People v. Knox CA1/3
Filed 2/2/24 P. v. Knox CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A167100 v. (Napa County Super. Ct. ERNEST LEO KNOX III, No. 19CR001192)
Defendant and Appellant.
Ernest Leo Knox III pled no contest to inflicting corporal injury on a spouse in Napa County. The trial court sentenced him to four years in prison, suspended execution of the sentence, and placed him on probation. Knox committed an offense in Sacramento County; as a result, the court in Napa County revoked probation and imposed sentence. He now argues the court erred by denying his request to apply pretrial custody credits related to his Sacramento offense to his Napa sentence. He also contends the probation revocation violated his right to due process. We affirm. BACKGROUND In April 2019 — in Napa County — Knox punched his wife in the head multiple times and strangled her.1 Officers arrested him later that day. In June 2019, he pled no contest to corporal injury on a spouse (Napa offense). (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); further undesignated statutory references are
1 We provide additional facts when discussing Knox’s arguments.
1
to this code.) In September 2019, the trial court sentenced him to four years in prison and suspended execution of the sentence pending successful completion of three years of probation. In July 2020 — in Sacramento County and while on probation for the Napa offense — Knox hit his wife with a heavy drinking glass, causing a five- inch laceration to her cheek that exposed muscle tissue. In July 2021, the trial court convicted him of inflicting corporal injury on his spouse (Sacramento offense), and sentenced him to four years in prison (Sacramento sentence). (§ 273.5, subd. (a).) In September 2020, while criminal proceedings were pending in Sacramento County, the Napa County Probation Department filed a probation revocation petition based on Knox’s failure to provide notice of a change of address (the first petition). The Napa County Superior Court revoked probation and issued a bench warrant the same day. In October 2021 — four days after arriving at prison to serve his Sacramento sentence — Knox learned of the warrant. He “request[ed] disposition of untried charges in accordance with Penal Code (PC) Section 1381.” The court arraigned him on the first petition in November 2021. In December 2021, the prosecutor filed a second probation revocation petition (the second petition), this time based on the Sacramento offense. In March 2022, the prosecution dismissed the first petition. In May 2022, Knox completed his Sacramento sentence. Thereafter, he remained in custody to face the second petition. In July, the Napa County Superior Court found the allegations in the second petition true and, on August 16, it terminated probation, sentenced Knox to prison for one year to be served consecutively to the Sacramento sentence, and granted him 406 days of credit for time served.
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)