Court Opinion

ID: 9386800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-13 17:02:41.936971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:08.585331
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/13/23 P. v. Fonseca CA2/3
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 THREE

  THE PEOPLE,                                                         B320537

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                  (Los Angeles County
                                                                      Super. Ct. No. TA148896)
           v.

  JOAQUIN FONSECA,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Victor M. Acevedo, Judge. Reversed and
remanded.
      Sunnie L. Daniels, under appointment for 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, David E. Madeo and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                   _________________________
       Joaquin Fonseca appeals from an order revoking probation,
contending there was insufficient evidence to support the order.
The Attorney General concedes, and we agree, that the trial court
improperly revoked probation.
       Fonseca pleaded no contest to assault by means likely to
produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). On
January 7, 2020, the trial court imposed the upper term of four
years in prison, suspended execution of sentence, and placed
Fonseca on three years’ probation. As a condition of probation,
Fonseca was ordered to perform 45 days of community labor with
Caltrans and to provide proof of completion by October 7, 2020.
       The case was called for possible probation violation in July
2021, at which time the trial court ordered Fonseca to enroll in
the Caltrans program and to provide proof of enrollment by
August 5, 2021. His time to complete the 45 days of community
labor with Caltrans was extended to July 14, 2022. Thereafter,
Fonseca submitted proof he had enrolled in the Caltrans program
on August 3, 2021. However, in September 2021, his probation
was revoked, and the matter was set for a probation violation
hearing. At a May 16, 2022 hearing, the trial court found that
Fonseca was not in substantial compliance with the condition he
complete 45 days of community labor, revoked probation, and
executed the four-year sentence.
       Although a trial court need only find a violation of
probation by a preponderance of the evidence (People v.
Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 442), “the evidence must support
a conclusion the probationer’s conduct constituted a willful
violation of the terms and conditions of probation” (People v.
Galvan (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 978, 982). We review a trial
court’s order revoking probation for an abuse of discretion but

                                 2
review its factual findings for substantial evidence. (People v.
Butcher (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 310, 318.)
       Here, the trial court found that Fonseca had not
substantially complied with the condition he complete 45 hours of
community labor. However, there was no condition of probation
requiring Fonseca to substantially comply with the community
labor condition by a certain date prior to July 14, 2022 or
otherwise explaining the terms of such substantial compliance.
(See generally People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 500 [probation
condition must be sufficiently definite to inform probationer what
conduct is required or prohibited and to enable court to
determine violation].) Rather, the condition required Fonseca to
complete 45 days of community labor by July 14, 2022. When the
trial court revoked probation, Fonseca had about 60 days to
complete that condition, and there is no evidence he could not do
so in that time. The trial court therefore abused its discretion by
revoking probation.

                                 3
                         DISPOSITION
      The order revoking probation is reversed, and the matter is
remanded for further proceedings. The remittitur shall issue
forthwith.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS

                                           EDMON, P. J.

We concur:

                        LAVIN, J.

                        BENKE, J.*

*     Retired Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth District,
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of
the California Constitution.

                                 4