People v. Harmon CA3

Filed 11/12/14 P. v. Harmon CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C075608

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF13384)

v.

RHONDA MAE HARMON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Rhonda Mae Harmon appeals her sentence of two years in prison for first degree burglary. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying probation because the underlying facts of the burglary and her reduced culpability support an unusual case finding and grant of probation. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 10, 2013, defendant pled no contest to first degree burglary in exchange for the dismissal of a charge of possessing methamphetamine. The plea agreement

1

required her to complete a residential rehabilitation program to earn an unusual case finding and grant of probation. If she did not complete the program for any reason, she was subject to the low term of two years in prison. Defendant was released from custody on July 12, 2013, to enter the residential rehabilitation program, Teen Challenge. A review hearing was set for August 12, but defendant was not required to be present if she was in the program. On July 23, 2013, Teen Challenge released defendant from the program on medical leave to have dental work done. Defendant appeared before the court the next day, on July 24, and was ordered to return for the review hearing on August 12 to check the status of her medical problems and possible reentry into Teen Challenge. The court also ordered defendant to remain at the “Depot” while her medical problems were addressed. Defendant failed to appear at the review hearing on August 12; however, the court stayed execution of an arrest warrant so her attorney could find out whether she was at the “Depot.” The following week, defendant appeared in court, and her attorney confirmed she was still on medical leave from Teen Challenge and on the wait-list for the “Depot.” The court continued the case to September 3 for review and ordered defendant be present unless in the program. Defendant again failed to appear on September 3. A letter from Teen Challenge, dated August 23, 2013, indicated defendant had not complied with the guidelines given to her upon release. At the September 3 hearing, defendant’s attorney confirmed defendant did not follow the policy for medical leave and had been discharged from the program. The court issued an arrest warrant and relieved defendant’s attorney of further representation. Defendant was arrested on November 20, 2013, and appeared for sentencing on December 23.