People v. Martinez CA5

Filed 11/24/20 P. v. Martinez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F079465 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR052566B) v.

MELONY MARIE MARTINEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Dale J. Blea, Judge. Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY By complaint filed October 21, 2015, in Madera County Superior Court, Melony Marie Martinez (defendant) and two others were charged with kidnapping (Pen. Code,1 § 207, subd. (a); count 1) and attempting to deter an executive officer by means of threats or violence (§ 69, count 2), both felonies. On November 9, 2015, the complaint was amended to reduce count 2 to a misdemeanor and add count 3, a felony violation of section 278 (taking or withholding a child from the lawful custodian). Defendant pled guilty to the amended charges.2 Imposition of sentence was suspended, and she was placed on five years’ probation on various terms and conditions. Various monetary obligations were also imposed. On September 23, 2016, the probation department recommended that defendant’s probation be revoked for failure to report to probation as directed and to appear at a Work Force orientation as directed by her probation officer. It was further recommended that probation be reinstated with additional terms and conditions, including that defendant enroll in and complete the Day Reporting Program, and that she serve 60 days in jail. Defendant subsequently admitted the violation of probation on condition that she serve 30 days in jail. She accepted the additional terms and conditions of probation, which the court formally imposed. On October 31, 2018, a petition to revoke defendant’s probation was filed, alleging defendant had failed to enroll in the Day Reporting Program and to report to the probation department as directed, and that she had been terminated from the Day Reporting Program for failure to comply with attendance and program requirements. Defendant asserted that she had several medical issues that kept her from complying with