Court Opinion

ID: 9402724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 17:04:47.954559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:31.970430
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/16/23 P. v. Alvarado CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E079827

 v.                                                                       (Super.Ct.No. FVI21001411)

 HECTOR MANUEL ALVARADO,                                                  OPINION

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Shannon L.

Faherty, Judge. Affirmed.

         Mi Kim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier and

Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                              1
                                      INTRODUCTION

          Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant and defendant Hector Manuel Alvarado

pled guilty to one count of unlawful possession of ammunition. (Pen. Code,1 § 30305,

subd. (a)(1).) The court suspended execution of sentence and placed him on two years’

probation under certain terms, including the requirement that he report to his probation

officer as directed. The court subsequently revoked his probation for failing to report,

and it sentenced defendant to the originally imposed sentence of three years in state

prison.

          On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the court abused its discretion in revoking his

probation since there was insufficient evidence to establish he willfully failed to report to

the probation officer; (2) the evidence presented at the hearing suggested the court’s

failure to reinstate him on probation was based on erroneous information or “an

erroneous evaluation of the need to revoke”; and (3) the improper revocation of his

probation violated his constitutional right to due process. We disagree and affirm.

                                 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

          On October 26, 2021, defendant entered a plea agreement and pled no contest to

one count of unlawful possession of ammunition. (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1).) The court

sentenced him to three years in state prison, but suspended execution of sentence and

placed him on two years’ probation under specified terms, including that he report to the

probation officer immediately or upon release and thereafter as directed.

          1
         All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise
indicated.
                                               2
       On February 18, 2022, the San Bernardino County Probation Department (the

probation department) filed a petition for revocation of probation (the petition), alleging

that defendant violated his probation by failing to report to the probation officer as

directed. The petition alleged that on November 2, 2021, defendant reported to the

probation office for orientation. His probation terms were read and reviewed with him,

and he signed a document acknowledging that he understood them. Defendant was

directed to report to his probation officer monthly and to have meetings “via web”

beginning December 2, 2021.

       On November 18, 2021, defendant contacted the probation department to report

that he was currently residing in Los Angeles County; however, he would be moving to

San Diego County before December 1, 2021. At that time, defendant was directed to

report to probation bi-weekly via telephone until further notice.

       On November 30, 2021, defendant contacted the probation department to report

that he would be residing in Los Angeles County due to finding stable employment and

stable housing. He was directed to report to the Victorville Probation Office on

December 2, 2021, to fill out a change of address form.

       On December 2, 2021, defendant reported to the Victorville Probation Office as

directed and updated his address to “1111 S Montebello Blvd., Montebello, California,

90640.” He was directed to email a utility bill to start the transfer process for his case.

       On January 19 and 24, 2022, attempts were made to contact defendant at his last

reported telephone number; however, a message stated, “caller not accepting calls at this

                                              3
time.” The petition stated that defendant had made no attempts to contact the probation

department.

       On March 2, 2022, a bench warrant was issued for the defendant’s arrest for

failure to report. Defendant was arrested on July 2, 2022, in Orange County and taken

into custody.

       The probation department filed a supplemental report on September 9, 2022, and

reported that defendant was interviewed via telephone while in custody. He admitted to

the probation violation and said it was due to being in the hospital with Covid and other

medical concerns. Defendant said he was in the hospital for about three months and,

after being discharged, he was homeless in Los Angeles County and simply did not report

to probation. Defendant said he was working in an autobody shop and did not have much

money or transportation. He said he struggled with depression and used

methamphetamine to cope. Defendant said he would like to be granted another

opportunity to prove he could abide by the terms of his probation. The probation report

reflected that defendant had a criminal history dating back to 1997, which included over

10 felony convictions and six misdemeanor convictions, and that he had previously been

on probation and parole and had violated his parole. The probation officer stated that

defendant was reporting to be homeless in Los Angeles County, which would make it

difficult to properly supervise him and give him further excuses not to report. The officer

noted that defendant appeared to be struggling with mental health and substance abuse

problems but had failed to follow through with programs to address his needs. The

probation officer opined that continued supervision was not a viable option and
                                             4
recommended that the court impose the previously suspended term of three years in

prison.

          The court held a probation revocation hearing on September 9, 2022, and

Probation Officer Cooper testified. She testified that defendant had been informed of the

expectations of him while on probation and that he violated his probation by failing to

report as directed. Cooper testified that defendant last reported to probation on December

2, 2021, and failed to report after that. She testified that the recommendation was to find

defendant in violation of his probation and sentence him to three years in prison. On

cross-examination, Cooper testified that defendant was not deserving of a second chance

on probation because he had an extensive criminal history, and it was not his first time on

probation (or parole), so he “[knew] very well what [was] expected on supervision.”

Furthermore, defendant had a couple of months to report or address the issue before the

petition was submitted and the warrant was activated. Defense counsel asked Officer

Cooper if she had considered “the troubles that [defendant] had finding housing,” and she

said yes. When asked if she found such consideration “sufficiently mitigating,” she

responded: “No. In the report it states that he found stable housing and employment.

This is why we were trying to transfer the case to the county that he was residing in, so he

could continue his career where he was living.”

          Defendant testified on his own behalf. He said the last time he reported to his

probation officer in San Bernardino was in December 2021. When asked what happened

after that, defendant said, “I was being transferred to L.A. County as I have no residence

out here in San Bernardino or Victorville. I did give a home address [in Montebello].”
                                                5
Defendant testified that shortly thereafter, he was admitted to the hospital with Covid and

then caught colitis. He said he was in the hospital until April. After he got out of the

hospital, defendant said he “was pretty much behind on [his] bills and [his] job was about

to let [him] go so [he] worked and tried to get back on [his] feet with [his] family.” On

cross-examination, defendant testified that he was required to report to probation every

month, and when asked how many times he failed to report, he said, “I guess the whole

time because I was in the hospital.”

       The court found that defendant was in violation of his probation, and it sentenced

him to the previously suspended term of three years in state prison.

                                          DISCUSSION

        I. There Was Sufficient Evidence to Support the Court’s Finding that Defendant

                               Willfully Violated Probation

       Defendant contends the court abused its discretion in revoking his probation since

there was insufficient evidence that he willfully violated the probation condition

requiring him to report to probation monthly. He asserts that the evidence presented at

the hearing showed he failed to report to probation from January through April 2022

because he was hospitalized, through no fault of his own. He claims the evidence also

showed that after his release from the hospital, he became homeless because he got

behind on his bills while hospitalized. We disagree.

       A. Relevant Law

       A probation violation must be willful to justify revocation of probation. (People v.

Rodriguez (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 578, 594, disapproved on other grounds in People v.
                                             6
Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 503, fn. 2; People v. Galvan (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 978,

981-982; § 1203.2, subd. (a).) Proof of a probation violation by a preponderance of the

evidence is sufficient to revoke probation. (People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437,

446.) Trial courts have broad discretion to determine whether a defendant has violated

probation and whether, as a result, the court should revoke probation. (Id. at pp. 443,

445; People v. Kelly (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 961, 965.)

       Moreover, where a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting a court’s finding that a defendant has violated probation, and “where the trial

court was required to resolve conflicting evidence, review on appeal is based on the

substantial evidence test. Under that standard, our review is limited to the determination

of whether, upon review of the entire record, there is substantial evidence of solid value,

contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the trial court’s decision. In that

regard, we give great deference to the trial court and resolve all inferences and

intendments in favor of the judgment. Similarly, all conflicting evidence will be resolved

in favor of the decision.” (People v. Kurey (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 840, 848-849, fns.

omitted (Kurey).)

       B. The Evidence Was Sufficient

       The evidence undisputedly showed that defendant failed to report as directed. He

was initially directed to report to his probation officer monthly, and to have meetings “via

web” beginning December 2, 2021. He subsequently informed the probation department

that he was living in Los Angeles County but would be moving to San Diego County

before December 1, 2021. At that time, he was directed to report to probation bi-weekly
                                             7
via telephone, until further notice. On November 30, 2021, defendant reported that he

would be staying in Los Angeles County, due to finding stable employment and housing,

and he was directed to report to the Victorville Probation Office on December 2, 2021, to

fill out a change of address form. He went as directed and updated his address, which

was in Montebello. At the probation revocation hearing, Officer Cooper testified that

defendant did not report to probation any time after that. She further testified that in light

of his extensive criminal history and prior periods on probation, defendant knew “very

well” what was expected of him.

       The evidence also showed that the probation conditions were reviewed with

defendant, and he acknowledged that he understood them. Defendant clearly knew of the

requirement to report, as demonstrated by his compliance up until December 2, 2021.

Further, at the hearing, defendant testified that he was required to report to probation

monthly, and that the last time he reported was in December 2021. 2 When asked how

many times he failed to report, he said, “I guess the whole time because I was in the

hospital.” Thus, defendant acknowledged his failure to report.

       Defendant argues that he failed to report in San Bernardino County from January

2022 to April 2022 because he was hospitalized “through no fault of his own.” In other

words, he claims his failure to report was not willful since he was in the hospital. The

People agree that circumstances were beyond defendant’s control when he was in the

       2 Although it is not clear from the record if the requirement was to report monthly
in person, “via web,” and/or by telephone after December 2, 2021, it is clear that
defendant failed to contact the probation department in any manner after that point.
                                              8
hospital for Covid and colitis. However, they point out that after he left the hospital in

April 2022, he was able to contact the probation department, but failed to do so.

Defendant concedes that he failed to report to probation after his release from the

hospital, but claims he “became homeless through no fault of his own because he got

behind on his bills while hospitalized.” He contends “it is undisputed that he was

homeless.” The record belies that claim. In support of his claim that he was homeless,

defendant points to his testimony that he got behind on his bills while he was

hospitalized. He testified that, after he got out of the hospital, he “was pretty much

behind on [his] bills and [his] job was about to let [him] go so [he] worked and tried to

get back on [his] feet with [his] family.” Notably, defendant did not testify that he was

homeless. In fact, when asked what happened after he last reported to probation in San

Bernardino County, he testified: “I was being transferred to L.A. County as I have no

residence out here in San Bernardino or Victorville. I did give a home address.” (Italics

added.) The probation report reflects that defendant reported to the Victorville Probation

Office on December 2, 2021, and updated his address to “1111 S Montebello Blvd.,

Montebello, California, 90640.” Thus, rather than show that he was homeless, the

evidence indicated defendant lived in a home in Montebello.

       In his reply brief, defendant points to a statement in the probation department’s

supplemental report which says, “After being discharged from the hospital he was

homeless in Los Angeles County and simply did not report to probation.” However, the

probation officer was simply conveying what defendant said when he was interviewed.

In context, the report states: “The defendant admitted to the probation violation. He
                                              9
claimed it was due to being in the hospital for Covid and other medical concerns.

According to the defendant he was in the hospital for approximately three (3) months.

After being discharged from the hospital he was homeless in Los Angeles County, and

simply did not report to probation. . . .” (Italics added.) To the extent the evidence in the

supplemental report conflicted with the evidence showing that defendant had a home

address and was not homeless, we must resolve conflicting evidence in favor of the trial

court’s decision. (Kurey, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 849 [“all conflicting evidence will

be resolved in favor of the decision”].)

       Moreover, the evidence shows that after defendant was released from the hospital

in April 2022, he went back to work at his job. Since he was not arrested until July 2022,

he had approximately three months to report to probation, but failed to, despite knowing

he was required to do so and despite being able to work during that period.

       We conclude that the evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that

defendant willfully violated his probation.

  II. The Court’s Decision Not to Reinstate Defendant on Probation Was Not Based on

      Erroneous Information or “An Erroneous Evaluation of the Need to Revoke”

       Defendant claims the evidence presented at the revocation hearing “suggests that

the trial court’s failure to reinstate probation was based on erroneous information or

because of an erroneous evaluation of the need to revoke.” He then argues that his

hospitalization and subsequent homelessness mitigated his conduct (i.e., his failure to

report), and the court abused its discretion in failing to reinstate him on probation. We

disagree.
                                              10
       Defendant first asserts that Officer Cooper testified he (defendant) did not deserve

a second chance at probation because “ ‘he had a couple of months to report or try to

address this issue before the petition was filed’ ” on February 18, 2022. Defendant then

asserts that this testimony ignores his uncontradicted testimony that he was hospitalized

during that period and was not released until April 2022. While it is undisputed that he

was hospitalized sometime after December 2021 until April 2022, there is no indication

defendant tried to contact the probation department in any way during that time.

Moreover, he was released in April 2022 and was not arrested until July 2022. Yet, he

did not report to probation, despite there being no apparent reason for failing to do so.

(See § I, ante.)

       Defendant also states that Officer Cooper testified she did not find his

homelessness to be mitigating since the report stated, “he found stable housing and

employment,” which is why they were trying to transfer him to the county where he was

residing. Defendant points out that he “made [those] claims in November 30, 2021.” He

appears to be arguing that the court based the revocation, in part, on this “erroneous

information” that he had stable housing and employment. However, as discussed ante,

defendant testified that after being released from the hospital, he returned to work, in

order to get back on his feet. He also confirmed that he gave the probation department

his home address in Montebello. (See § I, ante.) Thus, the evidence indicated he did

have stable housing and employment.

       Defendant further argues that the record fails to show the trial court “considered

any new or additional conditions of probation [that] may have assured [his] rehabilitation
                                             11
. . . even though this was his first probation violation for failure to report to probation.”

Defendant does not cite any requirement for the court to consider new or additional

probation conditions. Moreover, in view of his extensive criminal history, which

includes numerous periods on probation and parole, defendant has been given many

opportunities to rehabilitate. (See § I, ante.)

       In light of defendant’s willful violation of probation and criminal history, we

cannot say the court abused its discretion in not reinstating him on probation.

                 III. Defendant’s Due Process Rights Were Not Violated

       Finally, defendant contends the court violated his right to due process since its

revocation of probation was not supported by the evidence. However, the court held a

probation violation hearing; the People presented the testimony of the probation officer,

defense counsel cross-examined her, and defendant testified on his own behalf. The

evidence supported the court’s finding that defendant willfully violated his probation, and

it properly sentenced him to the previously imposed term. (See § I, ante.) Thus,

defendant’s due process rights were not violated.

                                              12
                                  DISPOSITION

      The judgment is affirmed.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                FIELDS
                                                         J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON
          Acting P. J.

RAPHAEL
                        J.

                                      13