People v. Leyva CA4/1

Filed 6/30/25 P. v. Leyva CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084625

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD297274, SCS326714) ANGEL ALBERTO LEYVA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter F. Murray, Judge. Affirmed. Joshua Peter Visco, under appointment of 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, Collette C. Cavalier and Joy Utomi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Angel Alberto Leyva appeals the trial court’s decision to revoke his probation and commit him to state prison for three years for a “significant” probation violation. Leyva claims the trial court (1) abused its discretion by

failing to give “meaningful consideration” to his previous performance on probation and (2) revoked probation in a “reflexive action” in violation of due process. We find this matter appropriately resolved by memorandum opinion (see People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851-854), and affirm. I. In mid-2023, Leyva pled guilty to transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and, in a separate case, to unlawful driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). Leyva was placed on formal probation for two years with execution of his three-year prison sentence suspended. One condition of Leyva’s probation prohibited him from knowingly possessing any controlled substances without a valid prescription. In April 2024, while still on probation, Leyva was arrested on multiple drug charges, including possession of a controlled substance for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11375(b).) The court granted Leyva’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the April arrest. While there was sufficient evidence of possession of narcotics for sale, the court excluded the narcotics evidence because it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. As a result, the court dismissed the new charges against Leyva. Even so, the court considered the illegally seized evidence of narcotics for purposes of revoking probation, as permitted by People v. Lazlo (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1070. The court then formally revoked Leyva’s probation. At the sentencing hearing, the court informed counsel it was “not inclined to follow the probation officer’s recommendation” to reinstate probation. Defense counsel asked the court to reinstate probation based on