P. v. Thompson CA3

Filed 6/13/13 P. v. Thompson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Siskiyou) ----

THE PEOPLE, C069375

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCYKCRF10570) v.

ROBERT WAYNE THOMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Robert Wayne Thompson appeals the judgment entered following the revocation of his probation and the imposition of a previously suspended seven-year sentence. Defendant contends the introduction at the probation revocation hearing of Proposition 115 hearsay testimony without a finding of good cause violated his right to confront witnesses, and trial counsel performed ineffectively in failing to object to the evidence. We shall affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant entered pleas of no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and conspiracy (Pen.

1

Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 182, subd. (a)(1)),1 and admitted a great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).2 In exchange, the court dismissed the remaining counts and sentenced defendant to seven years in prison, with execution suspended. The court placed defendant on five years’ probation. Defendant’s probation required him to obey all laws and abstain from alcohol. Revocation of Probation In March 2011 the district attorney filed a petition for revocation of probation. The petition alleged that in February 2011 defendant committed numerous crimes: infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant, infliction of great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence, assault with a deadly weapon, and battery causing serious bodily injury. (§§ 273.5, subd. (a), 12022.7, subd. (e), 245, subd. (a)(1), 243, subd. (d).) The petition also alleged defendant violated his probation in March 2011 by violating a criminal protective order and dissuading a witness from making a report to law enforcement. (§§ 166, subd. (c)(1), 136.1, subd. (b)(1).) The charges that gave rise to the violation of probation also gave rise to new criminal charges being filed. The court held a combined preliminary hearing on the new felony charges and violation of probation hearing. At the hearing, the court took judicial notice of a criminal protective order in the new case. The order prohibited defendant from having any contact with Rebecca Elliot. The court made no finding that any witnesses were unavailable.