Court Opinion

ID: 9942293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 19:03:53.211048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:54.826677
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/20/24 P. v. Kuklenski CA2/6
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

 THE PEOPLE,                                               2d Crim. No. B328540
                                                        (Super. Ct. Nos. 2020012549,
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                                 2020027002)
                                                             (Ventura County)
 v.

 MATTHEW DAVID
 KUKLENSKI,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      Matthew David Kuklenski appeals from the order
terminating probation and sentencing him to state prison. He
contends the trial court abused its discretion in terminating
probation and imposing a prison sentence. We affirm.
            FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1
      In case number 2020012549, Kuklenksi fraudulently
deposited four checks at a credit union. The Ventura County

         1 The factual summary is taken from the preliminary
hearing transcript.
District Attorney charged Kuklenski with passing forged checks
(Pen. Code,2 § 476) and identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)).
       In case number 2020027002, the police received a phone
call from a man who said Kuklenski brandished a knife at him.
The officers contacted Kuklenski and found a knife and
methamphetamine on him. The District Attorney charged
Kuklenski with assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1))
and possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11377, subd. (a)). As to the assault charge, it was further
alleged that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon
within the meaning of section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8).
       In case number 2020027002, Kuklenski pleaded guilty to
the assault charge and admitted the allegation (§§ 245, subd.
(a)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). In case number 2020012549,
Kuklenski pleaded guilty to identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)).3
The remaining counts in both cases were dismissed. The court
suspended imposition of sentence in both cases and placed
Kuklenski on probation with various terms and conditions.
      Shortly after his initial placement on probation in the
assault case, Kuklenski was charged with violating several
probation conditions by failing to submit to drug tests, admitting
drug use, and committing petty theft. He admitted violating
probation, and the trial court reinstated his probation, including
a condition that he serve time in county jail.

        2 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal
Code.

        3 The plea and sentencing in the identity theft case took
place over a year after the plea and sentencing in the assault
case.

                                  2
       Two months later, after Kuklenski’s release from custody,
the probation officer filed another notice of probation violation. It
alleged that Kuklenski committed misdemeanor utility theft,
failed to report to his probation officer, and failed to submit to
drug testing. It also alleged drug use and that Kuklenski
changed his residence without permission. The probation officer
requested the court terminate Kuklenski’s probation and
sentence him to state prison.
       Kuklenski testified on his own behalf at the contested
probation violation hearing. He claimed he had difficulty
arranging transportation to the probation department because
his mother could not give him a ride. He did not contact his
probation officer about his transportation issues. He also stated
that he “wasn’t really using” drugs during his probationary
period and that he lived with his mother for a brief time before
“couch surfing” at different residences.
       The trial court found Kuklenski in violation of probation. It
terminated probation and sentenced him to state prison for two
years and eight months (two years on the assault case and a
consecutive eight months on the identify theft case).
                            DISCUSSION
       Kuklenski contends the trial court abused its discretion by
terminating probation and sentencing him to state prison. We
disagree.
       The trial court may terminate probation “if the interests of
justice so require and the court, in its judgment, has reason to
believe from the report of the probation or parole officer or
otherwise that the person has violated any of the conditions of
their supervision.” (§ 1203.2, subd. (a).)

                                 3
       Upon finding a probation violation and revoking probation,
a trial court has broad discretion to reinstate probation on the
same terms, reinstate on modified terms, or terminate probation
and sentence the defendant to state prison. (People v. Bolian
(2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1420.) If the court exercises its
discretion to terminate probation and it “originally suspended
imposition of sentence, the court may, upon revocation and
termination of probation, ‘pronounce judgment for any time
within the longest period for which the person might have been
sentenced.’ ” (Ibid., italics omitted; see § 1203.2, subd. (c).)
       We review the decision to terminate probation and impose
a prison sentence for abuse of discretion. (People v. Downey
(2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 909.) We may reverse the decision
only if “ ‘the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or
capricious manner.’ [Citation.] A court abuses its discretion
‘whenever the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the
circumstances being considered.’ ” (Ibid.)
       Kuklenski does not dispute that he violated the terms and
conditions of his probation and recognizes the trial court had the
option of sentencing him to state prison. He contends that failure
to reinstate probation was contrary to the interests of justice.
       We reject this contention. Shortly after his initial
placement on probation, Kuklenski violated probation by failing
to submit to drug testing, admitting drug use, and committing
petty theft. He was granted another chance on probation, but
two months after reinstatement, he again violated probation by
failing to submit to drug testing and admitting drug use. He also
failed to report to his probation officer and moved residences
without permission. Although he alleged he had difficulty
arranging transportation to the probation office, he admitted he

                                4
did not contact his probation officer to report his transportation
issues. “When the record reveals that a defendant’s violation of
the terms of probation was the result of irresponsible or willful
behavior, termination of probation and imposition of a prison
sentence is no abuse of discretion.” (People v. Kingston (2019) 41
Cal.App.5th 272, 278.) There was no abuse of discretion here.
      Kuklenski also argues that the court erred because
California law favors reinstatement of probation for drug addicts.
But nothing in the record indicates Kuklenski took any steps to
seek drug treatment or make changes to his life. (See People v.
Martinez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1511 [“drug addiction is not
necessarily regarded as a mitigating factor when a criminal
defendant has a long-term problem and seems unwilling to
pursue treatment”].) Given Kuklenski’s continued violation of his
probation conditions and the absence of an attempt to change his
conduct, the court did not abuse its discretion when it terminated
probation and sentenced him to prison.
                          DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

             YEGAN, Acting P. J.                CODY, J.

                                5
                    Paul W. Baelly, Judge

              Superior Court County of Ventura

               ______________________________

      Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne and Ana R. Duarte, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.