People v. Ruiz

California Court of Appeal Dec 15, 1975 No. Crim. 27034Published

Before: Roth

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court is not required to file a written statement of reasons for revoking probation when the judicial record, including the reporter's transcript, provides sufficient due process, and that the admission of comprehensive probation reports is permissible under Penal Code section 1203.2.

Issues

Whether the failure to provide a written statement of reasons for probation revocation violates procedural due process.
Whether the inclusion of complete probation reports from related cases in the revocation record is improperly prejudicial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the test of due process is not the making of written findings but whether the matters presented as grounds for possible revocation were sufficient to support such action”

“The admission of the probation reports in all cases did not constitute error.”

[717]

Opinion

ROTH, P. J.

Appellant appeals from two several orders revoking his probation in CR. 8265 and CR. 9389 (in which cases sentence had been suspended), made after a final hearing, which had been with his consent and that of his counsel periodically postponed to await the result of CR 10879 pending in the same court in which case appellant was a defendant.

No question is raised as to the regularity of the proceedings or the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the orders.

Appellant contends, however, that the orders are legally defective on two grounds: (1) failure of the court to make a written statement of its reasons for revocation deprived him of procedural due process and (2) inclusion in the record of the complete probation reports in 10879 in addition to reports in 8265 and 9389 was improperly prejudicial.

The trial court did not file a written statement but the minutes of the court fortified by the reporter’s transcript reflect that both sides were invited to present evidence; that each relied on the probation reports referred to, and a four-page letter from Victory Outreach, introduced by appellant as a supplement to the probation report in case No. 10879; argued the evidence above mentioned and submitted. The minutes further recite that the court considered the reports and the letter; revoked probation in each of 8265 and 9389; appellant waived formal arraignment in each of the cases; stated that no legal reason existed why judgment should not be pronounced, whereupon the court decreed that appellant be imprisoned in state prison for possession of heroin in each of the two cases with the sentences in each to run concurrently with a sentence for possession of heroin previously pronounced in 10879; fixed the number of days previously served and requested diagnostic information under the provisions of Penal Code section 1168.

Appellant’s contention that a written statement of reasons for revocation of probation is grounded upon

In re Sturm

(1974) 11 Cal.3d 258 [113 Cal.Rptr. 361, 521 P.2d 97], which treats with procedure for revocation of parole. There is a distinction between revocation of parole and of probation. In

People v. Ruiz

AI Brief

ROTH, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief