People v. Ledee CA6

Filed 11/18/13 P. v. Ledee CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H038939 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. F19597, F19977)

v.

LAWRENCE LEDEE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Lawrence Ledee pleaded guilty in case No. F19597 (forgery case) to a count of forgery (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (d))1 and admitted service of three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In case No. F19977 (domestic violence case), he pleaded no contest to a count of corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and admitted allegations of a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and service of a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court imposed and suspended execution of sentence in both cases and placed defendant on felony probation. In July 2012, the trial court found defendant in violation of his probation, revoked probation, and sentenced him to a term of 14 years in prison. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation. He further contends that the trial court erred in imposing increased restitution fines after it revoked his probation and sentenced him to prison. We find no error in the revocation of probation but conclude that the original restitution fines 1 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

imposed by the trial court survived the revocation of probation. We therefore modify the judgments by striking the increased restitution fines, and as modified, affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The underlying facts of defendant’s offenses are not relevant to the issues raised on appeal. It is sufficient to state that defendant entered into a negotiated plea in two separate cases. In the forgery case, defendant pleaded guilty to a count of forgery (§ 470, subd. (d)) and service of three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In the domestic violence case, defendant pleaded no contest to a count of corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and admitted allegations of a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)) and service of a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total of 14 years in prison for the two cases on January 11, 2011, suspended execution of the sentence, and placed defendant on probation for a period of eight years. In the forgery case, the trial court imposed a $200 restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) and a $200 probation revocation restitution fine under section 1202.44 that was stayed pending successful completion of probation. In the domestic violence case, the trial court imposed a $400 restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) and a $400 probation revocation restitution fine under section 1202.44 that was also stayed pending successful completion of probation. As a condition of his probation, defendant was ordered to complete a two-year drug rehabilitation program at Delancey Street. Defendant started the Delancey Street program in January 2011 but left the program several days later. He initially told his probation officer that the program had asked him to leave. However, program officials asserted that defendant had left of his own will without telling staff about his departure. Delancey Street readmitted defendant, but expelled him shortly after because he was “dishonest” with program staff. In March 2011 defendant admitted he violated his probation by leaving the Delancey Street