P. v. Wilson

Filed 2/17/06 P. v. Wilson CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Raymond C. Youngquist, Judge. Affirmed.

Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey J. Koch, Deputy Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Robert M. Foster, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2003, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of willfully evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)); in exchange, he was placed on formal probation for three years on various terms and conditions, including serving 364 days in county jail. Subsequently, following a contested evidentiary hearing, the trial court found defendant violated the terms of his probation, and it revoked his probation. He was then sentenced to two years in state prison. Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in finding he violated the term of his probation by failing to report because the court relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND^[1]

On January 15, 2003, at 2:12 p.m., a Chino Police Department officer attempted to conduct a traffic stop on a vehicle driven by defendant for a Vehicle Code violation. Defendant initially pulled over but then sped away as the officer was exiting his patrol car. A chase ensued. During the chase, defendant ran through a stop sign at 60 miles per hour and drove southbound in a northbound lane through a red light at 88 miles per hour, nearly hitting two other vehicles. Eventually, defendant lost control and struck a stop sign, street sign, and tree. Defendant's vehicle rolled over twice, ejecting him out onto the road. Defendant was subsequently taken into custody.

On March 24, 2003, defendant pleaded guilty to willfully evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)); in exchange, he was promised a grant of probation with a 364-day lid in county jail. On April 22, 2003, pronouncement of judgment was withheld, and pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant was placed on probation for three years on various terms and conditions, including serving 364 days in county jail.

On February 7, 2005, a petition to revoke defendant's probation and issue a bench warrant was filed. The petition alleged that defendant violated the terms of his probation by failing to (1) report to the probation officer in person immediately after his release from custody and thereafter once every 14 days or as directed (term No. 3) and (2) keep his probation officer informed of his place of residence and give written notice to the probation officer 24 hours prior to moving (term No. 7).

On June 21, 2005, a probation revocation hearing was held. At that hearing, defendant's probation officer William Eicher testified that he was assigned to defendant's case in early 2004 and that since that time defendant had neither reported to Eicher nor notified Eicher of any address change. Eicher also testified that an attempt had been made to contact defendant on January 20, 2004, at his cellular telephone number. Defense counsel immediately objected on hearsay grounds. The court sustained the objection as to form.

Thereafter, the prosecutor asked Eicher, â€