People v. Lara-Leon CA2/6

Filed 2/15/22 P. v. Lara-Leon CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 speci fied 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B311578 (Super. Ct. No. 2015019495) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

ARIANA LARA-LEON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Ariana Lara-Leon appeals from the trial court’s postjudgment order denying her motion to withdraw her admission that she violated the terms of her postrelease community supervision (PRCS). She contends the court erred when it denied her motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In March 2018, Leon pled guilty to unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and willfully evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and ordered her to

serve three years of formal probation. The court later terminated probation and sentenced Leon to 16 months in state prison. Leon completed her sentence, and was placed on PRCS pursuant to Penal Code1 section 3450. In January 2021, the probation department petitioned the trial court to revoke Leon’s PRCS, alleging that she violated its terms by committing new theft-related offenses. Leon had an informal hearing with a probation officer a few days after her arrest. The officer told Leon of her alleged violations and advised her of her PRCS rights. Leon waived her rights, admitted that she violated the terms of PRCS, and agreed to a period of confinement not to exceed 180 days in county jail. The following month, Leon moved to withdraw her admission, arguing that it was not knowing and voluntary. At a hearing, the probation officer confirmed that he advised Leon of her rights, going over the admission form “two or three times.” The trial court denied Leon’s motion. Leon then requested an evidentiary hearing on whether her admission was knowing and voluntary. The court denied her request. DISCUSSION Leon contends the trial court erred when it denied her motion to withdraw her admission without an evidentiary hearing on whether it was knowing and voluntary. But even if the court erred, on appeal Leon is required to show that that error prejudiced her. (In re La Croix (1974) 12 Cal.3d 146, 154- 155.) Both her opening brief and her reply brief “make[] absolutely no such showing” (In re Winn (1975) 13 Cal.3d 694, 698)—indeed, they don’t even argue prejudice. Her appeal fails on that basis alone. (People v. Jordan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 308, 316.)