People v. Palacios CA2/8

Filed 7/5/22 P. v. Palacios CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B314640

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA488688) v.

JAMES A. PALACIOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Frederick N. Wapner, Judge. Affirmed.

Glenn L. Savard, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

In October 2020, defendant and appellant James A. Palacios agreed to plead no contest to one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) in exchange for a sentence of 90 days in jail, five years of probation and mental health counseling. Defendant waived his trial rights on the record. Counsel joined in the waivers and stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. The court found defendant’s waivers to be knowingly and voluntarily made, accepted defendant’s plea and found him guilty of the assault. In accordance with the plea agreement, the court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on five years formal probation, awarded him 173 days of custody credits and ordered him to complete mental health counseling through the probation department. Defense counsel advised the court defendant was homeless and requested accommodation on the imposition of fines and fees. The court ordered fines and fees stayed pending a finding of defendant’s ability to pay them. The prosecutor dismissed the remaining charges. Less than a month later, defendant was arrested for robbery and shoplifting. The prosecution sought revocation of probation in lieu of a new prosecution. At the probation violation hearing held January 4, 2021, the court revoked probation and ordered it reinstated on the same terms and conditions, with the additional term that defendant serve 180 days in jail. Defendant was credited with 101 days of time served. The court admonished defendant to follow through with the order for mental health counseling and to attempt to address his drug problems. On March 20, 2021, defendant was arrested for making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422). A contested probation