People v. Sease CA3

Filed 8/18/20 P. v. Sease CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090338

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 18F4329, 17F1012) v.

SHANNON DEANN SEASE,

Defendant and Appellant.

In case No. 17F1012 (the 2017 case), a jury found defendant Shannon Deann Sease guilty of elder abuse and misdemeanor animal cruelty. In August 2017, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for three years. The court imposed a $600 restitution fine; a $600 probation revocation fine, suspended unless probation was revoked; a $80 court security fee; a $60 criminal conviction assessment; and $780 in other costs. In case No. 18F4329 (the 2018 case), defendant pled no contest to first degree residential burglary and admitted violating probation in the 2017 case. In September

1

2018, the trial court revoked and reinstated probation in the 2017 case; suspended imposition of sentence in the 2018 case; and placed defendant on formal probation for three years in the 2018 case. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine; a $300 probation revocation fine, suspended unless probation was revoked; a $40 court security fee; a $30 criminal conviction assessment; a $39 crime prevention fee; and $780 in other costs. In August 2019, after a contested hearing, the trial court sustained allegations that, beginning in the fall of 2018 and continuing into March 2019, defendant violated probation by failing to report to the probation department and failing to provide a valid residential address. The trial court concluded defendant “manipulate[d] [p]robation to get away with as much as [she] could” and “lie[d] under oath” when she testified at the hearing. The trial court addressed defendant: “I can detect a person’s lies . . . if they are really bad at it, and you are bad at it.” Regarding the 2018 case, the trial court revoked probation and declined to reinstate it, noting defendant was on probation at the time she committed the burglary in the 2018 case, and imposed an aggravated term of six years. Regarding the 2017 case, the trial court revoked probation and imposed a consecutive term of one year (one-third the middle term) for the elder abuse offense and a concurrent jail sentence for the misdemeanor offense. Thus, the aggregate term was seven years. As for costs, regarding the 2018 case, the trial court explained that the $40 court security fee and the $30 criminal conviction assessment “remain[ed],” as did the $300 restitution fine, while the stay on the probation revocation fine was “lift[ed].” Further, the trial court imposed a parole revocation fine of $300, stayed pending successful completion of parole and “permanently stay[ed] the $780 fine” and the “$39 fine.” Regarding the 2017 case, the trial court noted the $600 restitution and $600 probation revocation fines imposed by a different judge, and stayed $300 of each of those $600 fines, while lifting the stay on the probation revocation fine (leading to a $300