People v. Torres
Filed 6/16/22; Modified and Certified for Publication 7/13/22 (order attached)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B318399 (Super. Ct. No. 2021020406) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)
v.
LUIS DANIEL TORRES,
Defendant and Appellant.
Luis Daniel Torres appeals a grant of probation containing a condition that he serve 180 days of confinement in county jail. Although the trial court misunderstood imposition of custodial time as a probation condition for a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a), the court stated that it would not impose less custodial time in the exercise of its discretion. For this reason, we affirm. (Pen. Code, § 1203.1, subd. (a)(2); People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 [remand for resentencing unnecessary where record clearly indicates trial court would have reached the same conclusion].)
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In the late hours of August 3, 2021, Torres led Oxnard police officers on a vehicle pursuit that reached 100 miles per hour. During the chase, Torres failed to stop at stop signs and passed another motorist on the road shoulder. The officers eventually arrested Torres at his home. The Ventura County District Attorney charged Torres with felony evasion of an officer with willful disregard, and misdemeanor driving without a license. (Veh. Code, §§ 2800.2, subd. (a), 12500, subd. (a).) Torres later entered a guilty plea to the felony evading count and the court dismissed the misdemeanor count following the prosecutor’s motion. Prior to and following the entry of his guilty plea, Torres and the trial court discussed whether Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a), requires 180 days of custodial time as a condition of probation. Torres filed a brief asserting that Penal Code section 1203.1, subdivision (a) does not mandate any minimum confinement as a condition of probation. The court indicated that it would research the issue but believed that a grant of probation for Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a) requires “a statutory minimum of 180 days.” In accepting Torres’s guilty plea, the trial court advised Torres that the prosecution requested 365 days of confinement. The court also stated that it would make a decision after reviewing the probation report. At the later sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that it had reviewed the probation report which recommended 180 days of confinement as a probation condition. The prosecutor requested 365 days of confinement in view of Torres’s reckless and dangerous evasion. Torres’s counsel responded that 120 days
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)