People v. Huff

Opinion

BARRY-DEAL, J.

I. Introduction

On appeal from a judgment entered following revocation of probation, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it refused to continue the probation revocation hearing until after trial on the pending criminal charges

[803]

which formed the basis for revocation. We hold that the trial court did not err. We also hold that Proposition 8 (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28) does not apply to a probation revocation proceeding where probation was granted for a crime which occurred prior to the effective date of that constitutional amendment.

II. Statement of the Case and of the Facts

On April 15, 1982, appellant was certified to the San Francisco Superior Court after pleading guilty in municipal court to a charge of grand theft from the person. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. 2.) On May 13, 1982, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years probation.

On September 20, 1982, the San Francisco County District Attorney moved to revoke appellant’s probation based upon the fact that appellant had been charged on August 26, 1982, with burglary, attempted burglary, two counts of receiving stolen property, and misdemeanor possession of burglar tools. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 664/459, 496, subd. 1, 466.)

On October 8, 1982, the trial court denied appellant’s motion for a continuance of the probation revocation hearing until a date subsequent to trial on the pending charges.

Probation revocation hearing was held on October 21, 1982. The sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s decision to revoke probation is not in dispute, and there is no need to set it out here in detail. The People’s evidence showed that on August 26, 1982, appellant and his co-defendant, Ronald Gibson, were observed breaking into and attempting to break into trunks of automobiles not belonging to them. After waiving his