People v. Miller CA1/4

Filed 9/17/14 P. v. Miller CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A140916 v. DUSTIN ANDERSON MILLER, (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR920537) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Dustin Anderson Miller appeals from the judgment revoking probation and ordering execution of a three-year sentence. (Pen. Code,1 § 1203, subd. (e)(4).) He contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation and refusing to reinstate it in light of his substantial compliance with the terms of his probation. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND At the time of his October 2009 arrest, defendant was in a parked car that had a strong smell of marijuana inside it. Defendant denied having any marijuana in the car. A search of the car, however, revealed “10 pills, one hypodermic needle, and four pounds of marijuana in the trunk.” Defendant told the responding Lake County Sheriff’s deputies that he “was going to get paid $1,500 for transporting and delivering the marijuana to Lake County.”

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

1

In June 2011, defendant pleaded no contest to transporting marijuana. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)). Despite the fact that defendant had suffered two prior felony convictions, the court found that unusual circumstances suggested the interests of justice would be best served by granting probation. (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4).) At the August 29, 2011 sentencing hearing, the court granted probation based on the probation department’s report, which specified 20 different conditions. When the court asked the defendant if he understood and accepted those conditions, defendant said, “Yes, sir.” 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, disclosing his place of residence and employment and other information requested on the form . . . .” (Condition 1). As recommended by the probation department, defendant was ordered to serve 90 days in the county jail. The minutes from the August 29, 2011 hearing, included a written description of each of the 20 conditions of probation. Following his grant of probation, defendant failed to contact the probation department or otherwise submit the requisite reports. Thus, on June 25 2013, the Lake County Probation Department filed for revocation of defendant’s probation. The report alleged that defendant had failed to report to the probation department, his whereabouts were unknown, and that he had “absconded from his grant of supervision.” The report further alleged that defendant had violated Condition 1 of his probation “when he failed to submit monthly report forms for the months of September 2011 to June 2013.” On July 22, 2013, the court summarily revoked defendant’s probation and issued a warrant for his arrest. Thereafter, defendant denied the probation violation and the matter was set for a contested violation of probation hearing. At the November 19, 2013 contested hearing, Lake County Probation Officer Jose Martinez testified that he had a telephone conversation with defendant on August 9, 2013, in which defendant wanted to know why there was a warrant for his arrest. After Martinez advised defendant that the warrant was based on his violation of probation, defendant explained he did not know he was supposed to be contacting the probation