People v. Freelove CA4/1

Filed 10/9/24 P. v. Freelove CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D082376

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD295760)

HOWARD RAYMOND FREELOVE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Melinda J. Lasater, Judge. Affirmed. Britton Donaldson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Felicity Senoski, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Howard Raymond Freelove appeals from a final judgment of conviction after he was denied probation and sentenced to three years in state prison.

Freelove argues the trial court erred by denying probation because it (1) misunderstood its discretion to grant probation, despite the presumptive ineligibility, based on the “unusual case” factors under California Rules of Court, rule 4.413, and, as a result, (2) violated his constitutional due process rights. We find this matter appropriately resolved by memorandum opinion and affirm. (See generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847.) I. Freelove was convicted of three charges, including assault with a deadly weapon, making him presumptively ineligible for probation. (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 1203, subd. (e)(2).) The eligibility section in Freelove’s probation report references rule 4.413 and notes that section 1203(e)(2) permits an exception to presumptive ineligibility “in the unusual case in which the interests of justice would best be served” by granting probation. The probation officer “reviewed the criteria for the unusual case” and concluded “none appear to apply.” Next, the report describes the circumstances supporting a grant of probation and those supporting denial. At sentencing, the trial court found Freelove was “presumptively ineligible for probation” as “discussed in the probation officer’s report.” The court “adopt[ed] the circumstances supporting a grant . . . as well as those supporting a denial of probation.” It thus denied probation. Freelove’s counsel “submitted on [the] report of probation” without objection or argument. After the court denied probation and imposed the sentence, defense counsel did not object and did not argue any unusual case factors applied.