People v. Wilcox CA3

Filed 6/14/16 P. v. Wilcox CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079721

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM042962)

v.

JASON THOMAS WILCOX,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jason Thomas Wilcox pleaded no contest to receipt of stolen property having a value exceeding $950 (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)),1 and the trial court imposed a two-year middle term. On appeal, defendant argues the court abused its discretion in denying probation and a split term. We disagree and affirm. I. BACKGROUND In April 2015, defendant was discovered with a cache of stolen items taken from a stolen car. These items included a GPS navigation device, a digital camera, an MP3

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

player, sunglasses, clothing, and other equipment. He pleaded no contest to receiving stolen property with a value over $950. (§ 496, subd. (a).) A separate count for second degree burglary of a vehicle was dismissed with a Harvey waiver.2 Defendant had three prior convictions. In 2001, he was convicted in Washington State of “possession without a prescription” of marijuana, a felony. In 2013, he was convicted in Oregon of fourth degree assault, a felony. And in 2014, he was convicted in California of second degree burglary, a misdemeanor. When he committed his current offense, he was on probation in both Oregon and California. His Oregon probation officer reported defendant had not complied with the terms and conditions of his probation. Specifically, when he left Oregon for California, he failed to notify his probation officer. He had also failed to report to probation several times and missed court dates. At his sentencing in this case, defendant requested probation and asked to serve it in Oregon, where he was receiving mental health treatment. In denying probation, the trial court noted: “I think it’s ironic that he absconded from probation in Oregon and wants to be placed on probation here and do it in Oregon.” The court then found defendant statutorily ineligible for probation: “He is eligible only under [section ]1203[ subdivision](e)(4), unusual circumstances.” But the court continued: “Even if he were not statutor[ily] ineligible, probation would be denied based upon defendant’s prior record of criminal conduct, indicating a pattern of regular criminal conduct. Again, he was on probation in Oregon on a felony [domestic violence] case . . . . [¶] . . . In Mendocino, he’s also on probation on a burglary case.” The court then imposed a two-year middle term. It noted several factors in aggravation and none in mitigation: “[H]is convictions as an adult are numerous. He has