P. v. Huysman CA2/4

Filed 6/24/13 P. v. Huysman CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B240206

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA051461) v.

KENNETH LYNN HUYSMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, Hayden A. Zacky, Judge. Affirmed. Robert Booher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Stacy S. Schwartz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Kenneth Lynn Huysman appeals from a judgment of conviction after the trial court found him in violation of his probation. He contends the trial court violated his due process and confrontation rights at his probation violation hearing by allowing a probation officer to testify regarding a probation officer‟s report prepared by a different probation officer. We affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND In a felony complaint filed in January 2011, defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine, a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a); the complaint also alleged that defendant had suffered two prior convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). He pled guilty and admitted the prior conviction in exchange for probation under Proposition 36. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation for one year with certain terms and conditions, including mandatory drug abuse counseling. A detailed discussion of subsequent proceedings in which probation was revoked and reinstated with modifications is not required here. Suffice to say that defendant did not perform well on probation. Finally, in September 2011, the trial court revoked defendant‟s Proposition 36 probation, and on October 12, 2011, the court sentenced defendant to five years in prison. The court suspended execution of the sentence, however, and placed defendant on probation for three years on the condition that he serve 180 days in jail, the last 120 days of which he would serve in a live-in rehabilitation center. At the time sentence was imposed, the court ordered defendant to report to probation within 48 hours of his release from custody. A month later, the trial court modified defendant‟s probation. The court vacated the order that defendant spend 120 days in a live-in drug treatment