People v. Gordon CA2/6

Filed 4/15/14 P. v. Gordon CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B248403 (Super. Ct. No. MA054220) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

SHATOYA LYN GORDON,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2012, Shatoya Lyn Gordon pled no contest to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1 and kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)), and was sentenced to six years four months in state prison. The trial court suspended execution of sentence and placed her on five years' probation. Subsequently she was charged with an unrelated assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) of the victim from the earlier case. Her probation was summarily revoked. A jury acquitted appellant of assault, but the trial court found appellant had suborned perjury during trial and had violated protective orders. It revoked probation, imposed the previously suspended prison sentence of six years four months and awarded 387 days of presentence custody credit.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Appellant contends she was denied procedural and substantive due process because the trial court did not provide adequate notice of the grounds for revoking probation or an adversarial hearing. We conclude appellant waived appellate review by failing to raise these claims in the trial court. She also has not demonstrated error. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant and the victim, David Jones, have a history of domestic discord. Between 2008 and 2011, Jones obtained three separate protective orders against appellant. Her conviction for burglary and kidnapping in 2012 arose out of an incident involving Jones and the couple's minor child. As a condition of probation, appellant was required to "obey all laws, rules, regulations, and orders of the court." She also was ordered to stay away from Jones. The trial court advised: "[I]f you violate your terms of probation, including violating the protective order, you're facing six years, four months in state prison." Nine months later, appellant was charged with assaulting Jones with a deadly weapon. After summarily revoking her probation, the trial court ordered that the assault case (No. MA057506) "be heard with" the probation violation. The trial lasted five days. Appellant's defense was that she was at home with several other people at the time of the alleged assault. Two witnesses, Samia Abdul- Rahmaan and Eric Floyd, corroborated this alibi. During cross-examination, the prosecutor confronted Abdul-Rahmaan with recorded jailhouse conversations in which appellant encouraged Abdul-Rahmaan to "lie and say [she] left later than [she did]." Appellant also asked Abdul-Rahmaan to speak with another witness about doing the same. During a break in Abdul-Rahmaan's testimony, the trial court suggested that appellant consider a possible plea bargain: "THE COURT: What I can tell you is that you are on probation on that case, and . . . that makes it really difficult for you because you have six years, four months hanging over your head. And there are two strikes on that