People v. Bentley CA2/1

Filed 5/28/15 P. v. Bentley CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B254918

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA067926) v.

RAYMOND D. BENTLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Tomson T. Ong, Judge. Affirmed. ______ Maxine Weksler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brennan and Brendan Sullivan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______

Raymond D. Bentley appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court revoked probation and executed a suspended prison sentence. Because executing the suspended sentence did not constitute an abuse of discretion, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2002, Bentley pleaded no contest to one count of spousal abuse. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on five years of formal probation. In 2005, while on probation, Bentley pleaded no contest to one count of spousal abuse and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, one against his sister-in-law and the other against his brother-in-law, all arising out of the same incident. The court imposed a six-year prison term but suspended execution of sentence and again placed Bentley on five years of formal probation. The terms and conditions of probation required Bentley to, among other things, “cooperate with the probation officer in a plan for domestic violence counseling.” The court found the 2005 offenses violated Bentley’s probation in the 2002 case. It revoked and reinstated probation in the 2002 case on the same terms and conditions as for the 2005 case. Some time in 2006 Bentley was dismissed from his program for domestic violence counseling due to nonpayment of fees. In August 2006, based on the dismissal, the trial court found Bentley in violation of probation in the 2002 and 2005 cases. It terminated probation in both cases, executed the suspended six-year prison term for the 2005 case and imposed a consecutive, one-year prison term for the 2002 case. Bentley appealed from the judgment. On appeal, we concluded that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Bentley had the ability to pay the counseling fees for the period of time in which his underpayments resulted in his dismissal from the program and thus did not support a probation violation. We reversed the judgment and remanded the matter to the court to vacate its order revoking probation and to enter new orders in both cases. We stated, “Bentley’s inability to pay for domestic counseling in the past does not mean that he should be excused from attending counseling in the future. His history of violent behavior supports the trial court’s view that there is a need for such counseling. On remand the trial court may reinstate probation with a requirement that Bentley