People v. Wilson CA3

Filed 4/9/14 P. v. Wilson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C074215

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F05897)

v.

JOHN ROY WILSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant John Roy Wilson pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale and admitted three prior convictions. As part of the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to six years in prison but suspended execution of the sentence, placed him on formal probation for five years, and required him to successfully complete a minimum two-year residential rehabilitation program. About two weeks after defendant pled no contest, the court revoked probation and lifted the stay of execution of the sentence because defendant left the rehabilitation program prior to completion.

1

Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to exercise discretion when it revoked his probation. We disagree. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant stipulated that he possessed methamphetamine with intent to sell and that he had three prior convictions. Based on these facts, he pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale and admitted the three priors. After accepting defendant’s no contest plea, the trial court sentenced defendant to six years in prison, imposed a $240 restitution fine, and assessed $70 in court facility and security fees. The court suspended execution of the sentence, stayed the restitution fine, placed defendant on formal probation for five years, and required him to successfully complete the Delancey Street residential rehabilitation program. Approximately two weeks after his no contest plea, defendant was back in court because he had left Delancey Street for a day or two before turning himself in to the police. During the probation revocation hearing, defendant told the court that he left Delancey Street because the program required an “18 month black out with no communication” between him and his family that would be “very difficult.” Defendant asked the court to consider other treatment facilities that had also accepted him. After defendant spoke, the following dialogue took place between the trial court and defendant: “THE COURT: All right. . . . I understand Mr. Wilson’s request, but the agreement and the disposition in this case was for the Delanc[e]y Street program. And that was your one shot and I . . . allowed you to defer to Delanc[e]y Street to give you the opportunity to do that program. “THE DEFENDANT: Right. “THE COURT: It was discouraging to hear that you had not stayed and that you had left. So at this point the Court’s choice[s] in this situation are extremely limited, and in this event of your failure to participate in the program as you had agreed to do, the