People v. Bailey CA1/5

Filed 12/12/14 P. v. Bailey CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A141231 v. REGGIE LEE BAILEY, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 01-166291-5) Defendant and Appellant.

Reggie Lee Bailey was convicted on his plea of no contest to second degree burglary and granted probation. A petition was filed alleging that Bailey violated the condition of his probation that he obey all laws, having been again arrested for burglary of the same premises where his earlier offense occurred. After a contested hearing, the court found Bailey in violation of his terms of probation. Bailey contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s findings. We disagree and affirm. I. BACKGROUND Bailey was originally charged by complaint with having committed a first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a))1 at an apartment complex located in Concord at 1825 Galindo Street (1825 Galindo), and with receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). A sentencing enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b) was alleged based upon a prior prison term, and it was further alleged that he was ineligible for probation.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

On November 1, 2013, pursuant to a plea agreement, Bailey entered a plea of no contest to a second degree burglary charge (§§ 459, 460, subd. (b)) alleged in an amended complaint. The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed with a Harvey2 waiver. Consistent with the terms of the negotiated disposition, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed Bailey on probation for two years, and ordered that he serve 90 days in county jail. Terms of probation required that he obey all laws. He also was ordered to stay away from 1825 Galindo. On January 24, 2014, a petition was filed to revoke probation, alleging that Bailey had failed to comply with the requirement that he obey all laws. The petition incorporated by reference an attached Concord Police Department report of Bailey’s arrest for burglary at 1825 Galindo on December 3, 2013. The petition also referenced the charge for which Bailey had been arrested—“PC 459/460(b).” A warrant was issued for his arrest. At arraignment on the petition, Bailey denied the allegations and a hearing on the petition was set for February 28, 2014. At the evidentiary hearing, the court heard testimony from Keith Gichohi, a security guard at 1825 Galindo. Gichohi had observed Bailey and another individual inside the apartment complex office shortly after midnight on December 3, 2013. Gichohi knew from prior contacts with Bailey that Bailey did not live at 1825 Galindo, and Gichohi had told Bailey to stay away from the premises. Gichohi had someone call the police department. Gichohi did not see Bailey take anything from the office or do anything he thought was criminal. Police officers arrived about five minutes later, and Gichohi admitted them to the premises. Bailey and his companion were arrested in the complex’s lobby as they were “leaving in a quick pace.” Apartment manager Justin Wald inspected the premises the following day and did not find any property damaged or missing. Wald testified that Bailey was not a resident of 1825 Galindo, had no lawful business there, and that the building is locked after 7:00 p.m. Wald had previously