People v. Alexander CA2/6

Filed 12/1/25 P. v. Alexander CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B336492 (Super. Ct. No. BA510916) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

DANIELLE ALEXANDER,

Defendant and Appellant.

The trial court found Danielle Alexander violated probation when she violated a protective order. The court revoked and reinstated probation on the same terms with the additional condition she serve 60 days in county jail. Appellant contends: (1) the court abused its discretion in revoking probation and sentencing her to county jail without any evidence she knew the protected person was living at the residence when she visited it; and (2) the court abused its discretion and deprived her of due process by relying on a text

message and the probation officer’s statements without a formal hearing. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In November 2022, appellant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))1 of Ernest R. In April 2023, appellant pleaded no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation for three years with terms and conditions. In January 2024, the court conducted a contested probation violation hearing concerning a protective order violation. Christopher Garcia testified Ernest R. is his cousin through marriage. Garcia knew appellant as Ernest R.’s former girlfriend of about four years. They had visited Garcia’s home in Las Vegas, Nevada about six times. On September 5, 2023, Ernest R. had been living at Garcia’s home for about 30 days. That morning at around 9:47 a.m., Garcia received a notification from his security system. Through a live video feed, Garcia saw appellant at the door. She did not knock or ring the doorbell. Instead, she stared into the camera and stood in front of Garcia’s door for about six minutes. Garcia had not invited appellant to his residence that day or anytime in 2023. Garcia called Ernest R. to ask if she was invited. Ernest R. was “very surprised” and “fearful.” Ernest R. subsequently moved out “for safety.” The court took judicial notice of the April 2023 protective order and several of its terms. Appellant testified she met Garcia while dating Ernest R. Appellant developed a “very strong relationship” with Christina