People v. Davis CA3

Filed 5/20/24 P. v. Davis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099154

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. P21CRF0198, 22CR0685) v.

CHRISTOPHER AARON DAVIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

From November 2020 until April 2022, defendant Christopher Aaron Davis violated probation several times and was charged with several new offenses. On April 14, 2022, defendant pled no contest to robbery and resisting a peace officer (robbery case). The trial court suspended execution of a three-year eight-month sentence and placed defendant on two years of probation. Nearly a year later, the prosecution filed a petition to revoke probation on the basis defendant failed to report to the probation department. After a contested hearing, the trial court lifted the stay and executed the

1

sentence. On appeal, defendant claims the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation because the violation was “de minimis.” We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I Defendant’s Conduct Prior To The Current Case In October 2021, while on probation in three prior cases, defendant pled no contest to felony vandalism and resisting a peace officer (vandalism case). Defendant also admitted six probation violations occurring between November 2, 2020, and March 11, 2021. As a result of defendant’s conviction in the vandalism case and violations of probation, the trial court revoked and terminated probation, suspended imposition of the sentence for the vandalism case, and placed defendant on two years of probation. In December 2021, defendant admitted a probation violation and the trial court revoked and reinstated probation. In February 2022, the prosecutor filed a petition to revoke probation, alleging defendant used a controlled substance. In March 2022, the prosecution again filed a petition to revoke probation, alleging defendant used a controlled substance. A few weeks later, defendant admitted violating probation as alleged in the February 2022 petition. With respect to that admission, the trial court reinstated probation on the same terms and conditions previously imposed with the added condition that defendant serve 60 days in jail. The trial court set a further hearing on the March 2022 revocation petition, which defendant contested. In April 2022, prior to the contested probation revocation hearing, the prosecutor filed a complaint in the robbery case alleging defendant committed robbery and resisted a peace officer. Based on the criminal activity alleged in the robbery case, the prosecutor filed another petition to revoke probation in the vandalism case, alleging defendant had violated probation by failing to obey all laws. Defendant pled not guilty to the charges in the complaint and the trial court continued the hearing on the March 2022 petition to revoke probation in the vandalism case.