P. v. Nordet
Filed 8/10/06 P. v. Nordet CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JANET NORDET, Defendant and Appellant. | B186578 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA042130) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Darlene E. Schempp, Judge. Order revoking probation affirmed.
James R. DiFrank for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Linda C. Johnson, and Gary A. Lieberman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Janet Nordet, appeals from a probation revocation determination and judgment which followed her nolo contendere plea to solicitation to commit murder. (Pen. Code,[1] § 653f, subd. (b).) Defendant argues: the evidence was insufficient to support a finding she violated the conditions of her probation; she did not receive constitutionally sufficient notice of the basis for her alleged violation of her probation conditions; the trial court should not have excluded the testimony of a family law attorney; the trial court improperly relied on a letter from defendant's former spouse; judicial misconduct occurred; and the prosecutor committed misconduct. We affirm the probation revocation order.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment. (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319; People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690; Taylor v. Stainer (9th Cir. 1994) 31 F.3d 907, 908-909.) As set forth in the preliminary hearing transcript and probation officer's report, in early December 2002, defendant saw Terel Johnson, a long-time friend of her son, at a swap meet. Mr. Johnson was visiting his family. They exchanged conversation and telephone numbers. Mr. Terel telephoned defendant a few days later. Defendant told Mr. Johnson that she had problems related to her divorce and the custody of her child. Mr. Johnson telephoned defendant to wish her a merry Christmas. Mr. Johnson made arrangements to fly to California from South Dakota to visit defendant and stay with her later that day. Defendant told Mr. Johnson that: she was having financial problems; she was at risk of losing custody of her child; and her ex-husband, Dr. Ronald Perelman, was â€
