People v. Korhonen CA3

Filed 12/30/13 P. v. Korhonen CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C070697

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 10F3500, 09F4393)

TREVOR JOHN KORHONEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Trevor John Korhonen appeals the prison sentence imposed following the court’s revocation of his probation. He contends a remand for resentencing is required because the trial court erred in failing to order a supplemental probation report. We conclude the trial court did not err because defendant was statutorily ineligible for probation. Even if we assumed the trial court erred by not ordering a supplemental probation report, any error was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND Since this appeal involves a sentencing issue only, a detailed recitation of background facts is unnecessary. In April 2010, defendant pled guilty in case No. 09F4393 to transporting methamphetamine and admitted a prior strike conviction, in exchange for a six-year maximum prison sentence. Defendant filed a Romero1 motion asking the trial court to dismiss his prior strike offense, so he could be eligible for probation. While defendant was on bail pending disposition of his Romero motion and sentencing, a presentence report was prepared and submitted to the trial court (the April 2010 probation report), and defendant was arrested and charged in case No. 10F3500 with possessing methamphetamine, as to which it was also alleged he had suffered a prior strike conviction. Defendant was convicted by a jury in case No. 10F3500 of possessing methamphetamine. The trial court found true allegations defendant committed the offense while on bail and had suffered a prior strike conviction. A second presentence report was prepared and submitted (the October 2010 report). Defendant filed a second Romero motion, asking the court to strike his prior strike conviction and/or reduce to a misdemeanor his conviction for possessing methamphetamine. At the November 2010 sentencing hearing on both cases, the trial court declined to rule on defendant’s Romero motions. Instead, it deferred imposition of sentence for one year, and granted defendant probation contingent upon his agreement to enter the drug treatment program Teen Challenge. Describing as a “likelihood” that it would not strike defendant’s prior strike, the trial court also indicated it would likely impose the