Court Opinion

ID: 9915820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-08 18:02:32.864734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:23.889813
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/8/24 P. . Contreras CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 THE PEOPLE,                                                          D083003

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. FVI23000975)

 LUIS JERRY CONTRERAS,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, Michael A. Dauber, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
         Charles Thomas Anderson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney
General, Robin Urbanski and Donald W. Ostertag, Deputy Attorneys
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
         After the trial court sentenced Luis Jerry Contreras, a probation officer
asked to add another probation condition not originally imposed. Contreras
challenges that new condition, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to
modify probation absent a change in circumstances. We agree, so we strike
that new probation condition and affirm the judgment as modified. As we
resolve this case by memorandum opinion, we do not elaborate on the factual
or procedural background beyond what is required for our analysis. (Cal.
Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851-
854.)
                                        I.
        Contreras pleaded no contest to violating Vehicle Code section 23153,
subdivision (a), for causing injury while driving under the influence of
alcohol. Contreras then waived his right to obtain a probation report before
judgment, instead requesting immediate sentencing.
        The trial court sentenced Contreras to three years of formal probation
subject to certain terms and conditions. Those conditions included
(1) completing a four-month alcohol education program; (2) not driving “with
any measurable amount of alcohol” in his system; and (3) if arrested for
driving under the influence during probation, submitting to a chemical
analysis. The trial court did not impose a no-alcohol condition, which would
have prohibited Contreras from “possess[ing] [ ]or consum[ing] any alcoholic
beverages” or “enter[ing] places where such beverages are the chief item of
sale, such as bars and liquor stores,” and required him to “submit to tests” as
directed by his probation officer.
        Several weeks later, the probation officer recommended the trial court
add the no-alcohol condition to Contreras’ probation. The probation officer
did not cite any new facts prompting this change. Rather, he observed only
that the original sentence did not include this condition. In the probation
officer’s opinion, the no-alcohol condition was appropriate “for the safety of

                                        2
the community and to avoid the risk of recidivism,” “vital” to Contreras’
rehabilitation, and “necessary to ensure” compliance.
      A different judicial officer ruled on this request and, over defense
counsel’s objection, modified Contreras’ probation to add the no-alcohol
condition. The trial court cited no change in circumstances but “believe[d]
that it ha[d] the power” to add a condition “related to the offense charged.”
                                        II.
      Contreras argues the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction because no
new facts or changed circumstances warranted modifying his probation. We
agree.
      “A change in circumstances is required before a court has jurisdiction to
extend or otherwise modify probation.” (People v. Cookson (1991) 54 Cal.3d
1091, 1095.) As a result, a court cannot modify probation based on the same
facts as the original order. (Ibid.)
      Here, we are not persuaded by the People’s claim, unsupported by
analogous legal authority, that the probation officer’s “observation . . .
constituted a change in circumstances.” To the contrary, under similar
circumstances, our Supreme Court held that a trial court was “without
jurisdiction” to extend probation upon a probation officer’s request. (In re
Clark (1959) 51 Cal.2d 838, 840.) The Supreme Court concluded that “no
factual basis” supported the change because the order modifying probation
was “based upon the same facts as the original order.” (Ibid.) So too here. In
the weeks following Contreras’ sentencing, no new facts arose; only the
probation officer’s opinion was new. Under In re Clark, that opinion does not
give the trial court jurisdiction to modify probation. As a result, the trial
court exceeded its jurisdiction by adding the no-alcohol condition to
Contreras’ probation.

                                        3
                                      III.
     We modify the judgment by striking the no-alcohol probation condition.
We affirm the judgment as modified.

                                                             CASTILLO, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

KELETY, J.

                                       4