People v. Munguia CA2/5

Filed 1/8/15 P. v. Munguia CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B254980

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA121887) v.

MATTHEW MARTIN MUNGUIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Pat Connolly, Judge. Affirmed. Jonathan B. Steiner and Richard B. Lennon, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and John Yang, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Matthew Martin Munguia pled no contest to one count of corporal injury to a spouse, cohabitant or child’s parent in violation of Penal Code1 section 273.5, subdivision (a). On March 29, 2012, appellant was placed on formal probation for five years on the conditions, inter alia, that he complete 52 weeks of domestic violence classes and seek training, schooling or employment as approved by the probation officer. On October 9, 2012, appellant admitted he had violated his probation by failing to appear in court to verify his attendance of the required domestic violence classes. Probation was reinstated on the condition that appellant perform 30 days of work for the California Department of Transportation (“CALTRANS”), to be completed by November 7, 2013. On March 6, 2013 and July 22, 2013, appellant again admitted to violating probation. On both occasions, probation was reinstated. On March 6, 2014, after a bench trial, appellant was found to be in violation of probation. Probation was revoked and terminated, and appellant was sentenced to the upper term of four years in state prison. Appellant appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion in terminating probation and sending him to state prison. He further contends that if probation was properly terminated, the section 1203.097 fine imposed when probation was initially granted must be stricken. We affirm the judgment.