People v. Madrigal

California Court of Appeal Jan 27, 2000 No. No. B129746Published

Before: Yegan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the probation department's duty under Penal Code section 1203.2a to initiate probation revocation proceedings for an incarcerated defendant does not arise when the department is unaware of the defendant's imprisonment, particularly when the defendant has actively concealed their identity and whereabouts. Furthermore, an absconding probationer cannot benefit from delays caused by their own efforts to avoid detection.

Issues

Whether the probation department violated the defendant's speedy trial rights under Penal Code section 1203.2a by failing to locate him in federal prison.
Whether the probation department has a duty to inquire at every state and federal prison to locate an absconding probationer who uses aliases.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“No case, however, says that the section 1203.2a duty arises where the probation department does not know of the subsequent prison term.”

“An absconding probationer should not benefit from a delay caused by his own actions.”

“The probation department is not required to inquire at every state and federal prison to determine the whereabouts of an absconding probationer.”

Opinion

YEGAN, J. Elias Sanchez Madrigal unsuccessfully appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court revoked probation and sentenced him to five years in state prison for selling cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a).) He contends that the probation department violated his speedy trial rights because it did not locate him in federal prison and timely initiate [1052]a probation revocation so that he could move for a concurrent sentence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

On June 2, 1995, appellant entered a plea of guilty to selling cocaine. When arrested on this offense, appellant had a fraudulent “green card” which identified him as Armando Diaz Paz. Even though he was on parole for a previous sale of cocaine, the trial court granted probation on various terms and conditions, e.g., that he serve 365 days in jail, report to the Santa Barbara County Probation Department upon his release from custody, and advise the probation department “. . . of his place of residence.” Other than serving the 365 days in jail, appellant never attempted to comply with any of the terms and conditions of probation. At no time after serving the 365 days in jail did he ever seek to invoke Penal Code section 1203.2a.1

On April 5, 1996, appellant was arrested for possessing a counterfeit immigration card and Social Security card. He was convicted in Solvang Municipal Court, Santa Barbara County, for manufacturing or selling deceptive government documents and sentenced to 190 days in jail. (§ 529.5, subd. (a).) When arrested on this offense, appellant “gave deputies various names (all fictitious) so that his true identity would not be known.”

On August 3, 1996, appellant was transferred to Wasco State Prison on a state parole violation. After he was released from prison, he failed to respond to a letter from his probation officer in the instant case. On February 13, 1997, appellant’s parole agent told the probation department of appellant’s telephone number and address. Probation officials sent appellant a letter and twice attempted to reach him by telephone.

On March 31, 1997, the probation department petitioned to revoke appellant’s probation because he had not reported to his probation officer and had suffered the section 529.5, subdivision (a) conviction. The trial court revoked probation and issued an arrest warrant.

People v. Madrigal

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief