Court Opinion

ID: 9372525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-21 20:02:23.195388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:36.025791
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/21/23 P. v. Villarreal CA2/6
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE,                                                                 2d Crim. No. B321588
                                                                         (Super. Ct. No. 2016035496)
     Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                (Ventura County)

v.

MONIQUE AVILA VILLARREAL,

     Defendant and Appellant.

      Monique Avila Villarreal appeals an order revoking her
grant of probation and ordering execution of her previously
imposed term of imprisonment. We conclude that the trial court
did not abuse its discretion by revoking probation and ordering
Villarreal to serve the suspended sentence.
      This appeal concerns Villarreal’s guilty plea to kidnapping
with an admission that the victim was a minor under 14 years.
(Pen. Code, §§ 207, subd. (a), 208, subd. (b).)1 The trial court
granted Villarreal 36 months of formal probation with terms and

         1   All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
conditions and it suspended execution of an eight-year prison
term. During the probation period, Villarreal repeatedly tested
positive for methamphetamine use, failed to appear for drug
testing, and did not appear for probation appointments.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the court revoked probation.
Villarreal now appeals and asserts that the court abused its
discretion by the revocation. We reject that contention and
affirm.
            FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       On September 28, 2016, Villarreal’s 15-year-old son V.
engaged in a street fight with 14-year-old N. Following the
altercation, V. informed Villarreal of the incident. Villarreal and
her minor daughter J. then sought out N. They approached him
along with his girlfriend Julie S. and another friend. Villarreal
attempted to physically pull N. into her home so that the fight
could continue. N. and the other minors ran away.
       Villarreal and her daughter J. then drove in the area
looking for N. They found Julie S. walking with another friend.
Villarreal ordered Julie S. into the vehicle. J. left the vehicle and
positioned herself behind Julie S., stating, “Get in the fucking
car! You’re not leaving until we find [N.]!” Fearful, Julie S.
entered the vehicle. Villarreal drove through the area but did not
locate N. Eventually, she allowed Julie S. to leave the vehicle
and walk home.
       Police officers later arrested Villarreal and her daughter at
their residence. Officers also searched Villarreal’s vehicle and
found a serrated blade kitchen knife, a serrated blade folding
knife, and a large metal screwdriver.
       On July 14, 2020, Villarreal pleaded guilty to kidnapping
and admitted that the victim was under the age of 14 years.

                                  2
(§§ 207, subd. (a), 208, subd. (b).) The court imposed an eight-
year prison midterm, suspended execution of sentence, and
granted Villarreal 36 months of formal probation with terms and
conditions.
                        Violations of Probation
       On March 4, 2022, the probation officer filed a notice of
charges alleging that Villarreal used methamphetamine, did not
attend her drug treatment program or participate in random
drug testing, absconded from probation for approximately eight
months (June 2, 2021, through February 25, 2022), and failed to
pay her restitution fine. The probation officer concluded that
Villarreal was “entrenched in the drug lifestyle.”
       At the probation revocation hearing, Probation Officer
Patty Ortiz testified that Villarreal tested positive for
methamphetamine use on three occasions and twice signed a
statement admitting methamphetamine use. Following her
completion of an initial drug treatment program, Villarreal failed
to report to the probation department on six occasions. At other
times, probation officers were unsuccessful contacting Villarreal
at her residence. Villarreal began but then abandoned a second
drug treatment program because she had “issues” with the
program.
       In ruling, the trial court explained that it reviewed the
circumstances of Villarreal’s criminal offense and the summary of
her (lengthy) criminal and drug history in the probation report.
The trial judge then stated: “I would feel very differently about
this case if [Villarreal] missed a test or two and then tried to take
care of it. That’s not what we have here. We have months and
months and months of her not doing what she’s supposed to do,
despite knowing what the major consequences would be.” The

                                 3
court then revoked probation and imposed the eight-year
midterm sentence.
       Villarreal appeals and contends that the trial court abused
its discretion by not permitting her to participate in another drug
treatment program.
                            DISCUSSION
       Villarreal asserts that the trial court’s decision was
unreasonable because she had the ability and willingness to
complete another inpatient drug treatment program. She points
out that she observed the law during her probation period and
contends that she did not present a risk to the community.
Villarreal adds that she recently experienced the death of a child
and a sibling and is addicted to methamphetamine.
       A denial or a grant of probation rests within the trial
court’s discretion and its decision will not be reversed on appeal
unless it is arbitrary or unreasonable. (People v. Downey (2000)
82 Cal.App.4th 899, 909 [sentencing choices including whether to
reinstate probation or sentence a defendant to prison are
reviewed for abuse of discretion].) Probation is an act of clemency
and great deference is accorded the court’s decision. (People v.
Urke (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 766, 772-773.) On appeal, the
defendant bears the burden of demonstrating an abuse of
discretion. (People v. Butcher (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 310, 318.)
       Section 1203.2 permits the trial court to terminate
probation “if the interests of justice so require and the court, in
its judgment, has reason to believe from the report of the
probation or parole officer or otherwise that the person has
violated any of the conditions of their supervision.” (Id. at subd.
(a).) The court may revoke probation upon its own motion or
upon a petition by the probation officer. (Id. at subd. (b)(1).) The

                                 4
facts supporting revocation of probation may be established by a
preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Galvan (2007) 155
Cal.App.4th 978, 982.) Upon revocation and termination of
probation, if the judgment has been pronounced and the
execution has been suspended, the court may revoke the
suspension and order that the judgment shall be in full force and
effect. (§ 1203.2, subd. (c).)
       The trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking
Villarreal’s probation. By her conduct during the probation
period, Villarreal did not display a commitment to obeying the
terms and conditions of her probation. She continued to use
methamphetamine, did not appear for drug testing, and failed to
report to her probation officer for a period of eight months. She
left another drug treatment program because she had “issues”
with the program. Villarreal was also convicted of misdemeanor
criminal offenses following her 2016 arrest for kidnapping
Julie S.
       Moreover, Villarreal’s criminal history began in 2000 and
continued thereafter, including driving under the influence and
drug crimes. Villarreal received earlier grants of probation
(2011) or diversion (2019) for prior criminal convictions and
violated those terms and conditions. The trial court’s decision to
revoke probation is reasonable and not arbitrary. (People v.
Jones (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1316 [defendant’s repeated
failure to comply with probation terms supported revocation of
probation].)

                                5
                        DISPOSITION
     We affirm the order revoking probation and imposing the
suspended sentence.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                  GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:

             YEGAN, J.

             BALTODANO, J.

                              6
                     Ryan J. Wright, Judge

               Superior Court County of Ventura

                ______________________________

      Christina J. Alvarez, 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, Michael C. Keller and John Yang, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                               7