The People v. Williams CA6

Filed 10/4/13 P. v. Williams CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H039084 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. CC761493)

v.

ULISES VAZQUEZ WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Ulises Vazquez Williams appeals from an order revoking his probation.1 He contends that the trial court lacked authority to revoke his probation. We agree and reverse the order.

I. Factual and Procedural Background In March 2007, defendant was charged with first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)). In May 2007, he pleaded no contest to the charge on condition that his maximum sentence would be two years in state prison. On June 12, 2007, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years. His probation was set to expire on June 12, 2010.

1 At the hearing in May 2007, defendant said that his true name is Ulises Williams Vazquez.

In September 2007, defendant was released to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services after he completed his jail sentence. In November 2007, defendant was deported to Mexico. In March 2009, the probation officer filed a petition to modify the terms of probation. The petition alleged that defendant failed to provide proof of completion of 400 hours of volunteer work, failed to make himself available for search and testing, failed to provide verification of education, vocational training, or employment, and failed to provide proof of enrollment in or completion of a substance abuse program. On March 26, 2009, the trial court summarily revoked defendant‟s probation. In September 2011, defendant was arrested in San Diego County and transported to Santa Clara County on an outstanding bench warrant. On October 6, 2011, the trial court found that defendant had not violated the terms of his probation and reinstated probation under the original terms and conditions. Five days later, defendant was released to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. On November 16, 2012, the probation officer filed a petition to modify the terms of probation. The petition alleged that defendant failed to provide proof of completion of 400 hours of volunteer work, failed to make himself available for search and testing, failed to provide verification of education, vocational training, or employment, failed to provide proof of enrollment in or completion of a substance abuse program, and failed to pay fines and fees. On November 29, 2012, the trial court held a hearing on the petition. Defendant was not present. Defense counsel objected to the revocation of defendant‟s probation on the ground that defendant‟s probation term had expired on June 12, 2010, and time was not tolled because defendant never admitted a probation violation. The prosecutor argued that time was tolled, but noted that the issue was before the California Supreme Court. The trial court revoked defendant‟s probation and issued a bench warrant.