Filed 8/27/20 P. v. Christie CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JEFFREY CHRISTIE,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D076272

 (Super. Ct. No. SCD274207)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Melinda J. Lasater, Judge. Affirmed.

Heather L. Beugen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin 

Urbanski and Mary Katherine Strickland, Deputy Attorneys General, for 

Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

BACKGROUND

On November 10, 1994, defendant was convicted of lewd or lascivious 

acts with a child aged 14 or 15, in violation of Penal Code1 section 288, 

subdivision (c), and orally copulating a child under the age of 16 in violation 

of section 288, subdivision (b)(2). As a result, he was ordered to register as a 

sex offender for life in California. He was required to register on his 

birthday, October 16, 2017. He did not do so. Officers telephoned defendant 

on October 19, 2017, to remind him to register. They learned he was no 

longer living at the address they had for him. He had not notified law 

enforcement of the change in his residence. Defendant was arrested on 

November 9, 2017, for failing to register. 

On January 3, 2018, defendant entered a plea of guilty to two counts of 

failing to register as a sex offender. (§ 290.018 subd. (b)). He also admitted 

that he had two strike priors. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, & 668.)

The court at sentencing on September 7, 2018, dismissed defendant’s 

two strike priors pursuant to section 1385. Defendant was placed on formal 

probation for 18 months. One of his conditions of probation was a 

requirement to “report to the [probation officer] as directed.”

Following a contested hearing on April 30, 2019, the trial court revoked 

defendant’s probation after finding he failed to report to probation as 

directed. Defendant was sentenced to two years in state prison.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

ANALYSIS

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that there was insufficient 

evidence to revoke his probation. We disagree.

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

Proof of a violation of probation is sufficient if it is demonstrated by a 

preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 

446 (Rodriguez).) Reviewing courts must give deference to the trial court and 

resolve all inferences in favor of the judgment. (People v. Kurey (2001) 88 

Cal.App.4th 840, 848–849.) We review the trial court’s findings for an abuse 

of discretion. (Rodriguez, at p. 443.)

On April 30, 2019, the trial court reviewed its file and determined 

defendant’s probation had been revoked and reinstated on November 29, 

2018, for failing to report to probation, as required. On that day the trial 

court ordered defendant to report to the Hall of Justice within 72 hours of his 

release from custody.

On December 4, 2018, defendant reported to the Hall of Justice and 

met with San Diego County Probation Officer Eduardo Ortuno. Officer 

Ortuno at that time gave defendant a letter explaining his obligation to 

report to the probation office. The trial court received the letter as Exhibit 1. 

The letter required defendant to call the probation office at a specific 

telephone number within the following 14 days to find out the name of his 

probation officer. Upon receiving this information, he was required to 

immediately contact that officer. The letter which he signed, and which 

incorporated these requirements, further noted that if he did not comply, a 

warrant would be issued for his arrest. There was no evidence before the 

trial court establishing defendant actually complied with the requirements.

Although defendant solicited from Officer Ortuna that other probation 

officers are required to, but might not, enter their contact notes, Officer 

Ortuna testified that he puts in notes “every time.” He had no notes related 

to any attempt by defendant to contact him, or anyone else.
4

Based on the record before us, we conclude the trial court’s revocation 

of defendant’s probation is supported by substantial evidence that defendant

willfully violated the terms of probation. The evidence demonstrating such a 

showing was well beyond the preponderance of the evidence standard. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

BENKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

AARON, J.