People v. Pascoe CA2/8

Filed 12/21/21 P. v. Pascoe CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B309439

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA072850) v.

MICHAEL EUGENE PASCOE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Daviann L. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed. Evan D. Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., and John Yang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________

INTRODUCTION Michael Eugene Pascoe used controlled substances and failed to attend domestic violence classes, in violation of the terms of his probation imposed following his plea of no contest to a felony charge of injury upon a dating partner. (Pen. Code, 1 § 273.5, subd. (a).) The trial court revoked probation and imposed a prison sentence. Appellant now contends the trial court abused its discretion in not reinstating probation, because it had not fully considered his addiction and inability to afford the classes. He also contends that he should be awarded custody credit for the time he voluntarily remained at a residential treatment program beyond the probation-mandated period. These contentions are without merit. The trial court properly revoked probation, as his violation of probation was due to willfulness and/or irresponsibility. Moreover, there exists no authority that mandates the award of custody credit based on voluntary self-placement in a rehabilitative residential program. As such, appellant’s contentions on appeal must be rejected and we affirm. BACKGROUND In December 2017, police officers responding to a domestic violence call found appellant “jump[ing] on top of the victim.” The victim, who was in a dating relationship with appellant, reported that he had pushed her repeatedly to make her fall, placed himself on top of her, compressed her chest with his hands, and “bear hugged” her. She suffered discomfort and immediate redness to her chest area.