People v. Jiron CA3

Filed 4/29/22 P. v. Jiron CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094031

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. P19CRF0498)

v.

VINCENT ANGELO JIRON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following three probation violations, the trial court revoked defendant Vincent Angelo Jiron’s probation and sentenced him to the midterm of three years. Defendant appeals the sentence imposed contending the trial court abused its discretion. Specifically, he claims the trial court misunderstood the law when it determined there was insufficient time left for defendant to complete rehabilitative programming, given the shortened probationary term mandated by Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2). We disagree and affirm.

1

BACKGROUND As the facts of defendant’s convictions and probation violations do not bear on our decision, they are not recounted here in any detail. In relevant part, defendant pleaded no contest to felony assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury and misdemeanor shoplifting. The court suspended imposition of his sentence and placed him on five years of formal probation. One month into probation, the probation department filed a petition for revocation of probation alleging defendant’s whereabouts were unknown. Two months later, the probation department filed a second petition alleging defendant was convicted of vandalism and resisting an officer in Sacramento County. Defendant admitted the two probation violations and the court reinstated probation. Later in his first year of probation, defendant failed to report to his probation officer on three occasions and he was no longer living at his reported address. Following these convictions and probation violations, the probation report recommended defendant serve 180 days in county jail and participate in a behavioral modification program. In rejecting the probation report’s recommendation, the court noted that “[d]efendant’s performance on probation has been abysmal.” The trial court concluded defendant’s recent failures to report coupled with his prior crimes and violations while on probation demonstrated that probation would not be beneficial. The court also acknowledged that considering Assembly Bill No. 1950, defendant’s five-year probation term would be reduced to two years, thus limiting the effectiveness of a potential 15-month behavioral modification program for a defendant with 13 months remaining on probation. Defendant’s probation officer recalled defendant did not want to participate in the behavioral modification program. The probation officer also expressed uncertainty as to how long it would take defendant to complete the program. The court permitted the parties to question the probation officer before proceeding to the statement of reasons, but no questions were asked. Once the court stated its reasoning, it asked