People v. Weathers CA1/4

Filed 9/17/14 P. v. Weathers CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A139741 v. LUTHER GENE WEATHERS, (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR926292) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Luther Gene Weathers appeals from the judgment revoking probation and ordering execution of a five-year sentence. (Pen. Code,1 § 1203.2,subd. (a).) He contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation because his violation was justified and, in any event, “de minimis.” We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND At the time of his May 2011 arrest, defendant was in possession of a glass smoking pipe, several baggies of methamphetamine, and over $600 in cash. In August 2011, defendant pleaded no contest to violating Health and Safety Code section 11378, subdivision (a) and admitted a prior felony conviction (§§ 11370.2, subd. (c),11378). Despite the fact that defendant had suffered two or more prior felony convictions, the court found that unusual circumstances suggested the interests of justice would be best served by granting probation. (See § 1203, subd. (e)(4).)

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

At the June 25, 2012 sentencing hearing,2 the court granted probation based on the probation department’s supplemental report, which specified 22 different conditions. Among the specified conditions, was the requirement that defendant “shall . . . report in writing to the probation officer between the 1st and 10th of each month, on forms provided by the probation officer” (Condition 1). Defendant was also ordered to “appear at the Lake County Probation Department . . . on the first business day following his release from custody” (Condition 22). Another condition of probation, was that defendant enter a treatment program as directed by the probation officer (Condition 5). When the court asked defendant if he accepted each of the conditions of his probation, defendant replied, “Yes, sir.” As recommended by the probation department, the trial court ordered defendant to be committed to the Salvation Army’s Lytton Springs Treatment Facility. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the court advised defendant as follows: “Within 24 hours of the time that you’re released you’re to call the probation officer and make an appointment. And then within . . . five business days of that call or that release from Lytton Springs, you’re to actually contact the [probation officer] face to face.” To which defendant replied, “All right.” At the June 25, 2013 probation violation hearing, Lake County Probation Officer Laverne Trueblood testified that Lytton Springs advised the probation department that defendant had been released from rehabilitation on December 30, 2012. However, following his release, defendant failed to report to the probation department. Additionally, defendant failed to provide subsequent monthly reports to the probation department. Trueblood explained that defendant was familiar with the probation reporting requirement as he had been on probation for various periods of time since 1989 and he had been orally advised of the reporting requirement at the sentencing hearing for the current offense.~(RT 13, 15)~ Trueblood further explained that without defendant’s