Court Opinion

ID: 9902381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-26 23:02:10.436304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:49.722279
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/22/23 P. v. Callanan CA1/4

                NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                                 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                            DIVISION FOUR

 THE PEOPLE,
          Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                A167342
 v.
 KIMBERLEY RAE CALLANAN,                                        (Napa County Super. Ct.
                                                                No. 19CR001389)
          Defendant and Appellant.

        Kimberley Rae Callanan appeals the court’s decision to impose an
upper-term sentence of three years for driving under the influence (DUI) with
three prior DUI convictions in the past decade (Veh. Code1, §§ 23152, 23550).
The court did so based on the nature of her crimes and her admissions that
she repeatedly violated the terms of her probation.
        Callanan’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 summarizing the facts and asking this court to
independently review the record to identify any issues warranting relief.
        Callanan exercised her right to file a supplemental brief. In summary,
she contends that her lawyer did not adequately argue on her behalf and she
asserts that the court should have imposed a lower sentence.

        1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Vehicle Code.

                                                        1
      Finding no arguable issues, we will affirm.
                    Factual and Procedural Background
      Between 1996 and 2016, Callanan incurred five misdemeanor DUI
convictions (§ 23152, subds. (a)–(b)), with the final four violations occurring
in 2009 and 2016. She received a five-year term of probation in March 2016
for one such conviction in Napa County, and four years’ probation in
November 2016 for another in El Dorado County.
      In the instant case, Callanan was arrested in April 2019 for driving
with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.297, more than three times the legal
limit. She was charged with two felonies (DUI with three or more prior DUI
violations in the past decade and driving with a 0.08% or higher BAC with
three or more such priors) as well as one misdemeanor count of driving while
her privilege to drive was suspended for a DUI conviction. (§§ 23152,
subds. (a) & (b); 14601.2, subd. (a).)
       Callanan pled guilty and was placed on a five-year term of probation.
The conditions of that probation included immediately notifying the
department of any change of address, not using illegal drugs, not drinking
alcohol, and completing drug court and a treatment program.
      In July 2020, a bench warrant issued when Callanan failed to appear in
drug court. She remained in warrant status for nearly two years.
      In April 2022, the department filed a petition alleging a violation of
probation, which Callanan admitted. The court revoked her probation,
reinstated it, and ordered her to remand herself to the jail on June 28, 2022
to serve 60 days.
      In July 2022, the department filed another petition to revoke
Callanan’s probation, alleging that she had violated its terms in four ways:
(1) failing to remand herself; (2) testing positive for alcohol; (3) testing

                                         2
positive for methamphetamine; and (4) failing to notify the department of an
address change.
      In January 2023, Callanan was arrested, arraigned on the July 2022
revocation petition, and ordered to begin serving the previously-imposed
60-day jail term. At a hearing on the July 2022 revocation petition, the
prosecutor “submit[ted] on the probation petition,” asserting that it was
sufficiently reliable and admissible hearsay pursuant to People v. Gomez
(2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1036–1037, and Callanan’s attorney did not
object. The court took judicial notice of its court file, including the revocation
petition, the conditions of probation, and the April 2022 order requiring her
to self-surrender for sentence. Callanan’s attorney made no argument, and
the court found Callanan in violation of probation on all four stated grounds.
      At the sentencing hearing, the court indicated that it had read the
probation department’s presentence report and heard argument from both
attorneys and a statement by Callanan. Callanan apologized for her actions,
and, among other things, admitted that she had tested positive for alcohol
twice in 2022 and failed to remand herself in June 2022 as ordered (which
she explained by stating that her fiancé was dying and she chose to stay with
him until he passed in November 2022). She claimed that at the time of her
2019 convictions, she was not on probation.
      The court revoked probation and imposed the aggravated term of three
years. It noted that Callanan had failed to remand when ordered to do so and
that she was “not following through with any of the terms of [her] probation.”
It stated that Callanan had endangered the community “over and over and
over” by “repeatedly driving . . . while you’re [at] two, three times the legal
limit.” Finding that her crimes were numerous and increasing in seriousness,
that she was on probation when she committed the current crimes, that her

                                         3
past performances on probation were unsatisfactory, and that her BAC in the
underlying conviction was three and a half times the legal limit, it held that
“[a]ll of those [circumstances] warrant . . . the aggravated term.”
                                 DISCUSSION
      Callanan’s arguments in her supplemental brief mainly comprise
excuses for her probation violations and a contention that she did not fail to
inform the department of a change in her address. But her brief
admits — albeit with explanations — that she violated probation in three of
the four ways found by the court, i.e., testing positive for alcohol, using
methamphetamine, and not reporting to jail as ordered. Regardless of
whether she also failed to inform the department of an address change, her
admitted violations (both in her brief and before the trial court) amply justify
an upper-term sentence. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (b)(2); Chavez Zepeda v.
Superior Court of San Francisco (Nov. 13, 2023,
A166159) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ [2023 Cal.App. Lexis 867] [Pen. Code, § 1170(b)
refers to aggravating factors from rule 4.421].) In addition, the court properly
relied on defendant’s numerous DUI convictions over the preceding decade,
three of which occurred within Napa County.2
      Beyond assessing the above-described issues directly raised by Callanan,
we have reviewed the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436, and find no issues requiring further briefing.
                                 DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

      2 Given that official court files containing the Napa convictions were

undoubtedly available to the trial court, defendant suffered no prejudice from
her counsel’s failure to object that the court was relying on prior convictions
that were not “based on a certified record of conviction,” as required under
Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(3).

                                         4
                                          HIRAMOTO, J.

WE CONCUR:

BROWN, P. J.
GOLDMAN, J.
People v. Callanan (A167342)

       
       Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa,
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.

                                      5