Court Opinion

ID: 9382463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-27 19:02:24.970282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:39.530849
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/27/23 P. v. Skinner CA2/1
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

 THE PEOPLE,                                                  B322592

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                          (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No. KA128543)
           v.

 KEVIN LASHAWN SKINNER,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Victor Martinez, Judge. Affirmed.
      John F. Schuck, 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, Roberta L. Davis and Marc A. Kohm, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
               __________________________________
      Kevin Lashawn Skinner appeals from a judgment entered
after a probation violation hearing at which the trial court
revoked his probation and sentenced him to the lower term of
three years in prison for the crime of furnishing marijuana to a
minor over 14 years of age. He contends the trial court abused its
discretion in sentencing him to prison. We disagree and affirm
the judgment.
                          BACKGROUND
I.    Skinner’s Probation
      A felony complaint, filed on September 21, 2021, charged
Skinner with two counts of furnishing marijuana to a minor over
14 years of age. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11361, subd. (b).) As
alleged in the complaint, count 1 concerned an incident occurring
on or about July 18, 2021 involving minor Amari W. Count 2
concerned an incident occurring on or about July 19, 2021
involving minor Sarai M. Skinner pleaded not guilty to the
charges.
      On December 21, 2021, before a preliminary hearing was
held, Skinner changed his plea. The parties stipulated that the
complaint be deemed an information. The prosecutor informed
Skinner that the offense of furnishing marijuana to a minor over
14 years of age carried a maximum prison sentence of five years.
Skinner waived his constitutional rights and pleaded no contest
to count 1. Pursuant to a plea deal, the trial court (Judge David
C. Brougham) suspended imposition of sentence, placed Skinner
on formal probation for two years, and dismissed count 2.
       The terms and conditions of Skinner’s probation included,
but were not limited to: serving 64 days in county jail (with
credit for 64 days); completing 30 days of community labor;
participating in a 52-week sexual offender management program;

                                2
and staying away from Amari W. and Sarai M. The trial court
admonished Skinner that it was “[v]ery important” that he have
“[n]o contact with [Amari and Sarai] whatsoever, adding, “If you
have any contact with them, you’ll go right to jail.” The record
reflects Sarai reported that during the incident in which Skinner
gave her marijuana, Skinner placed her hand on his penis and
asked her for oral sex. At the time of this encounter, Skinner was
50 years old, and Sarai was 17, but Sarai reportedly told Skinner
she was 18. Amari reportedly told Skinner she was 16 years old
at the time he gave her marijuana.
II.    Skinner’s Progress on Probation
       At a progress hearing on February 22, 2022, the trial court
(Judge Douglas Sortino) found Skinner in substantial compliance
with his probation. He had completed more than two-thirds of
his community labor obligation, and he was enrolled in and
attending a sex offender program.
       At the next scheduled progress hearing on May 27, 2022,
the trial court (Judge Douglas Sortino) noted that Skinner had
completed his community labor obligation (30 days), and he was
continuing to participate in his sex offender program. The court
also noted it had reviewed a supplemental probation report,
which stated Sarai reported that Skinner contacted her through a
social media platform in March and May 2022. The probation
officer interviewed Sarai, then Skinner, and each showed the
probation officer cell phone screenshots of the communications
between them. The probation officer attached to the report
printed copies of the screenshots, totaling 14 pages. Based on
Skinner’s contact with Sarai, notwithstanding the stayaway
order, the probation officer recommended the court find Skinner
to be in violation his probation and require him to serve 365 days

                                3
in county jail, be placed on an electronic monitoring device, not be
in possession of a smart phone/device, and have no contact with
Amari and Sarai.
       At the May 27, 2022 hearing, the trial court revoked
Skinner’s probation and set the matter for a probation violation
hearing. The court commented that if this were found to be a
knowing and willful violation of the terms of probation (i.e.,
Skinner was aware he was communicating with Sarai, a person
protected under the stayaway order), it “would justify a
termination of probation and a custodial term.” The court issued
a written criminal protective order, restraining Skinner from
having any contact with Amari W. and Sarai M. or coming within
100 yards of them. The protective order was served on Skinner
at the hearing. The court allowed Skinner to remain out of
custody on his own recognizance until the next hearing, so long
as he did not violate the protective order.
III. Probation Violation Hearing
       Sarai and Skinner testified at the July 12, 2022 probation
violation hearing held before Judge Victor D. Martinez.
       A.    Sarai’s testimony
       Sarai stated that on March 3, 2022, Skinner contacted her
by direct (text) message through her “private” Instagram account.
The account at issue displayed a recent photograph of her face
and listed her name as Sarai “A[.]” (not Sarai “M[.],” the name
she used in these court proceedings).1 Sarai stated that Skinner
had contacted her through this same Instagram account prior to

      1 Sarai also had a second, public Instagram account, which
she referred to as her “regular one.” The second account also
displayed a photograph of her face, but listed her name as Sarai
“M[.]”

                                 4
the filing of the criminal charges in this case. Between March 3
and 5, 2022, Skinner continued to contact Sarai through this
Instagram account by sending her audio messages and initiating
video calls that she did not answer. The prosecutor introduced a
14-page printout of screenshots from Sarai’s cell phone (copies of
the same screenshots attached to the supplemental probation
report), showing the direct (text) messages between Skinner and
Sarai, as well as voice messages from Skinner and video calls
made from Skinner to Sarai.
       On March 5, 2022, Sarai responded to Skinner through
Instagram with a text message asking him why he kept calling
her. Skinner replied with additional text messages, audio
messages, and unanswered video calls (included in the 14-page
printout). In the text messages, he asked Sarai to call him and
send him a photo of her, and he also asked her how old she was
and where she lived. Sarai reported these contacts to staff at the
group home where she lived, and Skinner’s probation officer
interviewed her regarding these March 2022 contacts.
       Sarai testified that on May 5, 2022, Skinner again
contacted her by direct message through her private Instagram
account, and she responded to him. In the ensuing series of text
messages (that Sarai testified about while the prosecutor and
defense counsel pointed to the 14-page printout), she and Skinner
engaged in a back and forth regarding the nature of the sexual
contact that occurred between them in July 2021. In her text
messages to Skinner, Sarai stated that Skinner grabbed her
hand, placed it on his penis, asked her for oral sex, and continued
to touch her after she asked him to stop multiple times. In his
responsive text messages, Skinner indicated that Sarai initiated
the sexual conduct by touching him, which she then denied.

                                 5
Sarai referred to Skinner as a “child molester” in her text
messages, stating he knew Amari was 16 years old when he met
with her, and also stating he did not care about Sarai’s age. In
response, Skinner accused Sarai of lying to him about her age by
telling him she was 18 years old. Skinner asked Sarai why she
was texting him, told her to stop texting him, and suggested she
delete his phone number and block him from contacting her
through Instagram. She told him he “deserve[d] to be locked up.”
He denied that he had done anything wrong. Sarai reported the
May 2022 contacts between her and Skinner to Skinner’s
probation officer.
       At the conclusion of Sarai’s testimony, the trial court
admitted into evidence the 14-page printout of screenshots of
communications between Skinner and Sarai.
       B.    Skinner’s testimony
       Skinner testified that when he initially contacted Sarai
through Instagram on March 3, 2022, he did not know who she
was. He stated that he “received a profile” on Instagram and he
did not know who it belonged to, and he did not recognize the
name on the account. So, he contacted the person to find out. He
asked questions to identify her, including where she lived and
how old she was. Eventually, he realized she was one of the
victims in this case. Skinner testified that all of the contact
between him and Sarai reflected in the 14-page printout of
screenshots from Sarai’s phone occurred on one day, March 3,
2022.
       On cross-examination, Skinner acknowledged that he knew
what Sarai looked like at the time he sent text and audio
messages and initiated the video calls through Instagram on
March 3, 2022. He saw the profile photograph of Sarai “A.[]” as

                               6
he communicated with her through Instagram, but he did not
initially recognize her as one of the victims in this case. He
conceded that he continued to converse with her after he realized
who she was. He denied ever contacting her through her
Instagram account prior to or after March 3, 2022. He stated
that he showed his probation officer the screenshots of his
communications with Sarai.
       C.     Trial court’s decision
        Based on the evidence, the trial court found that even
assuming Skinner did not initially realize he was communicating
with a victim in this case, he continued to communicate with her
in March 2022 after he realized who she was, and he had
additional contact with her in May 2022. The court found
Skinner violated the December 21, 2021 stayaway order that was
a condition of his probation, and the court terminated his
probation.
       The prosecutor urged the trial court to sentence Skinner to
the low term of three years on the count to which he pleaded no
contest, furnishing marijuana to a minor over 14 years of age
(count 1). The prosecutor noted there was evidence of sexual
contact between Skinner and Sarai. The trial court inquired if
Skinner had any criminal history, and the prosecutor responded
that there was “[n]othing of significance.”
       Defense counsel acknowledged that Skinner continued
communicating with Sarai after he realized who she was, but
counsel disputed that the evidence showed Skinner initiated the
contact. Counsel also noted Skinner was forthcoming with his
probation officer about the communications and showed them to
the probation officer. Counsel further pointed out that Skinner
was in compliance with the other terms of his probation. In light

                                7
of Skinner’s insignificant criminal history, counsel urged the trial
court to follow the probation officer’s recommendation that
Skinner serve 365 days in jail and be reinstated on probation
with terms and conditions (as specified above).
       The trial court sentenced Skinner to the low term of three
years in prison on count 1 and terminated the criminal protective
order.
                            DISCUSSION
       Skinner does not challenge the trial court’s determination
that he violated his probation or the court’s decision to revoke his
probation. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in
sentencing him to prison rather than reinstating his probation
“conditioned on the service of a significant amount of jail time or
some other type of severe punishment less than a sentence to
prison.”
       Probation “ ‘is not a matter of right but an act of clemency,
the granting and revocation of which are entirely within the
sound discretion of the trial court.’ ” (People v. Urke (2011) 197
Cal.App.4th 766, 773.) “Sentencing choices[,] such as . . . whether
to reinstate probation or sentence a defendant to prison are
reviewed for abuse of discretion. ‘A denial or a grant of probation
generally rests within the broad discretion of the trial court and
will not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that 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.’ [Citation.] We will not interfere with the trial
court’s exercise of discretion ‘when it has considered all facts
bearing on the offense and the defendant to be sentenced.’ ”
(People v. Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 909-910; People v.

                                 8
Kingston (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 272, 278.) “ ‘[O]nly in a very
extreme case should an appellate court interfere with the
discretion of the trial court in the matter of denying or revoking
probation. . . .’ ” (People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 443.)
       Skinner contends the trial court abused its discretion in
sentencing him to prison because (1) this was his first probation
violation; (2) he was in compliance with the other terms and
conditions of his probation; (3) he had no significant criminal
history; (4) the probation officer recommended he serve 365 days
in jail and be reinstated on probation with terms and conditions;
and (5) he cooperated with his probation officer by showing him
screenshots of the communications with Sarai. The trial court
considered these factors—which were all highlighted for the court
in defense counsel’s argument—and sentenced Skinner to prison
in the exercise of its discretion. As we noted above, “We will not
interfere with the trial court’s exercise of discretion ‘when it has
considered all facts bearing on the offense and the defendant to
be sentenced.’ ” (People v. Downey, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p.
910.)
       Skinner violated a condition of his probation prohibiting
him from having contact with Sarai, after he gave her marijuana
and engaged in sexual contact with her when she was a minor.
The trial court found Skinner had contact with Sarai in March
and May 2022, knowing she was one of the victims in this case.
Skinner does not challenge these findings on appeal. The court
did not exceed the bounds of reason or exercise its discretion in
an arbitrary or capricious manner when it declined to reinstate
his probation and sentenced him to prison for this probation
violation, all other circumstances being considered. “When the
record reveals that a defendant’s violation of the terms of

                                 9
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, supra, 41 Cal.App.5th
at p. 278.) We have no cause to interfere with the trial court’s
decision.
       Skinner argues he “readily could have been confused about
the consequences of contacting the victim” because when he was
placed on probation, the trial court (Judge Brougham)
admonished him that he would “go right to jail” if he contacted
Amari or Sarai. Skinner asserts he “was not told that he would
be sent to prison.” In taking his plea, however, the prosecutor
informed him on the record, “If you violate any term or condition
of probation, you could be sent to state prison for the maximum of
five years.” Thus, the record shows Skinner was apprised of the
possible consequences of any probation violation.
       Whether to sentence Skinner to prison was a matter within
the trial court’s discretion, and the record shows no abuse of
discretion.
                            DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                                          CHANEY, J.

We concur:

             BENDIX, Acting P. J.         WEINGART, J.

                               10