People v. Roberts CA1/5

Filed 8/20/24 P. v. Roberts CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A168954 v. MICHAEL LAWRENCE ROBERTS, (San Mateo County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. 23SF011707A)

Defendant Michael Lawrence Roberts appeals from an order entered on August 9, 2023, where the trial court, after hearing evidence during a jury trial and based on its own observation, found him in violation of his postrelease community supervision (PRCS) and revoked it. Since the revocation of defendant’s PRCS was supported by a preponderance of the evidence and not otherwise an abuse of discretion, the order of the trial court is affirmed. BACKGROUND On May 20, 2022, defendant was convicted of violating Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(4) and sentenced to two years in prison. On April 6, 2023, defendant was released on PRCS. On July 5, 2023, the People filed a complaint against defendant, charging defendant with a violation of Penal Code sections 242 and 148, subdivision (a)(1). Both counts were misdemeanors. On July 14, 2023, a deputy probation officer filed with the

1

superior court a petition for revocation of PRCS on the grounds that defendant was charged with two misdemeanors and failed to inform the supervising county agency representative of his arrest. During defendant’s misdemeanor trial, the People called the victim to testify. While on the stand, the victim stated: “[Defendant] told me that he spent like 17 years in jail and that it doesn’t matter if he have [sic] to come back again.” The People immediately moved to strike the statement, and defense counsel immediately objected. During a sidebar conversation and later on the record, defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the grounds that the statement was “unduly prejudicial and has tainted this trial.” The judge denied the mistrial at the sidebar and later on the record. On August 9, 2023, the jury found defendant guilty on both counts. After the jury was dismissed, the court also found defendant in violation of his PRCS and revoked it, stating: “[B]ased not just on the finding of the jury, but my own review of the evidence, I’m also going to find, then, the defendant is in violation of his PRCS based on the conduct that was presented through the trial that the Court observed.” On October 3, 2023, defendant filed his notice of appeal with the superior court, stating, “This appeal is after a contested violation of probation. (Pen. Code, § 1237(b).)” DISCUSSION As an initial matter, defendant confuses the issue in front of this court. Although defendant’s notice of appeal identifies only the trial court’s order of August 9, 2023, to revoke his PRCS, in appellate briefing he asks this court to review the trial court’s denial of his motion for mistrial, made during his misdemeanor trial. For reasons explained post, we decline to do so. The only