People v. Dobbins CA2/3

Filed 10/15/15 P. v. Dobbins CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B260315

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA093131) v.

DESHUN DOBBINS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura Laesecke, Judge. Affirmed, as modified.

Rachel Varnell, 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, Susan Sullivan Pithey and Andrew S. Pruitt, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________________

INTRODUCTION Appellant Dobbins asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to reinstate probation after he consistently failed to report and failed to enroll or to perform even one day of his Caltrans service. The appellant also complains that the abstract of judgment does not reflect his presentence custody credits. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to reinstate probation and, instead, revoked probation and imposed a state prison sentence. The judgment, however, should be modified to award appellant 37 days of actual and five days of local custody credits. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by felony complaint with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and entered an open plea of guilty to count 1 in exchange for a five year maximum in state prison. On August 28, 2012, the court sentenced appellant. The court ordered that imposition of sentence be suspended, that appellant be placed on three years formal probation on conditions that included a 90 day term in the county jail and 60 days of Caltrans. On October 2, 2013, the probation department requested a calendar date based on appellant’s violation of probation. Probation included as its basis for the violation a failure to report to probation as ordered and a failure to begin his Caltrans service. On October 23, 2013, appellant appeared and admitted the violation. He failed to report and failed to do his Caltrans hours because he was busy and involved in a custody dispute. Probation was revoked and reinstated on the same terms and conditions. At the conclusion of that hearing, the court admonished appellant to “get your Caltrans/community service done, sir. Get enrolled.” In July 2014, appellant’s case was again set for a possible probation violation based on his failure to report. Appellant failed to appear at that hearing and probation was revoked and a bench warrant issued.