People v. Taylor CA3

Filed 3/6/15 P. v. Taylor CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C075628

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CM038741, CM039032) v.

RAYLON SHANE TAYLOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Raylon Shane Taylor appeals from the trial court’s orders of January 16, 2014 finding him in violation of his probation and ordering execution of his previously-imposed prison sentence. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to reinstate his probation, arguing that his violation--which he concedes-- occurred due to his unexpectedly early release from jail and resulting denial of transportation directly to a designated drug program. He argues that his early release deprived him of the “meaningful opportunity to comply” with the requirements of probation.

1

Because we disagree that the trial court abused its broad discretion in making its orders, we shall affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The details of defendant’s conduct leading to the charges for which he was sentenced are not relevant to our discussion on this appeal. It suffices to say that defendant was arrested and charged with numerous offenses, mostly drug and theft related, occurring in 2013. In case No. CM038741, defendant entered a no contest plea to possession of psilocybin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 1) and public intoxication, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f); count 2)1 in exchange for dismissal of the remaining allegations (strike prior and prior prison term). In case No. CM039032, defendant entered a no contest plea to two counts of second degree burglary (§ 459; counts 1 & 2) and admitted an on-bail or own recognizance enhancement (§ 12022.1) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining allegations (strike prior and three prior prison terms).2 The probation report shows defendant has an extensive history of huffing inhalants and had failed to complete a residential treatment program on one prior occasion. In 2008, defendant had been diagnosed as inhalant dependent with an inhalant-induced psychotic disorder with auditory hallucinations. Defendant had been on parole and had numerous violations for absconding and possession and use of inhalants. The probation officer recommended a state prison commitment based on defendant’s history of probation and parole violations and theft-related convictions (three felony petty thefts with priors and a robbery).