People v. Freehart CA3

Filed 3/3/25 P. v. Freehart CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098507

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CF04283)

v.

MICHAEL GEORGE FREEHART,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Michael George Freehart pleaded no contest to two counts of taking a child with the intent to detain or conceal that child from a lawful custodian (Pen. Code, § 278) after he arranged for his two children to leave their foster home with him in the middle of the night. (Statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code.) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and initially imposed a two-year term of probation. The prosecution objected, arguing section 1203.097 mandated a probationary term of at least three years because “the victims alleged in these counts are his children.”

1

The trial court agreed that section 1203.097 applied and changed the term of probation to three years. On appeal, defendant contends section 1203.097 does not apply to his violations of section 278 because the lawful custodian of his children, not the children, was the victim of the offenses. In response, the People argue that defendant forfeited this issue and section 1203.097 applies based on allegations dismissed as part of the negotiated plea agreement. We conclude the victim of a violation of section 278 is the lawful custodian, not the children, so section 1203.097 does not apply to the grant of probation in this case. Accordingly, we will modify the judgment to reduce defendant’s probation term to two years.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS Police arrested defendant for dissuading his son and daughter from speaking with an investigator from the Butte County District Attorney’s Office. The children were later placed in a foster home, and the parties agree that the Butte County Children’s Services Division had custody of the children at the time of the events that follow. Shortly after the children were placed in a foster home, defendant sent them a text around midnight telling them to get their belongings and go outside. The children “were excited because who wants to be in a foster home?” Defendant picked the children up outside and took them first to his girlfriend’s house then to a farm where he resided. When defendant heard law enforcement was looking for him, he took the children to his mother’s house and turned himself in at the police station. The People charged defendant with two counts of dissuading a witness, in violation of section 136.1, subdivision (b)(1) and two counts of taking a child with the intent to detain or conceal that child from a lawful custodian, in violation of section 278. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to the two counts of taking a child from the lawful custodian. In return, the People moved to dismiss the