P. v. Hall
Filed 7/25/06 P. v. Hall CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GWENDOLYN HALL, Defendant and Appellant. | B182988 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA245872) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Anita H. Dymant, Judge. Affirmed.
Dan Mrotek, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Marc E. Turchin, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Alene M. James, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant, Gwendolyn Hall appeals from an order revoking her probation. She argues that she was denied due process when the trial court allowed approximately eight months to lapse between the date of her arrest on a new charge[1] and the probation violation hearing (PVH)[2] in the case which is the subject of this appeal. She argues also that she was never given the formal notice of probation violation required by due process. Finding no prejudice to appellant, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 5, 2003, pursuant to a plea bargain in Superior Court Case No. BA245872, appellant pled guilty to one count of unauthorized possession of cocaine base in the Los Angeles County Jail (Pen. Code § 4573.6).[3] Imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on formal probation for three years on various terms and conditions, including narcotics conditions and a condition that she spend 365 days in the county jail and pay a $200 restitution fine. She was awarded 186 days of good time/work time credits.
On July 21, 2004, appellant was arrested on another drug-related offense (Superior Court case no. BA268632). A complaint was filed charging appellant under the name of Christina Hall.[4] A preliminary hearing was held on November 12, 2004, and appellant was held to answer. The District Attorney offered to stipulate that appellant had a June 13, 1995 possession of cocaine base for sale conviction, and a July 5, 1995 commitment for two years to California Rehabilitation Center as a narcotics addict. Defense counsel agreed to the stipulation. At the conclusion of argument in the PVH, appellant's counsel commenting on the amount of cocaine which had been the possession of appellant noted, â€
