People v. Roseberry CA3

Filed 10/4/16 P. v. Roseberry CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sutter) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079597

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF142893)

v.

WILLIAM STANLEY PAUL ROSEBERRY,

Defendant and Respondent.

Defendant William Stanley Paul Roseberry appeals from the trial court’s ruling revoking probation. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND An amended complaint filed on February 10, 2015, charged defendant with willful infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (count 1—Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code) and assault with a deadly weapon (count 2—§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and alleged as to count 1 that defendant personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). On February 13, 2015, defendant entered a conditional plea of no contest to count 1 and admitted the enhancement in return for the dismissal of count 2, a stipulated sentence of five years in state prison, and the understanding that the trial court would suspend execution of sentence and place defendant on five years’ probation. His written

1

plea agreement stipulated that he struck his cohabitant, Casey Landis, with an aluminum baseball bat, causing extensive bruising to her legs. The probation report recommended rejecting defendant’s plea because defendant denied guilt despite his plea, had a criminal record dating back to 1989, had been in custody or on parole for the past 25 years, was escalating the level of his offenses, had held legitimate employment for only one period in his life, admitted that he lived “the drug lifestyle,” was “entrenched in anti-social behavior,” was “extremely manipulative,” had not complied with his present parole conditions, had scored “high violent” on a risk assessment, and intended to reunite with the victim once released from custody. On March 6, 2015, after learning that the parties still adhered to the stipulated plea agreement despite the probation report, the trial court accepted defendant’s plea, imposed but suspended a five-year state prison sentence (the upper term of four years on count 1, plus one year for the enhancement, to be served consecutively), and ordered defendant placed on formal probation for five years, with terms and conditions that included obeying all laws and reporting to his probation officer as directed. The court told defendant: “[I]f you do anything to violate your probation and if it’s proven that you have violated your probation, the Court’s hands are tied, five years prison.” Defendant said: “I got it.” Defendant was arrested for violation of probation on April 24, 2015. On April 28, 2015, the probation officer filed a declaration alleging the following probation violations: (1) defendant failed to obey all laws, in that on April 24, 2015, he violated section 148.9;1 (2) defendant failed to contact the probation officer before March 12, 2015, as directed; (3) defendant failed to report in person to the probation officer on March 24, 2015, as