Filed 1/16/18 P. v. Mejia CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed.

Matthew Missakian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon, Jr., Marilyn L. George and Seth M. Friedman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Elizabeth Christine Mejia pled no contest to filing a false or forged document. (Pen. Code, § 115, subd. (a).)[1] A trial court placed her on probation for three years. The Riverside County District Attorney (the district attorney) subsequently filed a combined felony complaint and petition to revoke probation, alleging five counts, including another violation of section 115. The district attorney opted to proceed solely on the violation of probation, rather than a second case. The court held a hearing and found defendant in violation of her probation. It terminated probation and sentenced her to two years in state prison. The court then dismissed the case, pursuant to the district attorney’s motion.

On appeal, defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that she filed a false or forged document. (§ 115, subd. (a).) We affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The court held a probation violation hearing on September 12, 2016. Pursuant to Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), the court admitted evidence of the incident that led to defendant’s original conviction of violating Penal Code section 115, in order to show intent, knowledge, and motive in the instant case. The first witness testified that, in 2012, defendant asked him to sign a proof of service falsely indicating that he had served a document on the father of defendant’s grandchild (the father). The witness testified that he signed the proof of service, but he never served the father with any document. Defendant later asked the witness to lie to the police about it, but he refused to do so.

The next witness was B.H., who was the father’s grandmother. In 2013, defendant obtained a restraining order against B.H. On or about September 15, 2013, B.H. was served with documents reflecting the granting of an extension of time of the restraining order. The documents indicated that a hearing was held on September 3, 2013, and the extension was granted. B.H. testified that she did not receive notice of the September 3, 2013 hearing. Once she found out about the extension, she immediately asked for an ex parte hearing to contest it. She then contacted the police because she thought it was “illegal” that she was not notified of the extension hearing.

The same police detective who had worked on the original case investigated the current complaint to see if defendant had again committed a violation of section 115. The detective testified that he found a proof of service form that was signed by a person named D.H. (the process server) and dated September 1, 2013. The proof of service stated that the process server personally gave B.H. a copy of the “Renewal & Expiration of Restrain[in]g Order.” However, no date or time of service was entered on the form. Furthermore, the process server’s address was listed on the form, but when the detective attempted to find his residence, there was no such address. Thus, the detective was not able to locate him. The detective contacted defendant and asked her about the process server, but she did not want to provide any information. When the detective told her there was no phone number listed on the form, and he had no way of verifying the process server without her help, she grinned and said something to the effect of, “What if he’s deceased?” Defendant then refused to talk to the detective unless it was in the presence of her probation officer. The detective contacted the probation officer and arranged an interview with defendant; however, she failed to appear.[2]

ANALYSIS

The Court Properly Found That Defendant Violated Her Probation

Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that she violated her probation by filing a false or forged document. We disagree.

A. Standard of Review

Pursuant to section 1203.2, subdivision (a), a court is authorized to revoke probation “ ‘if the interests of justice so require and the court, in its judgment, has reason to believe . . . that the person has violated any of the conditions of his or her probation.’ ” (People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 440.) The burden of proof in a probation revocation hearing is a preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Kurey (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 840, 849 (Kurey).) Courts “are granted great discretion in determining whether to revoke probation.” (Rodriguez, at p. 445.)

Where a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a court’s finding that a defendant has violated probation, and “where the trial court was required to resolve conflicting evidence, review on appeal is based on the substantial evidence test. Under that standard, our review is limited to the determination of whether, upon review of the entire record, there is substantial evidence of solid value, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the trial court’s decision. In that regard, we give great deference to the trial court and resolve all inferences and intendments in favor of the judgment. Similarly, all conflicting evidence will be resolved in favor of the decision.” (Kurey, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at pp. 848-849.)

B. There Was Sufficient Evidence to Support the Court’s Finding That Defendant Violated Her Probation

One of defendant’s probation conditions stated that she was to obey all laws. Defendant contends there was no evidence to show she violated section 115, since the document filed on September 18, 2013 (the proof of service form) was not a “false or forged document.” She asserts that “the only material assertion contained in that document—that [B.H.] had been served with the restraining order—was true.” Defendant also argues that the People’s claim was that B.H. had not received notice of the hearing on the renewal of the restraining order, and thus, since a restraining order had issued, defendant must have submitted a document falsely claiming that B.H. had been given notice. Defendant avers that no such document was ever presented.

In order to find that defendant violated her probation, the People needed to show, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, that she had violated a law. The court found that defendant filed a false proof of service form with the court. The record supports the court’s finding. The court found that the top portion of the proof of service form was filled out in different handwriting than the bottom portion. The top portion had written on it that defendant was the “person seeking protection,” that B.H. was the “person from whom protection [was] sought,” and that the process server gave B.H. a copy of the “Renewal & Expiration of Restrain[in]g Order” (the renewal order). The bottom portion listed the process server’s name and address, and signature and date. Since the top portion listed defendant as the person seeking protection, the court reasonably concluded that she had filled out the top part of the form. The court further noted that defendant submitted the proof of service form to the court and was held to know what it said. The bottom portion of the form, which was filled out by D.H. as the process server, was signed by him on September 1, 2013. His signature indicated that he was declaring he served the renewal order on B.H. However, as the court pointed out, the hearing on the renewal order did not occur until two days later, on September 3, 2013. The court acknowledged that B.H. received the renewal order sometime around September 10 or 11, but noted that the process server could not have served it on the date he signed the proof of service (September 1, 2013), since the hearing had not yet occurred. The court emphasized that defendant was responsible for having the renewal order served on B.H., and she was the one asserting that B.H. was served. However, instead of choosing the sheriff to be the process server, she “picked a guy who gave a phony address, no telephone number and, unfortunately, has since decided to leave us.” The evidence clearly supported the court’s finding that defendant filed a false document, as the police detective testified that he attempted to find the process server, but the address the process server listed did not exist; moreover, the process server left the portion of the form where he should have written his phone number blank.

Defendant claims that the proof of service form was not false or forged because the “errors contained within it were totally immaterial.” She acknowledges that the form was blank where the date of service, time of service, and the server’s telephone number should have been recorded. However, she argues that these “were simply omissions, readily apparent on the face of the document,” and they “were not inaccurate information.” Defendant then asserts that the only actual “inaccuracies” were the date of execution and the server’s address, but maintains that “there was nothing material or deceptive about either mistake.” She further argues that there was no evidence she had knowledge of the mistakes or that the document was fraudulent. We disagree with defendant’s characterization of the omissions as simply immaterial, nondeceptive mistakes. As the court noted, there was strong circumstantial evidence that defendant intentionally filed a false document in the instant case, in light of her original offense. The first witness at the probation violation hearing testified that, in 2012, defendant asked him to sign a proof of service falsely indicating that he had served a document. The witness testified that he signed the proof of service but never served the person he was supposed to with any document. He further testified that defendant asked him to lie to the police about it.

Defendant further argues that, even if the proof of service form constituted a false or forged document, there was insufficient evidence to find that she was the person who submitted it to the court. The court disagreed, finding that defendant was “the pro per representing herself, submitting documents to a court under penalty of perjury.” It further stated that defendant was responsible for the service of the document.

Giving great deference to the trial court and resolving all inferences and intendments in favor of the judgment, as we must, we conclude there was substantial evidence to support the court’s finding that defendant violated her probation. (Kurey, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at pp. 848-849.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

CODRINGTON

J.