People v. Ward CA2/3

Filed 9/1/16 P. v. Ward CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B264117

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA425485) v.

RONALD ART WARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard S. Kemalyan, Judge. Affirmed.

Roberta Simon, 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 A. Miyoshi and Allison H. Chung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________

INTRODUCTION Defendant and Appellant Ronald Art Ward appeals from the trial court’s order revoking probation, arguing that the court abused its discretion in revoking probation based on a “minor violation” occurring shortly after probation was imposed. We affirm as the trial court reinstated probation on two separate occasions before determining that Ward was not a suitable candidate for probation. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 15, 2014, Ward pleaded no contest to selling a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a), and misdemeanor resisting, obstructing, and delaying a peace officer in violation of Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1). The court sentenced Ward to six years in local custody, suspended execution of sentence, and imposed five years of formal probation on the condition that he complete a one-year residential treatment program. The court advised Ward that if he left or was terminated from the program, he must report to the court within 48 hours. Ward twice stated that he understood the court’s warnings. The prosecutor likewise advised Ward of the terms of his plea and the consequences of violating the probation terms, and Ward said he understood them. As to the residential treatment program, the court ordered Ward to enroll in, comply with all program terms and conditions of, and complete a 365-day residential treatment program at In2Rekovery. Ward stated that he understood, acknowledged and accepted the terms and conditions of his probation. Sheriff’s deputies transported Ward to In2Rekovery. When In2Rekovery asked Ward for a $700 fee, Ward walked away from the program. Ward did not report back to court. The probation department referred Ward to other programs; Ward failed to enroll and did not report to court. On October 27, 2014, the trial court was advised that Ward left In2Rekovery program and it summarily revoked probation.