People v. Super. Ct.

Filed 8/18/15

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

THE PEOPLE, ) No. BS 153534 ) Petitioner, ) Central Trial Court ) v. ) No. 4EA06331 ) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ) LOS ANGELES COUNTY, ) ) Respondent; ) OPINION ) MARIA SANCHEZ-FLORES, ) ) Real Party in Interest. ) ____________________________________________)

Petition for Writ of Mandate from an Order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Central Trial Court, Rupa Searight Goswami, Judge. Granted.

Jackie Lacey, District Attorney of Los Angeles County, by Phyllis C. Asayama, Deputy District Attorney, and Beth L. Widmark, Deputy District Attorney, for petitioner.

Ronald L. Brown, Public Defender of Los Angeles County, by Albert Menaster, Deputy Public Defender, for real party in interest.

* * *

1

The issue presented in this petition for a writ of mandate is whether, in deferring sentence under Penal Code section 1001.94, respondent trial court abused its discretion by not ordering real party to “complete the same obligations that would have been imposed had judgment been entered.” (§ 1001.94, subd. (f).)1 We find an abuse of discretion and accordingly grant petitioner relief.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner, the People of the State of California, charged real party in interest, Maria Sanchez-Flores, with violating section 330.1, subdivision (a), by unlawfully possessing or permitting the operation of a slot machine. The complaint also alleged real party, within the meaning of subdivision (e) of the same statute, possessed more than one slot machine. Real party, who was represented by counsel at all times, pled not guilty to the charges2 and the cause was eventually placed on respondent’s trial calendar.

On the date set for trial, real party changed her plea to no contest and requested diversion. Respondent, petitioner and real party were in agreement that petitioner met the requirements of section 1001.94. Petitioner sought to have respondent require real party to pay what she would have been required to pay had judgment been entered—a mandatory minimum fine of $2,000 plus all mandated penalty assessments. Instead, respondent obtained a waiver from real party to sentence her outside the statutory period, and placed her on “formal diversion.” The court ordered real party to perform 150 hours of community service, to complete 75 of the required hours within six months and the balance within one year, to obey all laws and orders of the court, and to not incur any “new convictions” during the one-year period. Respondent informed real party that if she failed to complete the 150 hours of community service, she would be placed on probation for three years and ordered to pay a fine of $2,000 plus penalty assessments. Petitioner objected to respondent’s order on the ground it was inconsistent with subdivision (f) of section 1001.94. This timely petition followed the court’s order.