People v. Burden

California Court of Appeal Mar 7, 1980 No. Crim. 11312Published

Before: Wiener

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a probation condition prohibiting a defendant convicted of grand theft involving false financial statements from obtaining bank loans is valid, and that the admission of hearsay evidence at a probation revocation hearing did not violate the defendant's due process rights.

Issues

Whether a probation condition prohibiting a defendant from obtaining loans from financial institutions is valid.
Whether the admission of hearsay testimony at a probation revocation hearing denied the defendant due process.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A condition of probation which “forbids conduct which is not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality.””

“The statute (Pen. Code, § 1203.2, subds. (a), (b)) and precedent expressly authorize the use of hearsay testimony in a revocation proceeding.”

[919]

Opinion

WIENER, J.

Defendant appeals from an order revoking probation granted after the imposition of sentence upon his conviction in a jury trial of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. 1) and conspiracy to commit grand theft (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. 1, 487, subd. 1). He attacks the condition of his probation which provides that he “not involve himself in the obtaining of loans from financial institutions” as invalid and contends the court prejudicially erred in admitting hearsay testimony during his revocation hearing. As we will explain neither argument has merit. We affirm the order.

Procedural Background

Defendant was named and charged in 5 counts in a 31-count indictment returned on June 21, 1974. On June 27, 1975, he was convicted by a jury of three counts of grand theft and one count of conspiracy to commit grand theft. On August 25, 1975, Judge Franklin B. Orfield, the judge who had presided over the trial, granted defendant probation for a period of five years on the conditions, inter alia, he serve a total of two years in local custody and “not involve himself in the organization and promotion of corporations, and not involve himself in the obtaining of loans from financial institutions.” (Condition 2.) Defendant was released from custody on August 16, 1976.

On September 28, 1978, a notice to show cause was filed with copies mailed to defendant and his counsel alleging a violation of condition 2 and setting November 13, 1978, as the date for hearing on revocation of probation. The form of the notice to show cause included a statement of defendant’s rights under

People

Vickers

(1972) 8 Cal.3d 451 [105 Cal.Rptr. 305, 503 P.2d 1313]. From time to time thereafter by agreement between counsel the hearing was continued. The evidentiary hearing started on February 14, 1979, and continued through the 16th. The court revoked defendant’s probation on March 5, 1979. On May 24, 1979, probation was reinstated and extended for two years conditioned upon defendant serving an additional six months in custody.

People v. Burden

AI Brief

WIENER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief