Court Opinion

ID: 9726298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:42:07.193757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:25.724170
License: Public Domain

LILLIE, Acting P. J.
I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Thompson reversing the judgment in case No. A-236450, but dissent from that portion reversing the order revoking probation and judgment imposed in case No. 305542.
On October 4, 1965, on his plea of guilty to second degree robbery in case No. 305542 defendant was granted summary probation for five years on the condition that he “Obey all laws, orders, rules and regulations of Probation Department and of the Court.” While it is true that the order revoking probation in No. 305542 was made on March 7, 1969, by the same judge who on the same day and previous thereto imposed judgment and sentence in the instant case (A-236450), in the light of the comments of the sentencing judge made prior to revocation of probation, his express consideration of the probation report, review of defendant’s conduct and opinion as to defendant’s inability to function in society, and the probation report itself I am unwilling to assume that the sole basis for revoking *721probation was defendant’s conviction in case No. A-236450 as in People v. Ketchum, 185 Cal.App.2d 620, 621 [8 Cal.Rptr. 610], and People v. Muniz, 4 Cal.App.3d 562, 571 [84 Cal.Rptr. 501]. The sentencing judge heard the evidence in No. A-236450 and read and considered the probation report, each of which was sufficient to warrant his conclusion that the interests of justice require revocation and that defendant violated the condition of probation (§ 1203.2, Pen. Code). Under all of the circumstances there is no basis for disturbing the judgment entered against defendant in case No. 305542. I would affirm the order revoking probation and the judgment imposed in case No. 305542.