Court Opinion

ID: 9411748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 18:04:12.623311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:11.538382
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/27/23 P. v. Cardiff CA2/2
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,                                                    B322391

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                             (Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. NA112033)
         v.

DANIELLE LYNN CARDIFF,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         THE COURT:

      Danielle Lynn Cardiff (defendant) appeals from a
postconviction order denying her request for a reduction of
her probation period under Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020
Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2) (Assem. Bill No. 1950),
which amended Penal Code1 section 1203.1 effective January 1,
2021 to limit the maximum probation term for most felonies to
two years.

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise indicated.
                          BACKGROUND
       On May 30, 2019, defendant struck her grandmother in the
face and upper torso multiple times in the presence of defendant’s
toddler.
       On July 30, 2019, defendant pleaded no contest to one
count of felony elder abuse likely to cause great bodily injury (§
368, subd. (b)(1)), and one count of assault by means of force
likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). On the
elder abuse count, the trial court imposed a two-year prison
sentence, but suspended its execution; on the assault count, the
court suspended imposition of sentence. As to both counts,
defendant was placed on three years’ probation. The court also
entered a protective order pursuant to section 1203.097 on behalf
of defendant’s grandparents.
       Defendant did not appeal her conviction or sentence.
       In February 2021, the court preliminarily found defendant
had violated the terms of her probation, and issued a bench
warrant for her arrest.
       On July 7, 2021, defendant admitted the probation
violation. The court revoked and then reinstated defendant’s
probation under the original terms, i.e., three years to run to July
2022.
       In April 2022, following another violation of the terms of
probation, the court summarily revoked defendant’s probation.
       On July 13, 2022, defendant filed a motion to terminate
probation pursuant to Assem. Bill No. 1950, arguing there was
insufficient evidence to show it was a domestic violence case
exempted from the default two-year cap for probation. Defendant
argued that a trial court assessing whether a case qualified as a
domestic violence case “must be limited to what was actually

                                 2
admitted at the time of the plea.” The trial court denied the
motion, ruling that it was not limited in the manner defendant
suggested, and found defendant’s conviction was for a crime of
domestic violence because (1) the victims were defendant’s
grandparents, and (2) protective orders were issued pursuant to
the domestic violence statute. Defendant admitted the probation
violation, and the court reinstated probation under the original
terms until July 15, 2023.
       Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed
appellate counsel for defendant. Citing People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436, counsel filed an opening brief setting out the
procedural history of this case and a declaration indicating that
counsel had “reviewed the entire record,” had found no “arguable
issues on appeal” and had informed defendant of her right “to file
a supplemental brief,” and asking this court to independently
review the record.
                            DISCUSSION
       For appeals of post-conviction matters, our Supreme Court
has established a procedural framework to follow when appointed
counsel finds no arguable issues. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14
Cal.5th 216, 221-222 (Delgadillo).) Under that framework, we
gave notice to defendant that she had the right to file a
supplemental letter or brief or her appeal could be dismissed. To
date, no letter or brief has been filed.
       We decline to engage in independent review of the record
and dismiss the appeal as abandoned. (Delgadillo, supra, 14
Cal.5th at pp. 231-232.)
       Even if we were to look at the merits, the trial court’s
ruling is correct. First, the trier of fact may look to the entire
record of conviction to determine the substance of a conviction.

                                3
(People v. Guerrero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 343, 355.) Second, and as
noted above, Assem. Bill No. 1950 amended section 1203.1 to
limit probation in most felony cases to two years. But the two-
year limit “shall not apply” to an offense “that includes specific
probation lengths within its provisions.” (§ 1203.1, subd. (l)(1).)
The pertinent specific probation length applicable here is set
forth in section 1203.097, which requires a minimum 36-month
probation term in any case in which “a person is granted
probation for a crime in which the victim is a person defined
in Section 6211 of the Family Code.” (Pen. Code, § 1203.097,
subd. (a)(1).) Persons defined in section 6211 of the Family
Code include a “person related by consanguinity or affinity within
the second degree” (Fam. Code, § 6211, subd. (f)), which includes
the relationship of grandchild and grandparent. (Prob. Code, §
13, subd. (b).) Thus, even when the statutes defining defendant’s
crimes (Pen. Code, §§ 368 & 245) do not provide for a specific
probation length, if the victim of the crime is defendant’s
grandparent, the specific minimum probation length of 36
months provided in section 1203.097 applies. (See People v.
Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 894-895; People v.
Rodriguez (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 637, 644; People v.
Forester (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 447, 455.)
                          DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

——————————————————————————————
LUI, P. J., CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J.

                                4