Court Opinion

ID: 9380883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 17:02:28.326735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.257364
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/20/23
                             CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

                IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                               SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,                                         H049057
                                                   (Santa Clara County
        Plaintiff and Appellant,                    Super. Ct. No. C2009811)

        v.

TOMOMIRO NAKANO,

        Defendant and Respondent.

        The Santa Clara County District Attorney (District Attorney) appeals from the trial
court’s order terminating probation after respondent Tomomiro Nakano, a Japanese
national, returned to Japan. After Nakano pleaded no contest to one felony count of
possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (c)(1)),1 he was placed
on formal probation for three years and ordered to, among other things, complete a
sex offender counseling program and register as a sex offender as set forth in
section 1203.067.
        On appeal, the District Attorney argues the trial court acted in excess of its
jurisdiction by terminating Nakano’s probation without requiring that he complete a sex
offender management program as mandated by section 1203.067.
        Nakano counters that, pursuant to section 1203.3, the trial court has the inherent
authority to modify or terminate probation. In addition to renewing his motion to dismiss
this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, he further argues that the District Attorney’s appeal is
barred by the equitable doctrines of forfeiture, waiver, and/or estoppel.

        1
            Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
       We requested and received supplemental briefing on whether the trial court failed
to apply the proper standard for terminating probation early, i.e., the “ends of justice . . .
good conduct and reform” standard set out in section 1203.3, subdivision (a). As
discussed below, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it terminated
Nakano’s probation early without applying the standard required by section 1203.3,
subdivision (a).2
       We will therefore reverse the order and direct the trial court to reinstate Nakano’s
probation.
                    I.     FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       A. Factual background3
       After learning that child pornography had been downloaded to an IP address
associated with Nakano, San Jose police officers executed a search warrant at his
residence. Nakano was thereafter arrested and charged with felony possession of child
pornography. Forensic analysis of Nakano’s external hard drive revealed, at a minimum,
several hundred videos tagged as child pornography.4 The device also contained nearly
two million images, which were not reviewed in detail, but “a quick review revealed that
many were of child pornography.” Investigators also discovered an undisclosed amount
of child pornography, both videos and images, on Nakano’s phone.

       2
         Section 1203.3, subdivision (a) provides in relevant part: “The court may at any
time when the ends of justice will be subserved thereby, and when the good conduct and
reform of the person so held on probation shall warrant it, terminate the period of
probation, and discharge the person held.”
       3
         Aside from the fact that Nakano’s offense triggered application of section
1203.067, the underlying details are not relevant to our analysis, so we do not discuss
them in detail.
       4
         According to the district attorney, only 1,000 of a total of “nearly 17,000 videos”
stored on the external hard drive were reviewed by forensic analysts.

                                               2
       B. Procedural background
       Nakano was charged by complaint with one felony count of material depicting
sexual conduct of a person under the age of 18 in violation of section 311.11,
subdivision (c)(1). On December 7, 2020, Nakano entered a plea of no contest as
charged5 after the trial court stated that its “indicated sentence” would be to grant
probation with a 16-month suspended sentence. The trial court noted that it had not yet
decided on the terms of probation but would await a report from the probation department
as well as any papers filed by counsel. The court expressly stated that its “goal in
proposing any kind of [probation] that they be such that you be able to return in fairly
short order to Japan.”
       At sentencing on January 14, 2021, the trial court opened the hearing by
expressing its belief that it was “in everyone’s interest in this case for [] Nakano to be
able to return to Japan.” The court asked the prosecutor her opinion on terminating
Nakano’s probation upon his leaving the United States.6 The prosecutor responded that
she opposed that result, and believed that Nakano should be sentenced to a year in county
jail. In her view, terminating Nakano’s probation would mean that not only would he
avoid serving any meaningful time in custody, but he would also not undertake sex
offender treatment as required by section 1203.067.
       The probation department also expressed its opposition to Nakano leaving the
country, stating it “will not allow that.” Once Nakano was sentenced, he would be
required to register as a sex offender and “comply with the sex containment module.”
The probation department recommended that Nakano be required to remain in the

       5
         At his plea hearing, Nakano expressly admitted possessing “over 600 images
depicting minor child pornography.”
       6
         During the hearing defense counsel informed the court that Nakano had already
purchased a ticket to return to Japan on January 27, 2021.

                                              3
country to complete sex offender treatment and register as a sex offender at which point
the court could terminate his probation early.
       The trial court responded that it was “not interested in doing it that way.” Rather
it was “interested in [] Nakano being out of the United States[, since] [h]e doesn’t have
status here.” The court then indicated that, upon receipt of proof that Nakano had left the
United States, it would “consider . . . modifying his probation to terminate it.” After
hearing argument from the parties about certain probation terms, the trial court sentenced
Nakano to 16 months in prison, but suspended execution of that sentence and granted
three years of formal probation. The court further ordered Nakano to register as a sex
offender and complete a sex offender management program “for a period of not less than
a year up until the entire term of . . . probation.” The trial court also imposed a $300
restitution fine (§ 1202.4), plus a $300 probation revocation fine (suspended), but waived
all other fines and fees.
       On January 28, 2021, the District Attorney filed a “motion for reconsideration” of
the sentence challenging the trial court’s intention to terminate Nakano’s probation
absent completion of a sex offender management program. At the February 17, 2021
hearing on that motion, Nakano’s counsel informed the court that Nakano had left the
United States as planned on January 27 and also presented evidence that he had paid his
court fines and fees in full. The District Attorney acknowledged that, prior to his
departure, Nakano had registered as a sex offender pursuant to section 290. The trial
court noted that it was of “paramount importance” that Nakano “not be back here in the
United States, because that was the whole premise of me doing what I did.” In the trial
court’s view it did not “ma[k]e any sense for the public to bear the burden of supervising
rehabilitation and corrected action.” The trial court continued, stating: “I think I was
clear—even at the plea stage—that I wanted to come up with something that was going to
get Mr. Nakano off of our collective books and out of this country.” The trial court then
terminated Nakano’s probation.

                                              4
       The District Attorney timely appealed.7
                                    II.     DISCUSSION
       The District Attorney argues that the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction
when it terminated Nakano’s probation without requiring that he complete a sex offender
management program as mandated by section 1203.067. Nakano argues that section
1203.067 does not limit the trial court’s authority to modify or terminate probation under
section 1203.3. Although we agree with Nakano that section 1203.067 does not preclude
a trial court from terminating probation early, we decide that, on the facts here, the trial
court’s failure to utilize the standard required by section 1203.3, subdivision (a) amounts
to an abuse of discretion.
       A. Standard of review and principles of statutory construction
       The parties agree that the interpretation of sections 1203.3 and 1203.067 is an
issue of statutory construction and thus we review the matter de novo. (City of Saratoga
v. Hinz (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1212, citing People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock
Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 432.)
       The principles of statutory construction are well established. “ ‘ “Our task is to
discern the Legislature’s intent. The statutory language itself is the most reliable
indicator, so we start with the statute’s words, assigning them their usual and ordinary
meanings, and construing them in context. If the words themselves are not ambiguous,
we presume the Legislature meant what it said, and the statute’s plain meaning governs.
On the other hand, if the language allows more than one reasonable construction, we may
look to such aids as the legislative history of the measure and maxims of statutory

       7
         Nakano moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and we denied that
motion by separate order dated May 16, 2022. Nakano’s subsequent petition for review
was denied by the California Supreme Court on August 17, 2022. In his responsive brief,
Nakano renews his motion to dismiss the appeal, but we do not consider his arguments on
that subject. Our prior order was not entered “without prejudice,” however, so it is final.

                                              5
construction. In cases of uncertain meaning, we may also consider the consequences of a
particular interpretation, including its impact on public policy.” [Citation.] “ ‘If possible,
significance should be given to every word, phrase, sentence and part of an act in
pursuance of the legislative purpose.’ [Citation.] . . . ‘[A] construction making some
words surplusage is to be avoided.’ [Citation.] ‘When used in a statute [words] must be
construed in context, keeping in mind the nature and obvious purpose of the statute where
they appear.’ [Citations.] Moreover, the various parts of a statutory enactment must be
harmonized by considering the particular clause or section in the context of the statutory
framework as a whole.” ’ ” (DeNike v. Mathew Enterprise, Inc. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th
371, 378.) “Implied amendments . . . are disfavored.” (Lesher Communications, Inc. v.
City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540-541.)
       B. Section 1203.067 does not override the court’s authority under section 1203.3
              1. Sections 1203.3 and 1203.067
       Section 1203.3, subdivision (a) provides: “The court has the authority at any time
during the term of probation to revoke, modify, or change its order of suspension of
imposition or execution of sentence. The court may at any time when the ends of justice
will be subserved thereby, and when the good conduct and reform of the person so held
on probation shall warrant it, terminate the period of probation, and discharge the person
held.” Under section 1203.3, subdivision (b), the “court’s authority in subdivision (a) to
revoke, modify, or change probation or mandatory supervision, or to terminate probation,
is subject to” providing notice and an opportunity to be heard to the prosecuting attorney,
the probation department, and, in relevant cases, the victim(s).
       Section 1203.067, subdivision (b)(1) and (2) provides, in relevant part: “(b) The
terms of probation for persons placed on formal probation for an offense that requires
registration pursuant to Sections 290 to 290.023, inclusive, shall include all of the
following: [¶] . . . [¶] (2) A person placed on formal probation on or after July 1, 2012,
shall successfully complete a sex offender management program . . . as a condition of

                                              6
release from probation. The length of the period in the program shall be not less than one
year, up to the entire period of probation, as determined by the certified sex offender
management professional in consultation with the probation officer and as approved by
the court.”
              2. Analysis
       The plain language of section 1203.3 endows trial courts with expansive powers in
relation to its probation orders. Under the statute, a trial court’s authority to terminate
probation early is substantively circumscribed8 only by its evaluation of whether “the
ends of justice” are served and whether the “good conduct and reform” of the probationer
justifies such termination. (§ 1203.3, subd. (a).)
       According to the District Attorney, the court’s authority to terminate probation
early under section 1203.3 is subject to section 1203.067’s requirement that successful
completion of a sex offender management program is a “condition of release from
probation.” (§ 1203.067, subd. (b)(2).) While this phrase, i.e., “condition of release from
probation,” could be read to conflict with, or at a minimum, impose a condition precedent
on the court’s authority embodied in section 1203.3, we find that the statutes can be
harmonized by construing them in context.
       We find People v. Killion (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 337 (Killion) instructive in this
regard. In Killion, the defendant was placed on three years’ probation with domestic
violence terms under section 1203.097 and, approximately 15 months later, she moved to
terminate probation. (Killion, supra, at p. 339.) The trial court denied the motion on
grounds that it lacked jurisdiction to terminate probation early because section 1203.097
requires a minimum period of probation of 36 months. (Killion, supra, at p. 340.) In the
trial court’s view, the legislative intent behind section 1203.097 was to “ ‘limit the

       8
        Section 1203.3, subdivision (b)’s limitations are procedural and there is no
dispute here that the trial court provided the requisite notice and opportunity to be heard.

                                              7
Court’s sentencing discretion’ ” (Killion, supra, at p. 339) and “ ‘create—to put it
mildly—onerous terms of probation for domestic violence offenders, . . . to make sure
[trial court’s] didn’t give them less than 36 months” of probation. (Id. at pp. 339-340.)
The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that in spite of section 1203.097’s express
direction that qualifying offenders be placed on probation for a “minimum period of 36
months” (Killion, supra, at p. 341), section 1203.3 affords trial courts the discretion to
terminate probation early. (Killion, supra, at p. 340.)
       The court in Killion was persuaded by the fact that section 1203.097 lays out a
number of terms and conditions that the court must include when it “imposes probation
for a defendant convicted of a domestic violence offense.” (Killion, supra, 24
Cal.App.5th at p. 341.) The first of those conditions is a “minimum period of probation
of 36 months.” (§ 1203.097, subd. (a)(1).) However, when the defendant subsequently
moved to terminate her probation early, the trial court was not “imposing sentence upon
defendant, but was tasked with determining whether defendant came within the remedial
provisions of section 1203.3” and defendant’s motion presented “a matter which is
distinct from the imposition of probation.” (Killion, supra, at p. 341.) Section 1203.097
“deals only with the initial imposition of probation at sentencing for domestic violence
offenders,” whereas “any subsequent remedial provisions of which a defendant might
avail herself to reduce the terms and/or length of probation[] . . . is dealt with exclusively
in section 1203.3.” (Killion, supra, at p. 341.) The Killion court concluded that, by
enacting section 1203.097, “the Legislature intended to require an initial imposition of a
36-month term of probation in domestic violence cases, but did not intend to
circumscribe the court’s discretion to later reduce that term pursuant to section 1203.3
upon a showing of good cause.” (Killion, supra, at p. 341.)
       The Killion court further noted that “sections 1203.097 and 1203.3 reference each
other with respect to the issuance of criminal protective orders. (§§ 1203.097,
subd. (a)(2) [the terms of probation shall include a criminal court protective order],

                                              8
1203.3, subd. (b)(1), (6) [court may terminate protective order which is a condition of
probation upon good cause and proper notice].)” (Killion, supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at
p. 342.) This cross-referencing supported the conclusion that the Legislature did not
intend for section 1203.097 to impose new limits on trial court’s authority under
section 1203.3.
       Although sections 1203.067 and 1203.3 do not include direct references to each
other, we are not convinced that this difference is sufficient to distinguish Killion or
significantly reduce its persuasive analysis. “We do not presume that the Legislature
intends, when it enacts a statute, to overthrow long-established principles of law unless
such intention is clearly expressed or necessarily implied. [Citation.] Rather, we must
assume that . . . the Legislature was aware of existing related laws and intended to
maintain a consistent body of rules.” (People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23
Cal.4th 183, 199.) Like section 1203.097, 1203.067 was originally enacted in 1994, and
the current language of section 1203.067, subdivision (b) regarding the sex offender
management program was added in 2010. Section 1203.3, on the other hand, was first
enacted in 1935 and has been amended six times since section 1203.067 was first
enacted. At no time has the Legislature seen fit to amend either section 1203.3 or
section 1203.067 to make clear its intent to exclude sex offenders from early termination
of probation absent successful completion of a sex offender management program.
       We are further persuaded by the Legislature’s omission of the phrase
“notwithstanding any other law” from section 1203.067, subdivision (b). That
introductory language, however, does appear in section 1203.067, subdivision (a), which
states, “Notwithstanding any other law, before probation may be granted to any person
convicted of a [specified] felony . . . who is eligible for probation, the court shall” do

                                               9
three specified things.9 (§ 1203.067, subd. (a), italics added.) This phrase is a clear
restriction on the court’s ability to grant probation, demonstrating that the Legislature is
well aware of how to express its intent to limit judicial authority when it chooses. As
Nakano notes, there are a number of other statutes addressing probation in which the
Legislature has utilized this “notwithstanding any other law” signaling its intent to
circumscribe the court’s options. (See, e.g., §§ 1203.055, subd. (a)(1), 1203.065,
subd. (a), 1203.066, subd. (a), 1203.07, subd. (a), 1203.075, subd. (a), 1203.08, subd. (a),
1203.09, subd. (a).)
       In enacting section 1203.067, the Legislature did not express an intent to restrict
the court’s authority to revoke, modify, or terminate probation under section 1203.3 and,
therefore we may not deem the Legislature to have implied such a result.

       C. The District Attorney’s arguments of no detrimental reliance and no change
          in circumstances similarly fail
       The District Attorney also claims that the trial court acted in excess of its
jurisdiction because: (1) Nakano’s “detrimental reliance” on the trial court’s statements
regarding his return to Japan is not a basis for overriding section 1203.067’s
requirements;10 and (2) there was no change in circumstances permitting the trial court to
terminate probation under section 1203.3. We reject both arguments.

       9
         Specifically, the court must: “(1) Order the defendant evaluated pursuant to
Section 1203.03, or similar evaluation by the county probation department. [¶]
(2) Conduct a hearing at the time of sentencing to determine if probation of the defendant
would pose a threat to the victim. The victim shall be notified of the hearing by the
prosecuting attorney and given an opportunity to address the court. [¶] (3) Order any
psychiatrist or psychologist appointed pursuant to Section 288.1 to include a
consideration of the threat to the victim and the defendant’s potential for positive
response to treatment in making the report to the court. This section does not require the
court to order an examination of the victim.” (§ 1203.067, subd. (a).)
       10
         Nakano does not respond to the District Attorney’s detrimental reliance
argument in his brief, but rather claims that the District Attorney should be estopped from
challenging the order terminating his probation because it waited until after he left the
(continued)

                                             10
       First, the District Attorney’s “detrimental reliance” argument presupposes that
section 1203.067 restricts the trial court’s authority to terminate probation under
section 1203.03. As discussed above, we conclude that it does not and therefore this
argument necessarily fails.
       Second, regarding the District Attorney’s claim that there was no change in
circumstances between the order granting probation on January 14, 2021 and the order
terminating probation on February 17, 2021, which justify the modification of probation,
it is well established that “[a] change in circumstances is required before a court has
jurisdiction to extend or otherwise modify probation.” (People v. Cookson (1991) 54
Cal.3d 1091, 1095.) “ ‘An order modifying the terms of probation based upon the same
facts as the original order granting probation is in excess of the jurisdiction of the court,
for the reason that there is no factual basis to support it.’ ” (Ibid., quoting In re Clark
(1959) 51 Cal.2d 838, 840.) However, we are concerned here with early termination of
probation, not an extension of probation or a modification of probationary terms. The
standard for early termination is set forth in section 1203.3, subdivision (a), which makes
no mention of a “change of circumstances.” Therefore, the District Attorney’s arguments
on this issue are inapposite.
       D. Forfeiture
       We first consider whether we should apply the forfeiture doctrine. The District
Attorney and Nakano have opposing views on this question, with Nakano urging us to
deem the claim forfeited and the District Attorney arguing that it is not. In the event that
we would otherwise find forfeiture, the District Attorney requests in the alternative that
we exercise our discretion to consider the matter.

country to do so. We do not reach Nakano’s equitable arguments, as they are
unnecessary to decide this appeal.

                                              11
       Without deciding the forfeiture question, we exercise our discretion to consider the
merits of this argument. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887-888, fn. 7 [court
has discretion to review forfeited claim].) The standard for early termination of probation
set forth in section 1203.3, subdivision (a) is dispositive of the issue on appeal and
presents a purely legal issue. (See County of Colusa v. Charter (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d
256, 260-261.)
       E. Evidence the trial court applied the proper standard to terminate probation
       We next consider the evidence in the record as to whether the trial court applied
the section 1203.3, subdivision (a) standard when it terminated Nakano’s probation.
              1. The record
       Nakano notes that his briefing in the trial court expressly cited section 1203.3,
subdivision (a) and applied it to the facts of the case.11 He argues that, because the trial
court had that briefing on the day it terminated Nakano’s probation, the only reasonable
inference is that it applied that standard when it made its order.
       Nakano also argues that the trial court’s repeated references to how it was in
“everyone’s interest” for Nakano to leave the country would “reasonably fit within the
‘ends of justice’ ” element of section 1203.3, subdivision (a). With respect to “good
conduct and reform,” Nakano points to the parties’ “extensive discussions” with the
court, as well as certain documentary evidence Nakano provided, including a psychiatric
report, and a mitigation letter as evidence supporting this element.12 The court thus knew

       11
           Nakano also recites various canons of appellate review in his supplemental
brief, specifically that: (1) we are to presume the lower court knew and applied the
correct standard even where it failed to expressly state that standard on the record; (2) it
is appellant’s burden to establish error and error will not be found in a silent record; and
(3) any ambiguity as to whether the lower court applied the proper standard must be
resolved in favor of affirmance.
        12
           As he did at oral argument, Nakano argues the District Attorney failed to meet
the burden of providing an adequate record. He maintains that the District Attorney
(continued)

                                             12
Nakano had engaged in psychotherapy following his arrest and had complied with the
court’s orders when it terminated his probation.
       Finally, Nakano points out that the District Attorney, at oral argument, said that
she thought “the court treated it as an equitable decision and sort of squished everything
into the interests of justice.” In Nakano’s view, this statement is an express concession
that the trial court considered “the interests of justice” in terminating probation, a phrase
which is almost identical to section 1203.3, subdivision (a)’s reference to “the ends of
justice.”
       For its part, the District Attorney cites Nakano’s opposition to the motion for
reconsideration, in which Nakano argued that he had shown good conduct and reform
under section 1203.3, subdivision (a) by undertaking private counseling following his
arrest. However, the District Attorney argues the trial court did not mention Nakano’s
private counseling or otherwise refer to the section 1203.3, subdivision (a) standard at the
hearing. Instead, the trial court’s comments focused on Nakano’s detrimental reliance on
its earlier promise13 as well as its wish to “get Mr. Nakano off of our collective books and
out of this country.”
              2. Analysis
       Under section 1203.3 a trial court’s authority to terminate probation early must be
based on its evaluation of whether “the ends of justice” are served and whether the “good
conduct and reform” of the probationer justifies such early termination. (§ 1203.3,
subd. (a).) We conclude that, while there is evidence the trial court was presented with

failed to submit the documents that were provided to the trial court and failed to
memorialize the parties’ off-the-record discussions on the record.
       13
          For example, the trial court stated, “[I]t just seems too late to do this now.
[Nakano]’s not here. And . . . I have sentenced him, I have said I was going to do what I
am going to do,” and “[I]n this case, because of, I think, the imperative of me not telling
the defendant one thing, the way it was going to happen and then changing it, materially,
I can’t grant [the District Attorney’s] motion.”

                                              13
the proper standard in Nakano’s brief, affirmative evidence in the record demonstrates
the court did not apply that standard in making its decision.
       “The general rule is that a trial court is presumed to have been aware of and
followed the applicable law.” (People v. Mosley (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 489, 496.) The
presumption will be overcome however by an affirmative showing of error in the record.
(People v. Sullivan (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 524, 549-550.)
       “An abuse of discretion is shown when the trial court applies the wrong legal
standard.” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733.) In
this case, although Nakano had presented the court with documents reflecting his
engagement in private counseling and addressed section 1203.3 in his briefing, the trial
court’s comments reflect that its justification for terminating his probation early was
based entirely on two factors: (1) its belief that it was in “everyone’s interest” that
Nakano left the country; and (2) its reluctance to renege on its promise to terminate
probation when Nakano left the country. Neither of these reasons can support a showing
that Nakano had demonstrated “good conduct and reform,” nor can they be shoehorned
into a showing that termination of his probation served “the ends of justice.” (§ 1203.3,
subd. (a).) The trial court’s paramount rationale appeared to be conserving public
resources by “get[ting] Mr. Nakano off of our collective books and out of this country,”
but these factors are not relevant to whether Nakano demonstrated “good conduct and
reform” to justify the early termination of probation, as required by section 1203.3.14
       Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to
apply the proper standard under section 1203.3, subdivision (a).

       14
         In assessing a request to terminate probation early, we acknowledge trial courts
have wide latitude in considering various factors to determine whether “good conduct and
reform” have been shown and the “ends of justice” will be served by early termination of
probation. We express no opinion as to whether that standard can be met in this case.

                                              14
       F. Appropriate disposition
       The District Attorney submits that the proper disposition on reversing the trial
court’s order would be to remand the matter with directions to reinstate Nakano’s
probation. Nakano suggests that, if we were to reverse the order for failure to apply the
standard set forth in section 1203.3, subdivision (a), the appropriate disposition should be
to remand for a new hearing with instructions to apply the proper standard.
       Having determined that we must reverse the order terminating probation, we
conclude that the appropriate course of action is to direct the trial court to reinstate
Nakano’s probation on the original terms and conditions. Once probation is reinstated,
Nakano may again apply for early termination of probation under section 1203.3,
subdivision (a).
                                     III.   DISPOSITION
       The trial court’s February 17, 2021 order terminating Nakano’s probation is
reversed. On remand, the trial court is directed to vacate the February 17, 2021 order and
reinstate Nakano’s probation with the original terms and conditions. Upon his request,
Nakano is entitled to a new hearing to seek early termination of probation consistent with
the standards set forth in Penal Code section 1203.3, subdivision (a).

                                              15
                                    ___________________________________
                                               Wilson, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________________
           Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J.

______________________________________
                 Danner, J.

People v. Nakano
H049057
Trial Court:                        Santa Clara County Superior Court
                                    Superior Court No. C2009811

Trial Judge:                        Hon. Robert B. Hawk

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant:    Jeffrey F. Rosen
The People                          District Attorney, County of Santa Clara

                                    S. Sheryl Leung
                                    Deputy District Attorney

                                    Kelly Meeker
                                    Deputy District Attorney

Counsel for Defendant/Respondent:   NOLAN BARTON & OLMOS, LLP
                                    Daniel Barton
                                    Evan Greenberg

People v. Nakano
H049057