People v. White

California Court of Appeal Jul 8, 1982 No. Crim. 39674Published

Before: Feinerman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court may properly consider post-probationary conduct when deciding whether to revoke probation and that the trial court maintained jurisdiction to revoke probation because the probationary period had not yet expired.

Issues

Did the trial court improperly consider the defendant's post-probationary activities in sentencing him after revocation?
Did the trial court lack jurisdiction to revoke the defendant's probation in case number A-613511?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Obviously, a court must consider postprobation events to determine whether or not there has been a violation of probation and, if probation has been revoked, whether the defendant should be reinstated on probation or incarcerated.”

“California Rules of Court, rule 435(b)(1) has no application to the decision making process delimiting the initial inquiry—namely whether or not to incarcerate the defendant or reinstate him to probation.”

“The trial court’s September 5, 1978, order in case number A-613511 clearly indicates that the jail time ordered to be served was to be the first ninety days of defendant’s period of probation.”

Opinion

FEINERMAN, P. J.

Defendant, Lawrence Modia White, appeals from judgments in two cases sentencing him to consecutive terms in state prison and county jail after revocation of probation in each of the cases. He contends (1) that the trial court improperly considered defendant’s postprobationary activities in sentencing him after revocation of probation; and (2) that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to revoke his probation in one of the cases.

We have reviewed the entire record and find no merit in defendant’s contentions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments imposing sentence.

Background

Case No. A-335946

Defendant pled guilty to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496) on March 15, 1978. On July 27, 1978, proceedings were suspended and defendant was placed on formal probation for a period of three years on condition, among others, that he spend the first year in the county jail.

Case No. A-6I3511

Charged with felony wife beating (Pen. Code, § 273d) and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245,

[680]

subd. (a)), defendant pled guilty to the lesser included offense of battery (Pen. Code, § 242), a misdemeanor, on August 7, 1978. On September 5, 1978, proceedings were suspended and defendant was placed on informal probation for a period of two years on condition, among others, that he spend the first 90 days of his probationary period in the county jail. The trial court ordered the sentence to “run consecutively to time currently being served.”

Probation Revocation Proceedings

As a result of a conviction of misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242) against his wife in 1979 and a failure to report to his probation officer in September and October 1980, defendant’s probation was revoked in both case number A-335946 and case number 613511.

On January 19, 1981, defendant was found to be in violation of probation as to both cases. On January 27, 1981, defendant was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law in case number A-335946, with credit for time served, good time and work time. The sentence was ordered to run consecutively to the sentence ordered in case number A-613511. Defendant was sentenced to the Los Angeles County Jail for one year in case number A-613511 with credit for time served, good time and work time.

People v. White

AI Brief

FEINERMAN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief