Filed 7/13/17 P. v. Sanchez CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

HUGO SANCHEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.
H043523
(Monterey County
Super. Ct. No. SS150190A)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 5, 2015, defendant Hugo Sanchez pleaded no contest to inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), violating a protective order (Pen. Code, § 166, subd. (c)(1)), and driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)). On June 11, 2015, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for a period of three years.
On February 5, 2016, the probation department filed a notice of violation of probation. At a hearing on March 17, 2016, defendant admitted violating the terms of his probation. At a sentencing hearing on April 19, 2016, the trial court revoked and terminated probation, and it sentenced defendant to a prison term of three years and eight months.
Defendant now appeals. He makes the following arguments on appeal: 1) he was denied the right to a Spanish interpreter at the hearings on March 17, 2016 and April 19, 2016; 2) his admission that he violated the terms of his probation was not knowing and intelligent; and 3) cumulative error necessitates reversal. As set forth below, we find no error and affirm.
BACKGROUND
The record shows that defendant was provided a Spanish interpreter at the following hearings: a bail hearing on February 10, 2015, the preliminary hearing on March 19, 2015, the arraignment on April 2, 2015, a pretrial conference on April 28, 2015, the plea hearing on May 5, 2015, and the sentencing hearing on June 11, 2015. Defendant was not provided a Spanish interpreter at the following hearings: a preliminary hearing calendar call on March 10, 2015, a continuance of the preliminary hearing on March 12, 2015, a preliminary hearing calendar call on March 17, 2015, a pretrial conference on April 21, 2015, an arraignment on a bench warrant on March 3, 2016, and a setting hearing on March 15, 2016.
On February 5, 2016, the probation department filed a notice of violation of probation. That notice alleged that defendant violated the terms of his probation in the following ways: “1. Failure to report to probation immediately upon release from custody and as required. The defendant was released from Monterey County Jail on 7/3/15 and failed to report to the probation department. [¶] 2. Failure to report to probation as directed. The defendant was directed to report to probation on 7/20/15, 7/24/15, and 7/28/15 and he failed to do so. [¶] 3. Failure to obey all laws. On 1/21/16, the defendant was arrested by Santa Cruz County Sheriff Department (Case No. 16-00575) for violation of Sections 148(a)(l) PC, 1203.2(a) PC, and outstanding arrest warrants.”
On March 17, 2016, the trial court held a hearing on the notice of violation of probation. At that hearing, defendant did not request an interpreter, and he was not provided an interpreter. At the hearing, the trial court commented that defendant was “prepared to admit the violations.” The trial court then asked defendant, “Is that what you want to do, sir?” Defendant responded, “Yes, your honor.” The trial court then asked defendant, “And you understand you have the right to a formal hearing . . . where you can cross-examine witnesses against you and produce your own witnesses with subpoenas of the court. Do you understand that?” Defendant replied, “Yes, I do.” The trial court then stated, “And you also have the right to remain silent. Do you understand that?” Defendant answered, “Yes, I do.” The trial court then stated, “And if you admit the violation, you’re giving all those rights up and you could be sentenced up to the maximum in this case. Do you understand that?” Defendant responded, “I do.” The trial court then asked defendant, “And with your rights and potential consequences in mind, do you deny or admit that you violated probation by failing to report upon your release and as directed, and then failed to obey all laws being charged with resisting or obstructing in Santa Cruz? [¶] Deny or admit these?” Defendant responded: “I admit.”
At the sentencing hearing on April 19, 2016, defendant did not request an interpreter, and he was not provided an interpreter. At that hearing, the trial court revoked and terminated probation, and it sentenced defendant to a prison term of three years and eight months. The trial court provided the following reasons for refusing to reinstate defendant’s probation: “Given the severity of the underlying charges, sir, and your lengthy failure to report, plus picking up new charges—I realize it’s your first violation, but you were absconding for six months from Probation—I think it is time to impose the sentence and at this time not reinstate probation.”
Shortly after the trial court sentenced defendant, defense counsel requested that defendant’s case be recalled for reconsideration of the sentence. Defense counsel stated that defendant’s arrest for violation of Penal Code section 148 “predates him being placed on probation in this matter.” Defense counsel explained that the police report he received from the prosecutor was designated report number 1500708, and that police report showed defendant violated Penal Code section 148 “on February 4th of 2015, which predates him being placed on probation last June.” The trial court noted that the notice of violation of probation specified that defendant was arrested in January 2016 as described in police report number 16-00575. The trial court then ruled that it would not change defendant’s sentence, explaining as follows: “[T]he Prosecution is relying on Allegation No. 3 on the petition filed February 5, referencing Report No. 16-00575. And as I had said, [defendant] pled—he admitted all of the violations on March 17, 2016. . . . [¶] So I am finding that he admitted the violation, Allegation No. 3, that is a new offense that occurred after he was placed on probation, and I will not change my sentence.”
DISCUSSION
I. INTERPRETER
Defendant contends that the judgment must be reversed because he was denied the right to a Spanish interpreter at the hearings on March 17, 2016 and April 19, 2016. He asserts that he was entitled to a Spanish interpreter at those hearings because “he had one at . . . previous court appearances.” As explained below, defendant has failed to show that he was denied the right to an interpreter.
A. Legal Principles
“A person unable to understand English who is charged with a crime has a right to an interpreter throughout the proceedings.” (Cal. Const. art. I, § 14.) “The prerequisite to an appointment of an interpreter is . . . that the person charged with a crime be ‘unable to understand English.’ ” (In re Raymundo B. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1447, 1453.)
To obtain an interpreter, “an affirmative showing of need is required.” (In re Raymundo B., supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 1453.) The defendant bears the “burden of showing he [does] not understand English.” (Id. at p. 1456.) An interpreter will be appointed upon a “ ‘a finding of necessity by the trial court.’ ” (Id. at p. 1453.)
When a defendant complains on appeal that he was denied the right to an interpreter, “ ‘ “ ‘error is never presumed, but must be affirmatively shown.’ ” ’ ” (In re Raymundo B., supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 1452.) When an appellant contends that he was denied the right to an interpreter, he bears the burden to present a record showing error, and any uncertainty in the record will be resolved against him. (Ibid.)
B. Defendant Has Failed to Show Error
Defendant’s claim that he was denied the right to an interpreter at the hearings on March 17, 2016 and April 19, 2016 is premised on the assumption that he actually possessed the right to an interpreter. Nothing in the record, however, shows that defendant was entitled to a Spanish interpreter.
Although defendant had a Spanish interpreter at some of his court appearances before the hearings on March 17, 2016 and April 19, 2016, the record is silent as to why defendant had an interpreter at those court appearances. Nothing in the record shows that defendant made an affirmative showing he needed an interpreter. Nothing in the record shows that defendant met his burden of showing he did not understand English. Indeed, we have reviewed the record, and we are unable to find an occasion on which defendant requested an interpreter, and we are unable to find an occasion on which defendant claimed inability to understand English, even on those occasions when an interpreter was not provided. Given this record, defendant himself concedes that “the record is silent as to why he had an interpreter” at some of his court appearances. Thus, nothing in the record shows that defendant was a “person unable to understand English” who possessed “a right to an interpreter throughout the proceedings.” (Cal. Const. art. I, § 14.)
Because nothing in the record shows that defendant met his burden of demonstrating an inability to understand English, we cannot conclude that he possessed the right to an interpreter. Defendant therefore cannot show that he was denied the right to an interpreter at the hearings on March 17, 2016 and April 19, 2016. (See In re Raymundo B., supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 1452 [when a defendant complains on appeal that he was denied the right to an interpreter, error is never presumed and must be affirmatively shown on the record].)
Finally, we briefly note that the record actually demonstrates that defendant was able to understand English on March 17, 2016 and April 19, 2016. At the hearing on March 17, 2016, defendant engaged in a fairly lengthy dialogue with the trial court. Speaking in English, the trial court advised defendant of the many rights he possessed, asked defendant whether he understood each of those rights, and asked defendant whether he wanted to admit violating the terms of his probation. Defendant provided the following responses to the trial court’s questions: “Yes, your honor;” “Yes, I do;” “I do;” and “I admit.” At no point during the dialogue did defendant claim an inability to understand what the trial court was saying, and at no point in the dialogue did defendant speak in Spanish. On this record, it appears that defendant was in fact able to understand English as of March 17, 2016. Defendant’s apparent ability to understand English bolsters our conclusion that he was not denied the right to an interpreter at the hearings on March 17, 2016 and April 19, 2016.
II. ADMISSION OF PROBATION VIOLATION
Defendant contends that his probation was unlawfully terminated because he did not knowingly and intelligently admit the allegation that he violated the law while on probation. Specifically, defendant contends that he “never actually admitted to violating any laws while he was on probation, because in his mind, what he had admitted was violating some laws before being placed on probation.” Again, defendant has failed to show error.
A. Legal Principles
A defendant “is entitled to formal proceedings for probation revocation.” (People v. Clark (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 575, 581, disapproved on another ground in People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1098.) “The purpose of the formal proceedings . . . is to give the defendant an opportunity to require the prosecution to prove the alleged violation occurred and justifies revocation.” (Ibid.)
A defendant may admit a probation violation and waive a probation revocation hearing, “even if his or her attorney disagrees with the decision to do so.” (People v. Robles (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1290.) A knowing and intelligent waiver is “generally required when a criminal defendant gives up ‘any significant right.’ ” (People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 859.)
B. Defendant Has Failed to Show Error
On June 11, 2015, the trial court placed defendant on probation for a period of three years. The notice of violation of probation, which was filed on February 5, 2016, included three allegations. The third allegation stated: “Failure to obey all laws. On 1/21/16, the defendant was arrested by Santa Cruz County Sheriff Department (Case No. 16-00575) for violation of Sections 148(a)(l) PC, 1203.2(a) PC, and outstanding arrest warrants.” On March 17, 2016, the trial court held a hearing on the notice of violation of probation. At that hearing, the trial court asked defendant if he admitted that he had “failed to obey all laws being charged with resisting or obstructing in Santa Cruz.” Defendant responded, “I admit.”
On this record, we must conclude that defendant knowingly and intelligently admitted that he violated the law while he was on probation. The notice of violation of probation alleged that defendant violated Penal Code section 148 on January 21, 2016. The notice of violation of probation also specified that defendant “was placed on probation on June 11, 2015, for 3 years.” The notice of violation of probation thus gave defendant clear notice that the alleged violation of Penal Code section 148 occurred during his probationary period. Given the specific dates provided in the notice of violation of probation, we must conclude that defendant knowingly and intelligently admitted violating the law during his probationary period.
Defendant contends that his admission was not knowing and intelligent because the only police report in defense counsel’s possession stated that defendant violated Penal Code section 148 on February 4, 2015—several months before defendant was placed on probation. This argument fails. As explained above, the notice of violation of probation put defendant on notice that the relevant Penal Code section 148 violation occurred while defendant was on probation. Moreover, if defendant had truly been confused about the date of the Penal Code section 148 violation he was admitting, he could have moved to withdraw his admission of probation violation. Defendant never did so.
Defendant also briefly contends that the absence of a Spanish interpreter renders his admission unknowing and unintelligent. This argument is meritless. As we have explained, the record does not show that defendant was entitled to an interpreter. In fact, the record actually demonstrates that defendant was able to understand English on March 17, 2016, the date when he admitted his probation violation.
In sum, defendant has failed to show error. We must conclude that defendant knowingly and intelligently admitted that he violated the law while he was on probation.
III. CUMULATIVE ERROR
Defendant finally contends that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors warrants reversal. A claim of cumulative error “is in essence a due process claim.” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1436.)
As explained above, defendant has failed to show any errors in the trial court proceedings. As there were no errors that could have impacted defendant’s due process rights, defendant’s claim of cumulative error fails.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
 

______________________________________
RUSHING, P.J.






WE CONCUR:






____________________________________
PREMO, J.






____________________________________
GROVER, J.










People v. Sanchez
H043523