People v. Medina CA2/8

Filed 9/21/20 P. v. Medina CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B305355

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA092742) v.

RUFINO MEDINA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Terrell, Judge. Affirmed.

Garen Nazarian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

In August 2019, defendant Rufino Medina entered a plea of no contest to one count of stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to three years in prison, but suspended execution of the sentence. Defendant was placed on formal probation for a period of five years. He was ordered to serve 12 days in jail, among other conditions of probation, including restitution, community service, and domestic violence classes. The court entered a protective order requiring defendant to stay 100 yards away from the victim, and to have no contact with her. He was ordered to obey all laws and orders of the court. On December 24, 2019, the People filed a motion seeking revocation of defendant’s probation, arguing defendant had violated Penal Code section 166, subdivision (a)(1). A contested probation violation hearing was held on March 3, 2020. The victim testified that she and defendant had previously dated, and broke up because of his controlling behavior. After they broke up, defendant made numerous threats, vandalized her car, and showed up at her home and work. On October 2, 2019, she saw defendant in front of her house. He gestured at her with his finger, and laughed. As she drove away, he followed her, so she went to the police station to make a report. She saw him again on November 1, 2019, as she was taking her daughter to school. He laughed and came within 33 feet of her. Several defense witnesses testified that defendant was likely elsewhere during the alleged violations, or that the victim made reports inconsistent with her court testimony.