The People v. Castaneda CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD229621
- Trial judge
- Frederick Maguire
- Outcome
- modified — Affirmed as modified and remanded with directions.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- O'Rourke (author), Judith D. McConnell, Cynthia Aaron
Analysis
The trial court revoked Castaneda's probation, sentenced him to 12 years in prison, and imposed additional restitution and probation revocation fines of $2,400 each. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the probation revocation but modified the judgment to strike the additional fines, holding that the original fines remained in effect.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of probation“Here, we conclude Castaneda has not made a showing the court abused its discretion in declining to reinstate him on probation.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court The appellate court found no abuse of discretion, noting the trial court's decision was reasonable given the defendant's repeated failures to comply with probation conditions, including positive drug tests and abandonment of treatment. |
Imposition of additional restitution and probation revocation fines“The People concede, and we agree, the trial court erroneously imposed additional restitution and parole revocation fines under sections 1202.4, subdivision (b), and 1202.44.” | de novo | error | agree with court The court held that upon probation revocation, the original fines imposed at the initial sentencing remained in effect, making the imposition of new, additional fines erroneous. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Pinon (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 120 — Probation is an act of clemency, and its revocation is within the sound discretion of the trial court.
- relied: People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437 — The Legislature intended to give trial courts very broad discretion in determining probation violations.
- relied: People v. Jacobs (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 728 — Trial court discretion is a legal discretion subject to limitations and reversible if no reasonable basis is shown.
- relied: People v. Zaring (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 362 — A trial court's determination regarding probation must be based on the facts before it.
- relied: People v. Marichalar (2003) 144 Cal.App.4th 1331 — After probation is revoked, the original fines imposed at sentencing remain in effect.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the abuse of discretion standard to the probation revocation, citing appropriate authorities to support the deference owed to the trial court. It also correctly identifies the error in imposing duplicate fines, relying on People v. Marichalar to strike the additional amounts.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court revoked Castaneda's probation after he admitted violating its terms, sentenced him to 12 years in prison, and imposed new $2,400 restitution and probation revocation fines on top of the $200 fines imposed when probation was granted. The Court of Appeal held the revocation was within the trial court's discretion, accepted the People's concession that the additional fines were unauthorized, struck the $2,400 fines, and affirmed the judgment as modified with directions to amend the abstract.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of probation and refusal to reinstate Castaneda on probation with placement in a residential treatment program“Here, we conclude Castaneda has not made a showing the court abused its discretion in declining to reinstate him on probation.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court Castaneda conceded the violation, so the only question was whether the court had to choose treatment over prison. The record showed a prior admitted violation and reinstatement, a positive methamphetamine test, abandonment of a residential program after one day, a new arrest, and failure to report or register, which supplies a reasonable basis under Rodriguez and Pinon for withdrawing clemency. The court applied the right deferential standard and the result follows from the facts recited. |
Imposition at sentencing after revocation of additional $2,400 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and $2,400 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44) in addition to the $200 fines imposed when probation was granted“After Castaneda's probation was revoked, the original fines remained in effect.” | de novo | error (law misapplied) | agree with court A restitution fine imposed as a condition of probation survives revocation and a second fine in the same case is unauthorized; the People conceded as much and the court correctly struck the duplicative fines while leaving the original $200 fines in place. The opinion mislabels the § 1202.44 fine as a 'parole revocation' fine and the Marichalar citation's volume and year do not align, but the legal proposition is well settled and the correction is right. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Pinon (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 120 — Probation is an act of clemency, not a right, and its grant and revocation rest in the trial court's sound discretion.
- relied: People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437 — The Legislature intended trial courts to have very broad discretion in determining whether a probationer has violated probation.
- relied: People v. Jacobs (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 728 — Judicial discretion is a legal discretion subject to legal principles and reversible where no reasonable basis for the action is shown; abuse of discretion has factual and legal components.
- relied: People v. Zaring (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 362 — A probation revocation decision, though discretionary, must be based on the facts before the court.
- relied: People v. Marichalar (2003) 144 Cal.App.4th 1331 — Restitution-related fines imposed when probation is granted remain in effect after probation is revoked, so additional fines may not be imposed at sentencing.
- relied: People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 — Cited for the dismissal of remaining counts and allegations as part of the plea bargain with a Harvey waiver.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion applies the correct deferential standard to the revocation decision and correctly strikes duplicative fines on the People's concession, reaching a defensible result on both issues. It is terse, misnames the § 1202.44 fine as a parole revocation fine, cites Marichalar with a volume and year that do not match, and does not address whether a § 1202.45 parole revocation fine should accompany the new prison sentence.
Opinion
Filed 10/3/13 P. v. Castaneda 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, D062947
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD229621)
MIGUEL CHRISTOPHER CASTANEDA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frederick Maguire, Judge. Affirmed as modified and remanded with directions.
Richard Power for Defendant and Appellant, under appointment by the Court of Appeal.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorneys General, Alana Cohen Butler, James D. Dutton, Deputy Attorneys General. In October 2012, the court revoked Miguel Christopher Castaneda's probation, sentenced him to 12 years in prison and imposed fines of $2,400 each for restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and probation revocation (§ 1202.44), in addition to fines of $200 each for those purposes previously imposed in June 2011.
Castaneda contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation.
He also contends the court improperly imposed the additional $2,400 fines. The People concede the trial court erred in imposing those fines, and we agree. We modify the judgment to strike those fines, and otherwise affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In October 2010, the People charged Castaneda with assaulting Jose Galeanna with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1) dissuading a witness by force or threat (§ 136.1 subd. (c)(1); count 2) and making a criminal threat (§ 422;
count 3). As to count one, it was alleged Castaneda personally used a deadly weapon (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury upon someone who was not an accomplice to the offense (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). A gang enhancement was alleged as to each count. (§ 186.22.)
Jose Galeanna testified at the preliminary hearing that in March 2010, Castaneda took a homeless man's fishing pole and hit the man with it. Galeanna criticized Castaneda for that. Castaneda left and returned shortly afterwards with two friends.
Castaneda hit Galeanna in the face with a pipe, rendering him unconscious. Galeanna 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 required surgery for his broken cheek and jaw and chipped teeth, and at trial he still experienced pain from his injuries.
In May 2011, Castaneda pleaded guilty to count 1 and admitted the great bodily injury and gang enhancements. The trial court dismissed the rest of the allegations.
(People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.)
In June 2011, Castaneda was placed on probation on condition he serve 365 days in jail. He also was required to get treatment and therapy as suggested by validated tests, and stop using alcohol and drugs.
In February 2012, Castaneda admitted a probation violation; therefore, his probation was revoked. In March 2012 his probation was reinstated.
In July 2012, Castaneda denied allegations that he violated his probation by committing assault.
At an October 10, 2012 evidentiary hearing, Castaneda's probation officer testified regarding her dealings with Castaneda after his May 14, 2012 release from custody. She reviewed his probation conditions with him. Castaneda underwent a urinalysis, which returned positive results for methamphetamine. The probation officer directed him to enroll into a long-term residential treatment program. He did so for one day then abandoned the program. The probation officer attempted to contact Castaneda by phone and mail to discuss his test results, but received no response. Police informed the probation officer of Castaneda's June 3, 2012 arrest for being under the influence of a controlled substance. (Health and Saf. Code, § 11550.) Castaneda never complied with 3 his probation conditions requiring him to, among other things, inform the probation officer of his arrest and register as a gang member.
Castaneda conceded at the hearing that he had violated his probation, but explained he had experienced a rough time after he had lost his house and his mother died. He stated he had since obtained $50 to pay the intake fee at a residential treatment facility, which he was willing to enter if the court reinstated his probation.
DISCUSSION
I.
Castaneda contends the court abused its discretion by revoking his probation instead of placing him in a residential treatment program.
In reviewing an order revoking probation, we give great deference to 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." (People v. Pinon (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 120, 123.) "It has long been recognized that the Legislature . . . intended to give trial courts very broad discretion in determining whether a probationer has violated probation." (People v. Rodriguez (1990)
51 Cal.3d 437, 443.) "Such discretion 'implies that in the absence of positive law or fixed rule the judge is to decide a question by his [or her] view of expediency or of the demand of equity and justice.' " (Id. at p. 445.)
But trial court discretion is not unlimited. " ' " 'The discretion of a trial judge is not a whimsical, uncontrolled power, but a legal discretion, which is subject to the limitations of legal principles governing the subject of its action, and to reversal on 4 appeal where no reasonable basis for the action is shown.' " ' " (People v. Jacobs (2007)
156 Cal.App.4th 728, 737.) Abuse of discretion has both a factual component and a legal component. (Ibid.) While the court's discretion is very broad, its determination must be based on the facts before it. (People v. Zaring (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 362, 378.)
Here, we conclude Castaneda has not made a showing the court abused its discretion in declining to reinstate him on probation. It was not irrational for the court to withdraw its grant of clemency in light of Castaneda's repeated failure to comply with several probation requirements. On this record, the court reasonably found Castaneda's latest pledge to comply with the probation terms unavailing.
II.
The People concede, and we agree, the trial court erroneously imposed additional restitution and parole revocation fines under sections 1202.4, subdivision (b), and 1202.44. After Castaneda's probation was revoked, the original fines remained in effect.
(People v. Marichalar (2003) 144 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1337.) Accordingly, we strike the additional $2,400 fines imposed in October 2012; the $200 fines imposed for those purposes on June 8, 2011, remain in effect.
5 DISPOSITION
We strike the restitution and parole revocation fines for $2,400 each imposed under Penal Code sections 1202.4, subdivision (b), and 1202.44, and therefore the original fines of $200 each remain in effect. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The matter is remanded and the trial court directed to amend the abstract of judgment accordingly, and forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
AARON, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Jacobs A113633 · 2007-10-31
- People v. MARICHALAR C042068 · 2003-06-26
- People v. Zaring F014606 · 1992-07-22
- People v. Rodriguez S011326 · 1990-09-06
- People v. Harvey Crim 21022 · 1979-11-27
- People v. Pinon Crim. 1535 · 1973-11-05