People v. Line CA3

California Court of Appeal Feb 9, 2015 No. C075421Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the order imposing a 180-day jail term for a community supervision violation, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion, was misled, or that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance.

Issues

Did the trial court fail to exercise its discretion in imposing a 180-day jail term for a community supervision violation?
Was the defendant denied effective assistance of counsel due to a failure to object to the sentence?
Did the trial court rely on erroneous information regarding the probation officer's sentencing recommendation?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendant’s failure to object to the imposition of a 180-day jail term forfeits the issue on appeal.”

“Defendant has failed to demonstrate on this record that the trial court did not exercise its discretion or was misled or that defense counsel’s performance was deficient.”

Filed 2/9/15 P. v. Line CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Trinity) ----

THE PEOPLE, C075421

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13SR001)

STEVEN KENNETH LINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Steven Kenneth Line appeals from an order imposing 180 days with no credit for time served on a violation of postrelease community supervision (community supervision). Defendant contends that with respect to the time imposed, the trial court did not exercise its discretion, the trial court was misled by the prosecutor, and defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We do not find any error and affirm. In 2012, defendant was convicted of felony evading in Humboldt County and was sentenced to state prison. Upon his release from prison, he was placed on community supervision in Trinity County until November 2015.

On March 20, 2013, defendant admitted that he failed to report his whereabouts to his probation officer.1 On April 17, 2013, defendant was sentenced to time served (44 actual and 44 conduct days) for the community supervision violation, was ordered to report to probation upon release from jail (in custody in the marijuana case), and was reinstated on community supervision. On some unspecified date, defendant was released from custody. A new petition filed May 23, 2013, alleged that defendant violated community supervision by failing to report his whereabouts to his probation officer. On September 18, 2013, defendant admitted the allegation.2 On November 19, 2013, the court sentenced defendant to 180 days in jail for this violation (consecutive to his sentence in the marijuana case) with no credit for time served. The trial court awarded all custody credit towards defendant’s sentence in the marijuana case.3 Defendant contends he was denied due process in that the trial court did not exercise its discretion in setting the 180-day term but instead “apparently relied on an erroneous statement by the prosecution regarding the recommendation of the probation officer.” Acknowledging that counsel failed to object on this ground and anticipating a

People v. Line CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C075421

STEVEN KENNETH LINE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

ROBIE , J.

MAURO , J.

AI Brief