P. v. Castaneda
Filed 10/3/13 P. v. Castaneda CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT
OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MIGUEL CHRISTOPHER CASTANEDA,
Defendant and Appellant.
D062947
(Super. Ct.
No. SCD229621)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Frederick Maguire, Judge. Affirmed as modified and remanded with
directions.
Richard
Power for Defendant and Appellant, under appointment by the Court of Appeal.
Kamala D.
Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Julie L. Garland, Assistant
Attorneys General, Alana Cohen Butler, James D. Dutton, Deputy Attorneys
General.
In October
2012, the court revoked Miguel Christopher Castaneda's probation, sentenced him
to 12 years in prison and imposed fines of $2,400 each for restitution
(§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and probation revocation (§ 1202.44),
in addition to fines of $200 each for those purposes previously imposed in June
2011.
Castaneda contends the trial court
abused its discretion in revoking his probation. He also contends the court improperly imposed
the additional $2,400 fines. The People
concede the trial court erred in imposing those fines, and we agree. We modify the judgment to strike those fines,
and otherwise affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In October 2010, the People charged
Castaneda with assaulting Jose Galeanna with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,
245, subd. (a)(1); count 1) dissuading a
witness
by
force or threat (§ 136.1 subd. (c)(1); count 2) and making a
criminal threat (§ 422; count 3). As to
count one, it was alleged Castaneda personally used a deadly weapon
(§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)) and personally inflicted great
bodily injury upon someone who was not an accomplice to the offense (§ 12022.7,
subd. (a)). A gang enhancement was
alleged as to each count. (§ 186.22.)
Jose
Galeanna testified at the preliminary
hearing that in March 2010, Castaneda took a homeless man's fishing pole
and hit the man with it. Galeanna
criticized Castaneda for that. Castaneda
left and returned shortly afterwards with two friends. Castaneda hit Galeanna in the face with a
pipe, rendering him unconscious.
Galeanna required surgery for his broken cheek and jaw and chipped
teeth, and at trial he still experienced pain from his injuries.
In May 2011, Castaneda pleaded
guilty to count 1 and admitted the great bodily injury and gang
enhancements. The trial court dismissed
the rest of the allegations. (
In June
2011, Castaneda was placed on probation on condition he serve 365 days in
jail. He also was required to get
treatment and therapy as suggested by validated tests, and stop using alcohol
and drugs.
In February
2012, Castaneda admitted a probation violation; therefore, his probation was
revoked. In March 2012 his probation was
reinstated.
In July
2012, Castaneda denied allegations that he violated his probation by committing
assault.
At an October 10, 2012 evidentiary
hearing, Castaneda's probation officer testified regarding her dealings with
Castaneda after his May 14, 2012 release from custody. She reviewed his probation conditions with
him. Castaneda underwent a urinalysis,
which returned positive results for methamphetamine. The probation officer directed him to enroll
into a long-term residential treatment program.
He did so for one day then abandoned the program. The probation officer attempted to contact
Castaneda by phone and mail to discuss his test results, but received no
response. Police informed the probation
officer of Castaneda's June 3, 2012 arrest for being under the influence of a
controlled substance. (Health and Saf.
Code, § 11550.) Castaneda never complied
with his probation conditions requiring him to, among other things, inform the
probation officer of his arrest and register as a gang member.
Castaneda conceded at the hearing
that he had violated his probation, but explained he had experienced a rough
time after he had lost his house and his mother died. He stated he had since obtained $50 to pay
the intake fee at a residential treatment
facility, which he was willing to enter if the court reinstated his probation.
DISCUSSION
I.
Castaneda
contends the court abused its discretion by revoking his probation instead of
placing him in a residential treatment program.
In reviewing an order revoking
probation, we give great deference to the trial court's decision, bearing in
mind that "[p]robation is not a matter of right but an act of clemency,
the granting and revocation of which are entirely within the sound discretion
of the trial court." (
120, 123.) "It has long been
recognized that the Legislature . . . intended to give trial courts very broad
discretion in determining whether a probationer has violated
probation." (People v. Rodriguez (1990)
51 Cal.3d 437, 443.) "Such
discretion 'implies that in the absence of positive law or fixed rule the judge
is to decide a question by his [or her] view of expediency or of the demand of
equity and justice.' " (
But trial court discretion is not
unlimited. " ' " 'The
discretion of a trial judge is not a whimsical, uncontrolled power, but a legal
discretion, which is subject to the limitations of legal principles governing
the subject of its action, and to reversal on appeal where no reasonable basis
for the action is shown.' " ' "
(People v. Jacobs (2007) 156
Cal.App.4th 728, 737.) Abuse of
discretion has both a factual component and a legal component. (Ibid.) While the court's discretion is very broad,
its determination must be based on the facts before it. (People
v. Zaring (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 362, 378.)
Here, we conclude Castaneda has not
made a showing the court abused its discretion in declining to reinstate him on
probation. It was not irrational for the
court to withdraw its grant of clemency in light of Castaneda's repeated
failure to comply with several probation requirements. On this record, the court reasonably found
Castaneda's latest pledge to comply with the probation terms unavailing.
II.
The People
concede, and we agree, the trial court erroneously imposed additional
restitution and parole revocation fines under sections 1202.4, subdivision (b),
and 1202.44. After Castaneda's probation
was revoked, the original fines remained in effect. (People
v. Marichalar (2003) 144 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1337.) Accordingly, we strike the additional $2,400
fines imposed in October 2012; the $200 fines imposed for those purposes on
June 8, 2011, remain in effect.
DISPOSITION
We strike
the restitution and parole revocation fines for $2,400 each imposed under Penal
Code sections 1202.4, subdivision (b), and 1202.44, and therefore the original
fines of $200 each remain in effect. As
so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The matter is remanded and the trial court directed to amend the
abstract of judgment accordingly, and forward a certified copy of the amended
abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
AARON, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless
otherwise stated.
