Court Opinion

ID: 9841273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 19:03:39.950174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:49:48.068618
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/21/23 P. v. Valles 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B325407
                                                             (Super. Ct. No. NA117290)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                                 (Los Angeles County)

 v.

 VICTOR JOSEPH VALLES,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      Victor Joseph Valles appeals from the order revoking and
terminating probation and sentencing him to two years in state
prison. He contends the finding of violation of probation was not
supported by substantial evidence and the prison sentence was
an abuse of discretion. We affirm.
           FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
      Valles was charged with felony counts of inflicting corporal
injury on a person with whom he had a dating relationship (count
1; Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))1 and violation of a domestic

         1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
violence court order with three prior convictions (count 2; § 166,
subd. (c)(4)). In September 2021, he pleaded no contest to count
1. As stipulated by the parties, the trial court sentenced Valles to
two years in prison but suspended execution of sentence. He was
placed on four years’ formal probation with conditions including
that he report to the probation officer within 48 hours after
release from custody. The court advised Valles that he must
report to the probation department “and then cooperate with any
orders, rules, and regulations they impose.” Pursuant to the plea
agreement, count 2 was dismissed.
       In January 2022, the court issued a bench warrant based
on a probation report alleging Valles violated probation by failing
to report to probation. Valles was arrested on the warrant in
September 2022. The probation revocation hearing was heard in
October by a different judge than the one who placed Valles on
probation.
       Probation Officer Susie Estrada testified that Valles
appeared at the probation office in Long Beach on September 30,
2021. The case was then transferred to Estrada in the Rio Hondo
office in Whittier. On October 6, she called Valles’s telephone
number in the file, but she was unable to leave a message
because his voicemail was full. She sent a letter to his last
known residence address, instructing him to report by telephone
to her Rio Hondo office on November 10 at 10:00 a.m. She never
heard from him.
       Probation Officer James Adkins testified the automated
probation system showed Valles reported only on September 30,
2021, and did not report in October, November, or December
2021, or January 2022.
       Valles’s aunt testified Valles lived with her at the address

                                 2
to which the letter had been sent. She said she received a phone
call she assumed was from the probation department that they
would do a home check, but they did not come.
       Valles testified as follows: On September 30, 2021, as soon
as he was released from custody, he reported to probation in Long
Beach. He received a call or a letter to report to the Rio Hondo
office. He tried to check in “numerous times” in October and left
messages on Estrada’s voicemail. He received a letter in
November telling him “to come and report to the Long Beach
courthouse probation department.” He testified he “tr[ied] to do
that” but was told there was no record that he was to be there,
and no record of Estrada being there. He called the Rio Hondo
office in November and then in December, when he was told
Estrada was on vacation. He called several times in January and
was directed to voicemail. He then got “inundated with work”
and did not call again.
       On cross-examination, Valles testified he did not appear at
any probation office after the one visit in September 2021. He
confirmed his cell phone number was the one Estrada testified
she called. He testified the cell phone carriers would have
records of the calls he made, and his business partner tried to get
those records.
       The trial court found Valles willfully violated probation.
Defense counsel asked that probation be reinstated. The court
declined, noting he had “quite the rap sheet” as well as probation
violations in prior cases. The court imposed the low term of two
years in state prison, concurrent to case NA114546.2

      2 An appeal of the revocation of probation and sentence in
case NA114546 is currently pending in this court, case number
B326444.

                                3
                               DISCUSSION
                             Probation violation
       The court may 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.” (§ 1203.2, subd. (a).) Violation of probation
must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. (People v.
Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 441.)
        “A court may not revoke probation unless the evidence
supports ‘a conclusion [that] the probationer’s conduct constituted
a willful violation of the terms and conditions of probation.’ ”
(People v. Cervantes (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 291, 295.) “The word
‘willfully,’ . . . implies simply a purpose or willingness to commit
the act, or make the omission referred to. It does not require any
intent to violate law, or to injure another, or to acquire any
advantage.” (§ 7, subd. (1).) Willfulness requires proof that the
defendant knew of their duty to act. (People v. Davis (2005) 126
Cal.App.4th 1416, 1436.)
       “We review the trial court’s probation revocation order for
an abuse of discretion. [Citations.] The trial court’s factual
findings are reviewed for substantial evidence.” (People v.
Butcher (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 310, 318.) “ ‘ “On appeal, we
must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People
and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of
every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.
[Citation.]” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733,
739.) “In deciding the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing
court resolves neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts.
[Citation.] Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the

                                 4
testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact.” (People v.
Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.)
       Here, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding
that Valles willfully violated the requirement that he report to
probation. Valles reported to probation only once and was
directed to report to the Rio Hondo office. He did not do so and
did not contact the probation department in the following 12
months. Valles’s testimony that he was directed by letter to
report to Long Beach conflicted with Estrada’s testimony that the
letter directed him to call her at the Rio Hondo office. The trial
court could accept Estrada’s testimony that she never heard from
Valles, and not credit his conflicting uncorroborated claim that he
left voicemail messages. The uncontested fact that Valles made
no effort to contact the probation department after January 2022
until he was arrested in September also constitutes substantial
evidence that he failed to report.
       Valles contends that any failure to report was not willful
“because of circumstances beyond his . . . control.” (People v.
Cervantes, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 295.) But the trial court
noted that Valles had prior probation violations and knew he was
required to report. The probation officers’ testimony that Valles
never reported after September 20, 2021, and his admission that
he made no effort to report after January 2022, constitutes
substantial evidence of a willful violation.
       This case is unlike People v. Buford (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d
975, 983-985, upon which Valles relies. The probationer there
missed several appointments with his probation officer but in
each instance made another appointment or came in the next
day. (Id. at pp. 983-984.) Thereafter, he “never missed a
prearranged appointment.” (Id. at p. 984.) In contrast, Valles

                                 5
appeared for only one appointment and admitted he made no
effort to contact probation after January 2022. Moreover, the
facts in Buford were based on the undisputed testimony of the
probation officer regarding the contents of the probationer’s file.
(Id. at p. 983.) But here, the only evidence Valles made any
attempt to contact the probation department after his initial visit
was his own uncorroborated testimony. The trial court was not
required to accept Valles’s version and found Estrada’s testimony
more convincing.
                                Sentence
       Upon finding a violation of probation, the trial court has
broad discretion to reinstate probation on the same terms,
reinstate probation with modified terms such as additional jail
time, or terminate probation and sentence the defendant to state
prison. (People v. Bolian (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1420-
1421.) If the court exercises its discretion to terminate probation
and, as is the case here, “the court originally imposed a sentence
and suspended execution of it, . . . the court must order that
imposed sentence into effect.” (Ibid.; see § 1203.2, subd. (c).)
       We review the decision to impose a prison sentence rather
than reinstate probation for abuse of discretion. (People v.
Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 909.) We may reverse the
decision only if “ ‘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.’ ” (Ibid.)
       The trial court here gave a “reasoned explanation for its
sentence choice” (People v. Downey, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p.
910), i.e., Valles’s criminal record and prior history of probation
violations. Valles has not shown an abuse of discretion.

                                  6
       Valles contends the trial court’s view of the evidence was
“jaded” and not objective, and the court revoked probation
“reflexively.” We disagree. Valles relies on the court’s statement
when it sentenced him for the probation violation: “He was given
a chance by getting suspended time and placed on probation,
quite frankly. This was not a probationary case to beginning [sic]
with.” Whatever the views of the court regarding the initial
grant of probation, the prison sentence upon revocation of
probation is supported by the record and did not constitute an
abuse of discretion.
                          DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             CODY, J.

                                7
                    Judith L. Meyer, Judge

             Superior Court County of Los Angeles

                ______________________________

      A. William Bartz, Jr., 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, Zee Rodriguez and Michael C. Keller, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.