Filed 8/12/15 P. v. Carter CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE , Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DEAN ANTH ONY CARTER ,

Defendant and Appellant. B 257959
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No s

. LA071783 & LA074506 )

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Martin L.
Herscovitz , Judge. Affirmed.

William L. Heyman , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant

.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler , Chief Assistant Attorney
Ge neral, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Jessica C.
Owen , De puty Attorneys General
, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * *2

Defendant and appellant Dean Anthony Carter appeals from the July 2, 2014 order of the court terminating his probation in case N o s . LA071783 and LA074506 and imposing an aggregate state prison sentence of three years eight months. Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence supporting the court’s determination he violated the terms of his probation.
We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
D efendant i s required to regi ster as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code
section 290 because of a 1994 conviction

. In August 2012, in case N o. LA071783, defendant was charged, by felony complaint, with three counts of violating the sex offender registration statutes: two counts of failure to register (§ 290, subd. (b); counts 1
& 3), and one count of failure to update annual registration (§ 290.012, subd. (a);

count 2). It was also specially alleged defendant had suffered two prior prison term convictions within the meaning of sec tion 667.5, subdivision (b), and one prior felony conviction that qualified as a strike under the “ Three Strikes ” law (§§ 667, subds. ( b)

- (i), 1170.12, subds. (a)

- (d) ).
D efendant entered into a plea agreement in which he pled no contest to count 1

. Th e court found a factual basis for the plea and accepted defendant’s plea and waivers. On October 4, 2012, t he court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years of formal probation. One of the terms of defendant’s probation was to obey all laws, orders of the court and rules and regulations of the probation department

. Pursuant to the terms of the plea, the court dismissed counts 2 and 3. On March 13, 2013, defendant’s probation in case N o. LA071783 was revoked,
defendant sti pulated in open court to a violation, and the court reinstated probation on the
same terms and conditions.3

On April 2, 2013, Regina Vijandre 1 called 911. Los Angeles Police Department officer Michael Wyatte responded to the dispatch call and spoke with Ms. Vijandre. He said she seemed “upset” and told him she had been defen dant’s girlfriend, they had

two children together, and she had a restraining order against him from a prior incident. She also said he had shown up that day, banged repeatedly on th e door when she would
not let him in , threatened to vandalize her car and was otherwise frightening her. As a result of the April 2 incident, defendant was charged by information , in case
N o. LA074506, with one count of violating a court order ( contempt of court ) in violation
of Penal Code section 166 , subdivision (c)(4). It was alleged defendant had previously suffered a conviction for violation of a domestic violence protective order within the last seven years involving an act of violence or credible threat of violence. It was also specially alleged defendant had suffered prior prison term convictions within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b), and a prior felony conviction that qualified as a strike under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, sub ds. (b)

- (i), 1170.12, subds. (a)

- (d) ). As a result of the new charges, defendant’s probation was again revoked in case
N o. LA071783. Defendant pled not guilty and denied the special allegations in case
N o. LA074506

. Defendant moved to dismiss his pr ior strike conviction from 1994 pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. Th e court granted
the motion due to “ the age of the case.” On August 29, 2013, a plea agreement was reached in case N o. LA074506. Defendant agreed to withdraw his not guilty plea and plead no contest to violating the domestic violence protective order. The court found a factual basis for the plea and accepted defendant’s plea and waivers. The court imposed the high term of three years but suspended ex ecution of sentence and placed defendant on three years of formal

1 According to the partie s, and as reflected in the record, Ms. Vijandre also went by the name of Regina Ropati and Regina Carter. We will refer to the victim as Ms. Vijandre.4

probation. As before, one of the conditions of defendant’s probation was that he obey all orders of the court, and specifically that he obey the domestic violence protective order prohibiti ng any contact with Ms. Vijandre. The court underscored its concerns about the stay away order, explaining that defendant was to have no communication or contact with Ms. Vijandre, and was to stay at least 100 yards away from her residence and place of employ ment. After defendant accepted the terms and conditions of probation on the record, the court asked defendant “what’s going to happen if you get close to [Ms. Vijandre] again?” Defendant replied: “Three years state prison.” The probation revo cation hearing trailing in case N o. LA071783 was resolved at the same time with another order reinstating defendant’s probation in that case , for the third time, on the same terms and conditions.
O n February 15, 2014, defendant was again arrested. In d irect violation of the protective order and the terms of his probation, defendant showed up at the home of Ms.Vijandre and assaulted her. Defendant took Ms. Vijandre’s cell phone away so she could not call the police, and also intentionally broke her lapt op. Defendant slapped
Ms. Vijandre several times across the face. Ms. Vijandre eventually got her phone back and called the police. In light of the new charges, probation was revoked in both c ase N o. LA074506
and c ase N o. LA071783. On July 2, 2014, the p robation revocati on hearing was held. Detective Kimberly Rieman of the Los Angeles Police Department testified. She explained she was assigned to the domestic violence unit and was in charge of the case arising from the February 15, 2014 incident at Ms. Vijandre’s home. As part of her investigation, she requested copies of the recorded jail calls made by defendant from the date of his arrest on February 15, 2014
, through May 9 or May 10, 2014. Detective Rieman stated she had spoken with the victim multiple times, including in person, and recognized Ms. Vijandre’s voice on the phone calls defendant made from jail. She also said she recognized defendant’s voice on the calls, conceding on cross

- examination
however that she is not an expert in voice re cognition. The prosecution also offered the5

protective orders regarding Ms. Vijandre, of which the court took judicial notice, and audiotapes of the jail phone calls, plus over 40 pages of transcriptions from those calls. Defendant did not testify or offer evidence at the hearing. In argument, defendant did not deny the phone conversations were between him and the victim, but rather, that
the court should take into consideration that the conversations between him and
Ms. Vijandre were like “normal con versations” between people in a relationship, “not threatening conversations.” The court found defendant violated the terms of his probation by calling
Ms. Vijandre in violation of the court orders. The court terminated probation in both c ase N o. LA07 4506 and c ase N o. LA071783. The court executed the suspended three

- year prison term in c ase N o. LA074506, and imposed a consecutive eight

- month term (one

third the mid term) in case N o. LA071783. The court imposed various fines and fees, and
awarded defen dant custody total credits in both cases, of 574 days. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation
in both case s because there is insufficient evidence defendant violated the te rms of his probation. We are not persuaded. “Pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.2, subdivision (a) . . . a court is authorized to revoke probation ‘if the interests of justice so require and the court, in its judgment,
has reason to believe . . . that t he person has violated any of the conditions of his or her probation . . . .’ ” ( People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 440.) T he statutory language ha s long been construed to vest a trial court with “ broad discretion in determining whether a prob atio ner has violated probation.” ( Id . at p. 443 , italics added .) While a trial court may not act capriciously in revoking probation, the Supreme Court has explained that only in an “ extreme case should an appellate court interfere with the
discretion of the trial court in the matter of denying or revoking probation. ” ( People v. Lippner (1933) 219 Cal. 395, 400

. )6

The court found defendant violated the term s of his probation by calling
Ms. Vijandre from jail , following his February 15, 2014 arrest for once a gain violating the domestic violence protective order by showing up at her home and assaulting her.
Detective Rieman testified she obtained records from the jail regarding defendant’s phone calls from the date of his arrest through mid

- May 2014 . T he reco rds demonstrate
defendant made several calls to Ms. Vijandre in violation of the terms of his probation.
Detective Rieman recognized both of their voices, and defendant did not deny at the hearing that the calls were between himself and the victim. The r ecord contains solid evidence of defendant’s conduct in contacting Ms. Vijandre multiple times in direct violation of the court’s orders and the terms of his probation. Defendant has not shown any abuse of discretion by the court in terminating his probat ion and imposing sentence.
DISPOSITION
The July 2, 2014 order of the court terminating probation in case N o. LA071783
and case N o. LA074506 is affirmed.

GRIMES, J.

WE CONCUR:

RUBIN, Acting P. J.

FLIER, J.