Filed 2/20/24 P. v. Kuklenski 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

MATTHEW DAVID 

KUKLENSKI,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B328540

(Super. Ct. Nos. 2020012549, 

2020027002)

(Ventura County)

Matthew David Kuklenski appeals from the order 

terminating probation and sentencing him to state prison. He 

contends the trial court abused its discretion in terminating

probation and imposing a prison sentence. We affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

In case number 2020012549, Kuklenksi fraudulently 

deposited four checks at a credit union. The Ventura County 

1 The factual summary is taken from the preliminary 

hearing transcript.
2

District Attorney charged Kuklenski with passing forged checks 

(Pen. Code,2 § 476) and identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)). 

In case number 2020027002, the police received a phone 

call from a man who said Kuklenski brandished a knife at him. 

The officers contacted Kuklenski and found a knife and 

methamphetamine on him. The District Attorney charged 

Kuklenski with assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1))

and possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 

§ 11377, subd. (a)). As to the assault charge, it was further 

alleged that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon 

within the meaning of section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8). 

In case number 2020027002, Kuklenski pleaded guilty to 

the assault charge and admitted the allegation (§§ 245, subd. 

(a)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). In case number 2020012549, 

Kuklenski pleaded guilty to identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)).

3 

The remaining counts in both cases were dismissed. The court 

suspended imposition of sentence in both cases and placed 

Kuklenski on probation with various terms and conditions. 

Shortly after his initial placement on probation in the 

assault case, Kuklenski was charged with violating several 

probation conditions by failing to submit to drug tests, admitting 

drug use, and committing petty theft. He admitted violating 

probation, and the trial court reinstated his probation, including

a condition that he serve time in county jail. 

2 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal 

Code. 

3 The plea and sentencing in the identity theft case took 

place over a year after the plea and sentencing in the assault 

case. 
3

Two months later, after Kuklenski’s release from custody,

the probation officer filed another notice of probation violation. It 

alleged that Kuklenski committed misdemeanor utility theft, 

failed to report to his probation officer, and failed to submit to 

drug testing. It also alleged drug use and that Kuklenski

changed his residence without permission. The probation officer 

requested the court terminate Kuklenski’s probation and 

sentence him to state prison. 

Kuklenski testified on his own behalf at the contested 

probation violation hearing. He claimed he had difficulty 

arranging transportation to the probation department because 

his mother could not give him a ride. He did not contact his 

probation officer about his transportation issues. He also stated 

that he “wasn’t really using” drugs during his probationary 

period and that he lived with his mother for a brief time before 

“couch surfing” at different residences. 

The trial court found Kuklenski in violation of probation. It 

terminated probation and sentenced him to state prison for two 

years and eight months (two years on the assault case and a 

consecutive eight months on the identify theft case). 

DISCUSSION

Kuklenski contends the trial court abused its discretion by

terminating probation and sentencing him to state prison. We 

disagree. 

The trial court may terminate probation “if the interests of 

justice so require and the court, in its judgment, has reason to 

believe from the report of the probation or parole officer or 

otherwise that the person has violated any of the conditions of 

their supervision.” (§ 1203.2, subd. (a).) 
4

Upon finding a probation violation and revoking probation, 

a trial court has broad discretion to reinstate probation on the 

same terms, reinstate on modified terms, or terminate probation 

and sentence the defendant to state prison. (People v. Bolian

(2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1420.) If the court exercises its 

discretion to terminate probation and it “originally suspended 

imposition of sentence, the court may, upon revocation and 

termination of probation, ‘pronounce judgment for any time 

within the longest period for which the person might have been 

sentenced.’ ” (Ibid., italics omitted; see § 1203.2, subd. (c).)

We review the decision to terminate probation and impose 

a prison sentence for abuse of discretion. (People v. Downey

(2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 909.) We may reverse the decision 

only if “ ‘the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or 

capricious manner.’ [Citation.] A court abuses its discretion 

‘whenever the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the 

circumstances being considered.’ ” (Ibid.)

Kuklenski does not dispute that he violated the terms and 

conditions of his probation and recognizes the trial court had the 

option of sentencing him to state prison. He contends that failure 

to reinstate probation was contrary to the interests of justice. 

We reject this contention. Shortly after his initial 

placement on probation, Kuklenski violated probation by failing 

to submit to drug testing, admitting drug use, and committing 

petty theft. He was granted another chance on probation, but 

two months after reinstatement, he again violated probation by 

failing to submit to drug testing and admitting drug use. He also

failed to report to his probation officer and moved residences 

without permission. Although he alleged he had difficulty 

arranging transportation to the probation office, he admitted he 
5

did not contact his probation officer to report his transportation 

issues. “When the record reveals that a defendant’s violation of 

the terms of probation was the result of irresponsible or willful 

behavior, termination of probation and imposition of a prison 

sentence is no abuse of discretion.” (People v. Kingston (2019) 41 

Cal.App.5th 272, 278.) There was no abuse of discretion here. 

Kuklenski also argues that the court erred because 

California law favors reinstatement of probation for drug addicts. 

But nothing in the record indicates Kuklenski took any steps to 

seek drug treatment or make changes to his life. (See People v. 

Martinez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1511 [“drug addiction is not 

necessarily regarded as a mitigating factor when a criminal 

defendant has a long-term problem and seems unwilling to 

pursue treatment”].) Given Kuklenski’s continued violation of his 

probation conditions and the absence of an attempt to change his 

conduct, the court did not abuse its discretion when it terminated

probation and sentenced him to prison. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

YEGAN, Acting P. J. CODY, J.
Paul W. Baelly, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant 

Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne and Ana R. Duarte, Deputy 

Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.