People v. GonzalesHailey CA3

Filed 6/22/23 P. v. GonzalesHailey CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096497

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF22-00695)

v.

ANTONIO JAMES GONZALESHAILEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Pursuant to negotiated plea agreement, defendant Antonio James GonzalesHailey entered a plea of no contest to the crime of willful infliction of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon R., with whom defendant was in a dating relationship, and admitted he committed this offense within seven years of a previous conviction for the same offense. In exchange for defendant’s plea, the prosecution agreed to a middle term cap of four years in state prison, with a possibility of defendant being placed on probation for three years and serving one year in the county jail. The trial court sentenced

1

defendant to state prison for four years. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying him probation. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS The nature of the contention raised in this appeal does not require a detailed recitation of the factual and procedural background. The following brief summary will suffice. In March 2021, defendant was charged with willfully inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon his girlfriend, R., within seven years of a previous conviction for the same offense, in violation of Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (f)(1). (Statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.) Defendant agreed to enter a plea of no contest to this offense in exchange for a middle term cap of four years in state prison, with a possibility of defendant being placed on probation for three years and serving one year in the county jail. Defendant acknowledged on the plea form, however, that he understood he was not eligible for probation, and therefore would “not be granted probation unless the court finds at the time of sentencing that this is an unusual case where the interests of justice would be best served by granting probation.” Before defendant entered his no contest plea, in addition to other required advisements, the trial court went over the terms of the plea agreement with defendant, including his ineligibility for probation unless the trial court were to make an unusual case finding at sentencing, adding “but there is no guarantee of that.” Defendant stated that he understood. After defendant’s plea, the prosecutor stated that the factual basis for the plea could be found in the police report, which indicated that defendant repeatedly hit the