

assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and 36 misdemeanor counts of 

violating a protective order (§ 166, subd. (c)(1)). These new crimes occurred between 

June 8 and November 4, 2014. The prosecution also filed a second petition in this case, 

which charged defendant with probation violations based on his new offenses and alleged 

that defendant had violated his probation by using methamphetamine in 2014. 

In February 2015, defendant admitted a probation violation based on two counts of

violating a protective order. On July 20, 2015, the court held a hearing on the third 

felony case (case No. SS142863A) and on the second petition alleging probation 

violations. The parties entered into a plea agreement in the third felony case in which 

defendant pleaded no contest to 18 counts of violating a protective order. (The remaining 

counts in the third felony case were dismissed.) Based on defendant’s plea, the court 

found that defendant had violated his probation in this case. 

At sentencing on the probation violations on September 30, 2015, the court 

revoked and terminated defendant’s probation, lifted the suspension on the execution of 

his sentence, and sentenced defendant to the previously imposed seven-year prison term, 

with credit for 795 days in jail (692 actual days, plus 103 good time credits). The court 

also imposed the previously suspended $720 probation revocation restitution fine 
6

(§ 1202.44) and imposed and suspended a parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45) 

in the same amount. 

DISCUSSION

We have independently reviewed the entire record under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 

436. Based upon that review, we conclude there is no arguable issue on appeal. The trial 

court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked probation, lifted the suspension on 

execution of defendant’s sentence, and ordered execution of the previously imposed 

seven-year prison sentence after defendant admitted multiple probation violations. We 

will therefore affirm the court’s September 30, 2015 order. During our review of the 

record, however, we noted that the minute order of the September 30, 2015 sentencing 

hearing and the abstract of judgment do not reflect the court’s disposition with regard to 

count 2––battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)). The jury found defendant 

guilty of count 2 and the court stayed the punishment on that count pursuant to section

654. We will therefore direct the clerk of the court to amend the minute order and the 

abstract of judgment to reflect the disposition on count 2.

DISPOSITION

The court’s order revoking and terminating probation, and lifting the suspension 

on the execution of the previously imposed prison sentence, is affirmed. The clerk of the 

court is directed to prepare (1) an amended minute order for the September 30, 2015 

hearing and (2) an amended abstract of judgment. The amended minute order and 

abstract of judgment shall reflect the jury’s guilty verdict on count 2 and the court’s order 

staying the punishment on that count pursuant to section 654.
_______________________________

Márquez, J.

WE CONCUR:

_____________________________________

 Rushing, P. J.

______________________________________

 Premo, J.

No. H042864

People v. Casler