Court Opinion

ID: 9390459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 17:02:57.806364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:34.615776
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/27/23 P. v. Frazier 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                  B319835

     Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No. MA080501)
                   v.

LATASHA LOUISE FRAZIER,

    Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Emily J. Cole, Judge. Affirmed.
      Helen Hoeffel, 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, Steven D. Matthews and Ryan M. Smith,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                        **********
        After defendant and appellant Latasha Louise Frazier was
arrested for stealing multiple items from a grocery store, the trial
court revoked her probation and imposed a three-year prison
sentence. Defendant appeals, contending the court committed
prejudicial error by relying on facts that occurred after the date
probation was granted in imposing sentence.
      We affirm.
          FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
      In September 2020, defendant was arrested for stealing
items from a shoe store. Defendant entered a plea of no contest
to one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The
parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. The court
accepted defendant’s waivers on the record and found defendant
guilty.
      At the sentencing hearing on May 5, 2021, the court
suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant formal
probation for a period of five years on various terms and
conditions, including mandatory participation in three months of
“intensive outpatient treatment” at the Tarzana Treatment
Center for drug addiction. Defendant stipulated to pay
restitution in the amounts of $74.99 and $58.88. Because the
parties had agreed as part of the plea to a global disposition of all
pending cases against defendant, the court granted the
prosecution’s motion to dismiss defendant’s pending
misdemeanor cases.
      A month later, defendant still had not enrolled in the court-
ordered drug treatment program due to problems with providing
acceptable identification because defendant did not have a
driver’s license. The court gave defendant until July 8, 2021, to
provide proof of enrollment.

                                  2
       On July 8, 2021, defendant failed to appear. The court
revoked probation and issued a bench warrant. Defendant
appeared late and explained she had further difficulties in
enrolling in the drug treatment program. The court recalled and
quashed the bench warrant and reinstated probation on the same
terms and conditions, ordering defendant to provide proof of
enrollment by July 30, 2021.
       At the July 30, 2021 hearing, defendant provided proof that
she had enrolled in a regular treatment program at the Tarzana
Treatment Center but not the court-ordered intensive three-
month program. By early August, she was still waiting to be
transitioned into the intensive program.
       Defendant then had one missed drug test and six positive
drug tests, and failed to show up at her enrollment appointment
to transition into the residential program. The Tarzana
Treatment Center discharged her. On September 23, 2021, the
court revoked defendant’s probation and remanded her to
custody. The court ordered defendant into the Substance
Treatment Abuse and Re-Entry Transition program, but it was
later determined defendant was not eligible for that program.
The court ordered counsel to locate another appropriate
residential treatment program.
       At the October 28, 2021 probation revocation hearing,
defendant admitted a violation of probation for failing to
complete her court-ordered drug treatment program. The court
reinstated probation and ordered defendant to complete a 60-day
residential treatment program followed by outpatient services.
Defendant was ordered to serve 72 days in county jail and
received credit for time served (36 days actual, 36 days conduct
credit).

                                3
      On December 14, 2021, defense counsel reported to the
court that defendant had left her program because her mother
and the father of her child were in a serious car accident and
were hospitalized. Counsel said defendant had tried to return to
the program, but they told her the program was full and she
could not return at that time.
      The court revoked probation again. The court told
defendant, “I’m looking at three pages worth of violations and
notes from the prior judge. I’m not happy with your performance
on probation at all. And I’m not happy with you. So we’ll see if
we can get you into a program quickly, but this is your last
straw.”
      Defendant failed to appear at the hearing scheduled for
January 4, 2022, but did appear on January 7, claiming she had
left word with defense counsel that she could not make the
January 4 hearing due to a bad cold. Defense counsel confirmed
he received the message, but he had not seen it before the last
hearing and therefore was unable to provide the court with that
information. The court accepted defendant’s explanation and
continued the revocation hearing to January 19, 2022.
      On January 19, 2022, defendant again arrived late to court,
saying she had transportation problems. Defense counsel
reported that defendant was in a five-day per week program and
was awaiting a bed for an inpatient program. The revocation
hearing was continued again.
      On February 23, 2022, defendant was arrested for stealing
items valued in excess of $500 from a Vons grocery store in
Lancaster. When detained by officers, defendant admitted she
took the items so she could resell them on the street.

                                4
       After several more continuances, the revocation hearing
was finally held on April 6, 2022. The court heard testimony
from Deputy Bryan Kwon, one of the officers who arrested
defendant on February 23, 2022. He testified to the facts and
circumstances of the arrest and defendant’s admissions to him.
No further testimony was offered.
       The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that
defendant was in violation of probation. The court found that
termination of probation was appropriate, emphasizing that
defendant had been given “many, many opportunities.” The court
imposed a three-year middle term sentence on the robbery count.
Defense counsel interrupted and said the court had indicated it
would be imposing a two-year low term sentence. The court
responded, “That was before the hearing.” The court explained it
had not known “the circumstances of the violation. All I [knew]
was there was an arrest and I knew various code sections . . . . I
had no idea about the facts of the arrest.” Defendant was
credited with 91 days of presentence credits.
       This appeal followed.
                           DISCUSSION
       Defendant contends the court improperly relied on
postprobation conduct, namely her February 2022 arrest, in
selecting a three-year prison sentence when it revoked probation.
Respondent argues defendant forfeited this contention by not
objecting in the trial court.
       When the court stated it was imposing a three-year middle
term, defendant interrupted the court and raised the issue that
the court had previously indicated an intent to impose a two-year
low term. But when the court responded by saying it had
changed its mind after receiving the evidence of defendant’s most

                                5
recent arrest, defendant did not object on the grounds that the
court could not consider the facts of the February 2022 arrest.
      Defendant has therefore forfeited this contention. (People
v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353 [“Although the court is required
to impose sentence in a lawful manner, counsel is charged with
understanding, advocating, and clarifying permissible sentencing
choices at the hearing. Routine defects in the court’s statement
of reasons are easily prevented and corrected if called to the
court’s attention.”].)
                          DISPOSITION
      The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

                        GRIMES, J.

      WE CONCUR:

                        STRATTON, P. J.

                        WILEY, J.

                                 6