People v. Estrada CA3

Filed 5/19/16 P. v. Estrada CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079390

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SF124592A)

v.

MANUEL ESTRADA III,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Manuel Estrada III was placed on probation following a guilty plea to several counts. Twenty months later, he was found in violation of probation and sentenced to a three-year prison term. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his request for a supplemental probation report prior to resentencing. The People concede error, and we agree. We remand for resentencing.

1

BACKGROUND In September 2013, defendant pled guilty to corporal injury to a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count 1),1 misdemeanor criminal threats (§ 422; count 3), and misdemeanor dissuading a witness or victim from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 4). In exchange, various counts were dismissed and other counts were reduced to misdemeanors. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation. The court ordered defendant to serve 365 days in jail on count 1 and 90 days consecutive on count 3. The court also ordered defendant to complete a 52-week domestic violence program and stay 100 yards away from the victim and have no contact with her. The parties waived the preparation of a probation report. Nearly 20 months later, in May 2015, the court found defendant in violation of probation, for failing to obey a probation officer’s direction. Before the court imposed sentence, defense counsel requested a supplemental probation report. The court responded: “Is he entitled to that? I don’t think he is.” A short while later when the court again asked if defendant was entitled to a supplemental report, the following colloquy occurred: “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I think [defendant] would just prefer that you go ahead and -- “THE COURT: Impose sentence? “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: -- as long as you give him all of his credits. And by my calculation -- “THE COURT: He’s entitled to his credits. Okay I’m going to impose the mid term. That’s three years on Count I. Additional eight months on