People v. Rocha CA3

Filed 11/21/25 P. v. Rocha CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C102397

v. (Super. Ct. No. 16CF02586)

CHRISTOPHER SCOTT ROCHA,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2017, defendant Christopher Scott Rocha pleaded no contest to possession of child pornography. The trial court placed defendant on probation for three years. Defendant now appeals from the trial court’s denial of his request to reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b).1 Defendant contends his conviction cannot be a felony because he was not sentenced to state prison. We will affirm the trial court’s order.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND In 2016, the People charged defendant with three counts of possession of child pornography in violation of section 311.11, subdivision (a). In 2017, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of possession of child pornography and the trial court dismissed the remaining charges. Prior to sentencing, defendant filed a motion to reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b)(3). At the sentencing hearing, the trial court announced its intention to grant probation without requiring defendant to serve time in jail. The trial court indicated it would consider defendant’s performance during the first six months to decide whether to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor or to impose a prison sentence. Defendant withdrew his motion in response to the indicated sentence. Without objection, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years, subject to various terms and conditions, including successful participation in a sex offender therapy program. In 2019, the probation department filed a petition seeking to extend defendant’s probation by two years because defendant had not completed 16 of the 17 homework assignments in his therapy program and the therapist believed he was “not taking his treatment seriously, or making a concerted effort to address the issues that contributed to his offense.” The trial court granted the petition without objection and extended defendant’s probation by two years under the same terms and conditions. Five months later, the People filed a petition alleging defendant had violated the terms of his probation by ending his participation in the therapy program. Defendant admitted the violation. The trial court revoked and then reinstated probation, adding a requirement that defendant serve 90 days in jail. In 2022, defendant completed the therapy program. In 2023, defendant filed a petition to dismiss his conviction or reduce the felony conviction to a misdemeanor. Defendant subsequently withdrew the request to dismiss