People v. Guzman CA2/1

Filed 4/30/14 P. v. Guzman CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B250838

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA071147) v.

ELIAS GUZMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael V. Jesic, Judge. Affirmed. ______ Richard D. Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David A. Wildman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______

An information, filed on November 14, 2011, charged Elias Guzman with two counts of committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a))1. On February 19, 2013, Guzman entered a no contest plea to one of the counts. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Guzman on three years formal probation. The court dismissed the second count. At a hearing on July 15, 2013, the trial court reviewed a probation report, indicating that Guzman had received two traffic infractions for driving with a suspended license. The court determined that it would not find a probation violation based on those traffic infractions but cautioned Guzman that any further infraction or misdemeanor would result in a probation violation. The probation report also indicated that Guzman was residing with the 13-year-old sister of his girlfriend, who was about the same age as the victim in this case, Guzman’s niece, had been at the time of the section 288, subdivision (a), violation. Based on this information, the court ordered that Guzman “is not allowed to be unsupervised with his 13[-]year[-]old relative in his current place of residence. The order is to stay in place until the next court date.” The court set a hearing date of July 29, 2013 to formally consider modifying Guzman’s probation conditions. At the July 29, 2013 hearing, Guzman’s probation officer testified that he was concerned that Guzman was residing with the 13-year-old sister of Guzman’s girlfriend, who was about the same age as the victim had been at the time of the section 288, subdivision (a), violation. In addition, Guzman had yet to complete the sex offender treatment program ordered as part of probation, and the last progress report indicated that Guzman “needs to increase his participation.” Guzman’s girlfriend testified that Guzman had moved into her parents’ house in February 2013 after being released from jail and lived in the house with her, their two children, ages three years and eight months, her 13-year-old sister, two adult sisters and her parents. The girlfriend said that Guzman worked six nights a week and that another adult usually is present when Guzman is in the home. She testified that Guzman’s income paid for the rent they gave to her parents for