People v. Pennington

Opinion

DeCRISTOFORO, J.

This appeal raises two issues. First, must the trial court give reasons for sentencing a terminated probationer to prison when no sentence has previously been imposed? Second, do the reasons for revoking probation satisfy this obligation? We answer both questions in the affirmative.

Facts

On January 11, 1988, defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350.) Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on formal probation for three years. On August 10, 1988, defendant admitted violating several conditions of probation by testing positive for drug use on three occasions, having drugs in her residence, failure to appear for testing, and failure to pay court fees. Probation was revoked. The court declined to reinstate probation, sentenced defendant to the mid term of two years, suspended execution and committed defendant to the California Rehabilitation Center.

Defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to state reasons for “denying probation and imposing the middle term.” Since the imposition of the middle term does not require a statement of reasons

(People

v.

Arceo

(1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 117, 121 [157 Cal.Rptr. 10]), we consider only the implied claim that the court failed to state reasons for its sentence choice of imprisonment.

Discussion

Preliminarily, it will be noted that the principles of due process apply to probation revocation proceedings requiring the trial court to provide sufficient reasons for its decision to revoke probation.

(People

v.

Vickers

(1972) 8 Cal.3d 451, 457-458 [105 Cal.Rptr. 305, 503 P.2d 1313];

People

v.

Latham

(1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 27, 29 [253 Cal.Rptr. 379].) Defendant’s admission of the violations alleged in three petitions to revoke probation satisfy any constitutional mandate, and defendant raises no issue as to that.