P. . Contreras CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FVI23000975
- Trial judge
- Michael A. Dauber
- Outcome
- modified — Affirmed as modified.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Michele M. Castillo (author), O'Rourke, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court added a no-alcohol probation condition to the defendant's sentence based solely on a probation officer's recommendation without a change in circumstances. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment as modified by striking the new condition, holding the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify probation absent new facts.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Trial court's modification of probation to add a no-alcohol condition“The trial court cited no change in circumstances but “believe[d] that it ha[d] the power” to add a condition “related to the offense charged.”” | de novo | error | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Cookson (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1091 — A change in circumstances is required before a court has jurisdiction to extend or otherwise modify probation.
- relied: In re Clark (1959) 51 Cal.2d 838 — A trial court is without jurisdiction to extend or modify probation based on the same facts as the original order, even upon a probation officer's request.
- relied: People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847 — Memorandum opinions need not elaborate on factual or procedural background beyond what is required for analysis.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the well-established jurisdictional requirement that probation modifications necessitate a change in circumstances, citing binding Supreme Court authority to reject the argument that a probation officer's opinion alone constitutes such a change. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the specific legal error committed by the trial court.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionAfter sentencing Contreras to three years of formal probation for DUI causing injury without a no-alcohol condition, a different judicial officer granted the probation officer's later request to add that condition over defense objection, without any new facts or changed circumstances. The Court of Appeal held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify probation absent a change in circumstances under People v. Cookson and In re Clark, struck the no-alcohol condition, and affirmed the judgment as modified.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Post-sentencing order modifying probation to add a no-alcohol condition at the probation officer's request, without any new facts or change in circumstances“As a result, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by adding the no-alcohol condition to Contreras’ probation.” | unclear | error (law misapplied) | agree with court The opinion does not articulate a standard of review but treats the question as a legal one of jurisdiction, effectively reviewing de novo. Cookson squarely states that a change in circumstances is required before a court has jurisdiction to extend or otherwise modify probation, and Clark holds a modification based on the same facts as the original order and prompted only by a probation officer's request is without jurisdiction. The record as described shows the officer cited no new facts and the trial court identified no changed circumstances, relying only on a belief it had power to add offense-related conditions; the People's contrary argument was unsupported by authority. The appellate court's conclusion follows directly from binding Supreme Court precedent. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Cookson (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1091 — A change in circumstances is required before a trial court has jurisdiction to extend or otherwise modify probation; a court may not modify probation based on the same facts underlying the original order.
- relied: In re Clark (1959) 51 Cal.2d 838 — A trial court is without jurisdiction to modify (extend) probation at a probation officer's request where the modification order rests on the same facts as the original order and has no new factual basis.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court applied controlling Supreme Court authority (Cookson and Clark) directly to a record showing no new facts, and rejected the People's unsupported argument that the probation officer's mere observation was itself a changed circumstance. The memorandum format is brief, but the legal rule is settled and the facts recited are sufficient to compel the result.
Opinion
Filed 1/8/24 P. . Contreras 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, D083003
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FVI23000975)
LUIS JERRY CONTRERAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Michael A. Dauber, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Charles Thomas Anderson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Donald W. Ostertag, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION After the trial court sentenced Luis Jerry Contreras, a probation officer asked to add another probation condition not originally imposed. Contreras challenges that new condition, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify probation absent a change in circumstances. We agree, so we strike that new probation condition and affirm the judgment as modified. As we resolve this case by memorandum opinion, we do not elaborate on the factual or procedural background beyond what is required for our analysis. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851- 854.) I. Contreras pleaded no contest to violating Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a), for causing injury while driving under the influence of alcohol. Contreras then waived his right to obtain a probation report before judgment, instead requesting immediate sentencing. The trial court sentenced Contreras to three years of formal probation subject to certain terms and conditions. Those conditions included (1) completing a four-month alcohol education program; (2) not driving “with any measurable amount of alcohol” in his system; and (3) if arrested for driving under the influence during probation, submitting to a chemical analysis. The trial court did not impose a no-alcohol condition, which would have prohibited Contreras from “possess[ing] [ ]or consum[ing] any alcoholic beverages” or “enter[ing] places where such beverages are the chief item of sale, such as bars and liquor stores,” and required him to “submit to tests” as directed by his probation officer. Several weeks later, the probation officer recommended the trial court add the no-alcohol condition to Contreras’ probation. The probation officer did not cite any new facts prompting this change. Rather, he observed only that the original sentence did not include this condition. In the probation officer’s opinion, the no-alcohol condition was appropriate “for the safety of 2 the community and to avoid the risk of recidivism,” “vital” to Contreras’ rehabilitation, and “necessary to ensure” compliance. A different judicial officer ruled on this request and, over defense counsel’s objection, modified Contreras’ probation to add the no-alcohol condition. The trial court cited no change in circumstances but “believe[d] that it ha[d] the power” to add a condition “related to the offense charged.” II. Contreras argues the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction because no new facts or changed circumstances warranted modifying his probation. We agree. “A change in circumstances is required before a court has jurisdiction to extend or otherwise modify probation.” (People v. Cookson (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1091, 1095.) As a result, a court cannot modify probation based on the same facts as the original order. (Ibid.) Here, we are not persuaded by the People’s claim, unsupported by analogous legal authority, that the probation officer’s “observation . . . constituted a change in circumstances.” To the contrary, under similar circumstances, our Supreme Court held that a trial court was “without jurisdiction” to extend probation upon a probation officer’s request. (In re Clark (1959) 51 Cal.2d 838, 840.) The Supreme Court concluded that “no factual basis” supported the change because the order modifying probation was “based upon the same facts as the original order.” (Ibid.) So too here. In the weeks following Contreras’ sentencing, no new facts arose; only the probation officer’s opinion was new. Under In re Clark, that opinion does not give the trial court jurisdiction to modify probation. As a result, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by adding the no-alcohol condition to Contreras’ probation.
3 III. We modify the judgment by striking the no-alcohol probation condition. We affirm the judgment as modified.
CASTILLO, J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
KELETY, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Garcia F034831 · 2002-04-17
- People v. Cookson S015205 · 1991-12-12
- In Re Clark Crim. 6383 · 1959-04-03