Court Opinion

ID: 9931690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:02:54.033553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:25:19.109304
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/9/24 P. v. Vasquez CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                         (Sutter)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C098991

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                             (Super. Ct. No.
                                                                                         CRF20-0003062)
           v.

 JOSE VASQUEZ, JR.,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Condition No. 17 of defendant Jose Vasquez, Jr.’s, probation provided he was not
to associate with females under the age of 18 years unless accompanied by an unrelated
responsible adult (condition No. 17). Defendant’s probation officer learned defendant’s
minor female cousins were coming to the house where defendant lived with his parents
for a weekend visit. She cautioned defendant that he would violate his probation if he
was at the residence when they visited. The next day, deputies found defendant at the
residence, in the backyard in front of a tent, when the girls were also at the residence.
The trial court found defendant violated condition No. 17 and revoked probation.

                                                             1
Defendant asserts there was insufficient evidence he violated condition No. 17 and that
his probation officer impermissibly broadened the meaning of the term “not associate.”
We affirm.
                  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       The facts of defendant’s underlying convictions are not relevant to any issue
presented on this appeal and we do not summarize them here. Defendant pled no contest
to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger than him. He
also pled no contest to inflicting corporal injury on a specified person and admitted the
truth of an attached great bodily injury allegation. The trial court placed defendant on
formal probation with 364 days in jail. Condition No. 17 of defendant’s probation stated:
“Not associate with; FEMALES under the age of 18 years unless accompanied by an
unrelated responsible adult.”
       Amy Depew, a senior probation officer, had an office visit with defendant on
April 14, 2023. Defendant told Depew his two minor female cousins and their parents
were coming to spend the weekend at the house he shared with his parents. Depew told
defendant that, if he was at the residence when the two female minors were there, that
would violate the terms of his probation. Depew also called defendant’s father and
discussed these concerns. Depew told both defendant and his father that neither
defendant’s girlfriend nor his aunt by marriage would be an appropriate and qualifying
unrelated responsible adult. On cross-examination, Depew testified she advised that
defendant could not have any contact with any minor females.
       Depew had the impression defendant intended to comply with her guidance.
However, she knew defendant to have a history of dishonesty, so she requested a
compliance visit by the Sutter County Sheriff’s Office for the next day.
       At approximately 3:25 p.m. on April 15, 2023, Deputy Sean Anub went to
defendant’s residence with Deputy Ashlee Moseley. Defendant’s father told them
defendant was in the backyard. The deputies went through the house, where they

                                             2
observed two females who were approximately 10 years old, one in the kitchen and the
other in the living room. The deputies then went into the backyard where they saw
defendant approximately 50 to 70 feet from the house. He was seated in a lawn chair in
front of a tent.
       Deputy Anub heard defendant tell Deputy Moseley that he had spent the night in
the tent. Deputy Anub testified, however, that the tent did not look as though it had been
slept in, and that there was no bedding anywhere near the tent. There were also no
bathroom facilities in the backyard. On cross-examination, Deputy Anub acknowledged
he never saw the minors near the tent and he never saw defendant near the minors.
       The deputies reported their findings to Depew, Depew concluded defendant was in
violation of his probation, and Deputy Moseley arrested defendant.
       Defendant’s father testified he picked up his brother and his family from the
airport and arrived home at approximately 2:00 a.m. He had previously told defendant to
be sure to get out of the house. Defendant, however, had no money for a hotel and he had
nowhere to go. According to defendant’s father, when he arrived at the house from the
airport with his brother and his brother’s family, defendant was in the house. At that
time, defendant walked out. When asked if defendant went to the backyard, defendant’s
father responded, “I went to bed. So I don’t know. He just went outside. After that, I
don’t know what happened. I went to sleep.” (Some capitalization omitted.)
       When he woke up, defendant’s father saw defendant had set up a tent in the
backyard. Defendant’s father testified that, when they were staying at the house, the girls
“probably” stayed in a room with their parents. (Capitalization omitted.) As for the lack
of bathroom facilities in the backyard, defendant’s father testified defendant could “find a
spot in the backyard.” (Capitalization omitted.) Defendant’s father testified defendant
was not around the female minors by himself, defendant was always away from the
house, and the girls were never outside.

                                             3
       The trial court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant violated
condition No. 17 by associating with females under 18 years old. The trial court
sentenced defendant to five years eight months in prison.
       Defendant appeals.
                                       DISCUSSION
       “ ‘Penal Code section 1203.2 provides the court may revoke probation if it has
reason to believe that the person has violated any of the probation conditions.” (People v.
Rauen (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 421, 424.) The “ ‘facts supporting revocation need only
be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.’ ” (Ibid.) “We review the trial court’s
probation revocation order for an abuse of discretion.” (People v. Butcher (2016)
247 Cal.App.4th 310, 318.)
                                               I
                 The Trial Court Reasonably Interpreted “Not Associate”
       Defendant asserts his probation officer should have interpreted “the word
‘associate’ to mean something more than being with his girlfriend in a tent set up in the
backyard 30 to 40 yards away (or 50 to 70 feet away) from the residence where two 10-
year-old girls were staying for the weekend for a family reunion.” He employs dictionary
definitions of the term “associate” to bolster his analysis.
       “When attempting to ascertain the ordinary, usual meaning of a word, courts
appropriately refer to the dictionary definition of that word.” (Wasatch Property
Management v. Degrate (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1111, 1121-1122; accord, Hammond v. Agran
(1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189 [“in the absence of specifically defined meaning, a
court looks to the plain meaning of a word as understood by the ordinary person, which
would typically be a dictionary definition”].)
       As relevant here, “associate” can be defined as “to join as a partner, friend, or
companion” and “to come or be together as partners, friends, or companions” (Merriam-
Webster’s Collegiate Dict. (11th ed. 2006) p. 75, col. 1); “[t]o join as a partner, ally, or

                                               4
friend” and “[t]o keep company” (American Heritage College Dict. (4th ed. 2007) pp. 86-
87); and “to be together with another person or group as friends, partners, etc.” (The
Britannica Dict. Online (2023) <https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/associate> [as of
Dec. 19, 2023], archived at <https://perma.cc/W34Z-NE9B>).
       Under these definitions, defendant’s spending more than a de minimis amount of
time with his minor cousins in or around his parents’ house is reasonably interpreted as
joining them as friends to keep their company. Defendant asserts the probation officer
broadened the meaning of “not associate” to prohibit defendant from having any
“ ‘contact’ ” with the minor females, as distinguished from associating with them. But
defendant did not bump into his cousins on a public street. He was in or near his parents’
home in a familial and social setting where family members understandably neglect to
supervise their adult and minor children at all moments. Everyone was associating in the
house. The ability to access that space without permission or oversight for an extended
period demonstrates that a person spending time outside the house has also come together
to keep company with those inside the house.
       We conclude the trial court’s interpretation of condition No. 17 was reasonable
and did not result from any unilateral broadening of the term’s meaning by the probation
officer. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant’s
probation. (See People v. Urke (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 766, 733 [“great deference is
accorded the trial court’s decision, bearing in mind that ‘[p]robation is not a matter of
right but an act of clemency, the granting and revocation of which are entirely within the
sound discretion of the trial court’ ”].)
                                             II
                 Substantial Evidence Supports The Trial Court’s Finding
                    Defendant Associated With The Two Minor Females
       Defendant asserts there was insufficient evidence to prove he violated condition
No. 17. We disagree.

                                              5
       We review the trial court’s factual findings in a probation revocation proceeding
for substantial evidence. (People v. Butcher, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 318.) In
considering a substantial evidence challenge, “[w]e review the whole record most
favorably to the judgment to determine whether there is substantial evidence⸺that is,
evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value⸺from which a reasonable trier of
fact could have made the requisite finding under the governing standard of proof.”
(In re Jerry M. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 289, 298.) In reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence, “ ‘[w]e presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier
of fact reasonably could infer from the evidence. [Citation.] If the circumstances
reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted
simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary
finding. [Citation.] A reviewing court neither reweighs evidence nor reevaluates a
witness’s credibility.’ ” (People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 890.)
       Based on the totality of the evidence recounted above, the trial court could have
reasonably found that, by being merely outside in the backyard of the house, on the
property, and having free and unsupervised access to the house for an extended period,
defendant was associating with his entire family, including the two minor females. The
trial court could have also reasonably found defendant was in the house upon the female
minors’ arrival and that he associated with them before leaving the house. Further, the
trial court could reasonably infer that defendant frequented the house to use a restroom
based on the lack of bathroom facilities in the backyard or slept in the house based on the
lack of bedding in the tent and that, while being in the house, he associated with the
minor females and other family members.
       It could also be reasonable to infer that defendant relieved himself in the backyard
and that he either slept in the tent without bedding or had the bedding put away by the
time deputies arrived in the afternoon, as defendant argues. However, as stated, in our
substantial evidence review, “ ‘[w]e presume in support of the judgment the existence of

                                              6
every fact the trier of fact reasonably could infer from the evidence. [Citation.] If the
circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, reversal of the judgment is
not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with
a contrary finding.’ ” (People v. Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 890.)
       Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s determination.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                  /s/
                                                  ROBIE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/
DUARTE, J.

/s/
KRAUSE, J.

                                              7