People v. Ortiz CA1/4

Filed 8/27/24 P. v. Ortiz CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169815 v. (Mendocino County Super. Ct. ADELAIDO NARANJO ORTIZ, No. SCUKCRCR-2015-840462) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Adelaido Naranjo Ortiz appeals the sentence imposed following the trial court’s revocation of his probation. He contends a remand for resentencing is required because the court erred in failing to order a supplemental probation report. The People concede the error but argue it is harmless. We reverse. BACKGROUND The material facts are not in dispute. In December 2015, Ortiz pleaded no-contest to one count of felony transportation of a controlled substance in exchange for the dismissal of another count and a guarantee of “no state prison” and “a maximum of 364 days in county jail.” After receiving a probation report in March 2016, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Ortiz on a three-year probation with various conditions.

1

Ortiz never reported to his probation officer after his release. The trial court revoked probation and issued an arrest warrant. Seven and a half years later, Ortiz was taken back into custody. The probation department filed an amended petition recommending that Ortiz’s probation be permanently revoked and that he be sentenced to the mid-term of four years in prison. After Ortiz admitted to the allegations in the amended petition, the trial court instructed the probation department to prepare a credit memo, but it did not order the preparation of a supplemental probation report. The credit memo summarized the case’s procedural history and made the same recommendations as the amended petition. At the sentencing hearing, Ortiz’s counsel requested a “split” low-term sentence of three years, with one year in jail and two years on mandatory supervision. Defense counsel emphasized that Ortiz had no further arrests and had — eventually — turned himself in. The People, in contrast, supported the probation department’s recommendation of a four-year prison sentence. The trial court admitted it lacked “the luxury of a [presentence investigation] report” from the probation department. Nonetheless, it rejected a split sentence “[b]ased on [Ortiz’s] failure to report,” but it found this was a “low-term case” because Ortiz had “not had any further law violations despite being out to warrant.” Accordingly, the trial court permanently revoked probation and sentenced Ortiz to three years in jail, inclusive of presentence and conduct credits. Ortiz appealed. DISCUSSION Ortiz contends the trial court erred in not requesting a supplemental probation report. He further argues that this error was prejudicial because there is reason to believe that a supplemental report would have favorably