Filed 4/7/15 P. v. Hall CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERT VICTOR HALL,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B256624

(Super. Ct. No. 1463429)

(Santa Barbara County)

Robert Victor Hall appeals an order granting formal probation with terms 

and conditions following his nolo contendere plea to felony vandalism. (Pen. Code, 

§ 594, subd. (b)(1).)1 We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 14, 2013, a felony complaint charged Hall with vandalizing the

windows in his former girlfriend's apartment and vehicle. On August 26, 2013, the trial 

court held a preliminary examination during which two Lompoc police officers and Hall 

testified. 

Evidence at the preliminary examination established that Lydia Ybarra and 

Hall were formerly in a romantic relationship and had a child together. Hall "had 

problems accepting that they were no longer a couple." He visited Ybarra in the late 

evening of April 12, 2013, and demanded entry into her apartment. When Ybarra 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

refused, Hall broke several apartment windows. Frightened, Ybarra telephoned for police 

assistance. 

Neighbors saw Hall break Ybarra's apartment windows with a hammer and 

they threatened to call the police. Hall then broke the windshield and a side window in 

Ybarra's vehicle before leaving the apartment complex.

On April 19, 2013, Lompoc Police Detective Mark Powell interviewed Hall

who admitted breaking Ybarra's windows. Hall stated that he "had anger issues" and 

would seek "anger counseling." 

Hall testified that Ybarra took his personal belongings and would not return 

them. He was frustrated, "fed up," and "took [his] frustration out on her car." Hall also 

stated that he had been drinking that evening and the "'stupid' light bulb in [his] head 

went off." He added that he paid restitution for the damaged windows and obtained

counseling for his anger problems. 

Following receipt of evidence, the trial court declined to reduce the felony 

vandalism charge to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b). The court 

then decided the evidence was sufficient to hold Hall to answer for felony vandalism. 

On November 13, 2013, Hall pleaded nolo contendere to felony vandalism. 

In his handwriting, Hall stated that the trial court could sentence him as a felon or reduce 

his sentence to a misdemeanor according "to what is just and appropriate." Prior to 

accepting Hall's plea, the trial judge stated his "intention to reduce this matter to a 

misdemeanor at the sentencing hearing if things line up the way I think they are going to 

line up. That is to say community support, the victim comes in and says she . . . doesn't 

mind it getting reduced from a felony. But most importantly that we understand each 

other, Mr. Hall. I'm not going to tolerate any nonsense like this in the future from you, 

and I'm not going to tolerate any alcohol from you while on probation . . . ." 

On December 18, 2013, the trial court held a sentencing hearing during 

which Hall's character witnesses and Ybarra testified favorably to Hall. Ybarra said she 

was no longer concerned about her safety. Hall had paid full restitution. The trial judge

noted that Hall "basically pled open . . . to the felony with a possibility of reducing it to a 
3

misdemeanor." The judge noted that he had observed Hall's interaction with his attorney 

and stated that Hall "has trouble dealing with his emotions," "exactly the conduct that got 

him in trouble," and that Hall needs "very extensive counseling." The judge then 

commented on Hall's "trouble[some]" response to Ybarra's sentencing testimony. The 

judge decided that instead of reducing the matter to a misdemeanor at that time, he would 

retain the matter as a felony for sentencing: "When Mr. Hall finishes the 52-week 

batterers intervention program, I will reduce it to a misdemeanor. . . . That's his ticket to 

get this matter reduced." 

The trial court then continued the sentencing hearing several times. At the 

hearing of March 14, 2014, the trial judge stated that Hall appeared to have consumed 

alcohol prior to the hearing ("smelling of alcohol on [his] breath that's noticeable"). On 

April 21, 2014, Hall moved to withdraw his plea pursuant to section 1018, claiming that 

the victim's testimony and that of his character witnesses supported a reduction of the 

charge to a misdemeanor, as suggested earlier by the court. The court denied the motion, 

suspended imposition of judgment, and granted Hall three years formal probation with 

various terms and conditions, including attendance at a domestic violence counseling 

program.

Hall appeals and contends that the trial court breached the plea agreement 

by not reducing the offense to a misdemeanor. The court granted Hall a certificate of 

probable cause regarding appeal of the legality of his plea. (§ 1237.5.)

DISCUSSION

Hall argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not permitting him to 

withdraw his plea based upon an asserted breach of the plea agreement. (People v. 

Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1024 [all parties must abide by the terms of a plea 

agreement], disapproved on other grounds by People v. Villalobos (2012) 54 Cal.4th 177, 

183.) He points out that Ybarra testified favorably at sentencing and supported reduction 

of the offense to a misdemeanor. Hall contends that completion of a domestic violence 

counseling program is an additional requirement that breaches the plea agreement. 
4

It appears that Hall may have reasonably believed that at the time of 

sentence the judge would make his sentencing decision, but instead the judge added a 

new requirement and continued the sentencing hearing. This standing alone could well 

provide a basis for setting aside the plea. But the judge observed Hall's behavior at the 

sentencing hearing, his interaction with his attorney, and his reactions to Ybarra’s 

testimony. The trial judge remarked that Hall “has a temper.” Indeed, the nature of 

Hall's offenses flowed from that temper. Under these circumstances, the judge acted 

within his discretion to continue the sentencing hearing and add the condition that Hall 

attend anger management classes. Hall's behavior in court led the court to make a fair 

and reasoned decision to continue the sentencing hearing. Hall, in essence, sabotaged his 

chances of receiving the misdemeanor sentence he hoped for. The judge made no 

promise that the matter would be reduced to a misdemeanor.

Prior to accepting the plea, the trial court informed Hall that the reduction 

to a misdemeanor was only "a strong likelihood" if Hall "stay[ed] out of trouble" and did 

not use alcohol ("[A]ll bets are off [with alcohol consumption])." Hall's attorney stated 

that "[t]here are no promises, and Mr. Hall understands that completely." Hall's attorney 

also stated that he had explained possible sentencing outcomes to Hall, including a threeyear prison term for a felony conviction. The court did not promise to reduce the 

conviction to a felony without imposition of any conditions. (People v. Martin (2010) 51 

Cal.4th 75, 79 [defendant's sentence must be within negotiated terms of plea agreement 

as approved by trial court].) As stated in a different context, "'"[t]he umpire ain't ruled 

until he's ruled."'" (People v. Delgado (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 551, 555, quoting baseball 

great Yogi Berra.)

The trial court properly considered Hall's behavior in the courtroom -- his 

emotional state during Ybarra's testimony at sentencing and his consumption of alcohol 

prior to attending the continued sentencing hearing. Hall's behavior occurred despite the 

court's earlier warnings that Hall should refrain from all alcohol use. 

To the extent Hall challenges the probation condition of domestic violence 

counseling, it is a reasonable condition of his probation. (People v. Rodriguez (2013) 222 
5

Cal.App.4th 578, 585 [trial court has broad discretion to impose probation conditions that 

generally relate to defendant's criminal conduct or future criminality].) The trial court's 

decision to sentence Hall's offense as a felony is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary and it 

falls within the court's broad discretion. (People v. Sy (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 44, 66.)

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P.J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.
6

Rogelio R. Flores, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Yun K. Lee, 

Douglas L. Wilson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.