People v. Taylor CA1/5

Filed 5/8/15 P. v. Taylor 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A144160

v. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR-300957) DIONN NOVELL TAYLOR,

Defendant and Appellant. ___________________________________/

In September 2013, appellant Dionn Novell Taylor pled no contest to threatening a witness. (Pen. Code, § 140, subd. (a).) The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Taylor on probation.1 In October 2014, the Solano County Probation Department (probation department) filed a request for a bench warrant alleging Taylor: (1) failed to report to the probation department “as requested” in August 2014; and (2) was arrested in September 2014 and failed to report to the probation department after his release from

1 Unless noted, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code. In June 2014, following a contested probation revocation hearing, the court determined Taylor stalked a probation officer (§ 646.9, subd. (a)), and reinstated and modified Taylor’s probation, adding certain conditions. Taylor appealed, and we affirmed. (People v. Taylor (Feb. 17, 2015, A142450) [nonpub. opn].)

1

jail. The court revoked Taylor’s probation and issued a bench warrant. Taylor was arrested. Taylor’s probation officer testified at a December 2014 probation revocation hearing. She stated Taylor met with a probation officer on August 7, 2014 and “was given an appointment” for August 21, 2014. Taylor failed to appear for the appointment and the probation officer called Taylor’s contact number and “left a message to have [Taylor] return” the call. Taylor did not return the probation officer’s call. Two days later, the probation officer spoke to Taylor’s wife on the phone and obtained Taylor’s residential address. The probation officer mailed Taylor a notice of an appointment for September 12, 2014. The probation officer learned Taylor was incarcerated in San Francisco County jail and mailed him a notice to appear or call the probation department within five days of being released from jail.2 Taylor was released from jail on October 5, 2014 but he did not call the probation officer or report to the probation department. At the conclusion of the probation revocation hearing, the court determined Taylor violated probation “for failing to report to probation as directed and failing to report police contact or an arrest.” The probation department recommended Taylor’s probation remain revoked and the court sentence Taylor to the upper term of four years in state prison for the section 140, subdivision (a) violation. At the sentencing hearing, Taylor’s attorney urged the court to reinstate probation, and claimed the upper term was not appropriate given Taylor’s substance abuse and mental health issues. The prosecutor urged the court to impose the prison term recommended by the probation department. The court “den[ied] a further grant of probation” and imposed a four-year prison term. It explained “the Court has bent over backwards to try and allow Mr. Taylor to participate on a probationary grant. . . And the bottom line is . . . he’s either unwilling or unable to comply with the terms of probation. . . This has been one issue after another. I don’t think he’s seen a probation officer in this County more than once since he was placed on probation, and