P. v. Maravillas
Filed 3/28/06 P. v. Maravillas CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTOR M. MARAVILLAS, Defendant and Appellant. | B183566 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA022656-01) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Arthur Jean, Jr., Judge. Modified and affirmed.
Sylvia Whatley Beckham, 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, Stephanie C. Brenan and Tasha G. Ideguchi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________
Defendant and appellant Victor Maravillas claims he was denied his due process right to a contested hearing before his probation was revoked. He also claims the probation revocation fine was unauthorized. We modify the judgment to strike the probation revocation fine and affirm the order revoking probation and imposing a prison sentence.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
In December 1994, defendant was charged in a three-count information with sale, transportation, or offer to sell cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). He pled no contest to two counts and on January 5, 1995, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for a period of three years. The court imposed probation terms and conditions, including service of one year in Los Angeles County jail, payment of a $50 lab fee and a $200 restitution fine, periodic drug testing, cooperation with the probation officer in a plan for drug treatment, registration as a narcotics offender, and obedience of all laws.
In a July 1997 report, defendant's probation officer recommended that his probation be revoked based on defendant's violation of the terms and conditions of his probation. This included: failure to make payments towards his financial obligations; failure to report for drug testing on five test dates; failure to provide proof of enrolling in a drug counseling program; and sustaining a new arrest and conviction in June 1997 for driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or more.
On August 21, 1997, the court held a preliminary probation revocation hearing. Defendant failed to appear. Probation was revoked, and a no-bail bench warrant was issued.
Defendant was arrested on April 17, 2005 for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or more, false impersonation, and falsely representing himself to an officer.
On April 25, 2005, the bench warrant was recalled, defendant was remanded to custody, and the probation violation hearing was continued to May 16, 2005. The court ordered a supplemental probation report for that date. The report recounted defendant's history, and gave this evaluation: â€
