People v. Frazier CA2/8

Filed 4/27/23 P. v. Frazier CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B319835

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA080501) v.

LATASHA LOUISE FRAZIER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Emily J. Cole, Judge. Affirmed. Helen Hoeffel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

After defendant and appellant Latasha Louise Frazier was arrested for stealing multiple items from a grocery store, the trial court revoked her probation and imposed a three-year prison sentence. Defendant appeals, contending the court committed prejudicial error by relying on facts that occurred after the date probation was granted in imposing sentence. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY In September 2020, defendant was arrested for stealing items from a shoe store. Defendant entered a plea of no contest to one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. The court accepted defendant’s waivers on the record and found defendant guilty. At the sentencing hearing on May 5, 2021, the court suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant formal probation for a period of five years on various terms and conditions, including mandatory participation in three months of “intensive outpatient treatment” at the Tarzana Treatment Center for drug addiction. Defendant stipulated to pay restitution in the amounts of $74.99 and $58.88. Because the parties had agreed as part of the plea to a global disposition of all pending cases against defendant, the court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss defendant’s pending misdemeanor cases. A month later, defendant still had not enrolled in the court- ordered drug treatment program due to problems with providing acceptable identification because defendant did not have a driver’s license. The court gave defendant until July 8, 2021, to provide proof of enrollment.