legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Pennewell CA1/4

nhaleem's Membership Status

Registration Date: Aug 17, 2021
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 08:17:2021 - 16:49:06

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
In re Skyla G. CA2/1
P. v. Ariaz CA2/7
In re Marcus P. CA2/7
P. v. Johnson CA2/2
P. v. Escobar-Lopez CA1/4

Find all listings submitted by nhaleem
P. v. Pennewell CA1/4
By
05:11:2022

Filed 4/13/22 P. v. Pennewell CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

AILEKA PENNEWELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

A163265

(Solano County

Super. Ct. No. FCR323283)

Defendant Aileka Pennewell appeals a judgment revoking her probation and imposing a four-year prison sentence. Her court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant has submitted a letter brief arguing that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the probation violation findings, (2) the prison term should be reversed because her felony conviction upon which it was based should have been reduced to a misdemeanor prior to the filing of the probation revocation petition, and (3) the court made unspecified errors in calculating her credits. Having reviewed the supplemental briefing and the record, we conclude no issue warrants further briefing. We have identified an error in the calculation of custody credits and with the Attorney General having no objection, we shall remand for the limited purpose of allowing the court to recalculate defendant’s custody credits. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.

Background

In August 2018, defendant pled no contest to felony child endangerment (Pen. Code,[1] § 273a, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor driving under the influence (DUI) with one prior DUI conviction (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)). Her negotiated plea included the stipulation that her felony conviction would be reduced to a misdemeanor in 18 months if she “is compliant with probation.” Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on four years of formal probation with DUI terms and a 180-day jail sentence to be served in a residential treatment program.

In February 2019, defendant was found in violation of her probation. The court revoked her probation, ordered her to serve 120 days in jail, and reinstated her on probation.

In May 2021, defendant was again found to have violated her probation. She was sentenced to 56 days in jail to be served in a residential treatment program and her probation was again modified and reinstated.

On June 23, 2021, the Solano County Probation Department filed a probation revocation memorandum alleging that defendant failed to abstain from alcohol, failed to submit to drug testing, and failed to comply with the orders of her probation officer. On July 6, 2021, the court held a formal revocation hearing at which defendant’s probation officer testified that on June 14, 2021, defendant admitted that sometime in the prior two weeks she had consumed rubbing alcohol and been rushed to a hospital emergency room. After defendant’s admission, the probation officer instructed defendant to submit to testing but defendant was unable to produce a urine sample. The probation officer offered defendant a second chance to provide the sample and instructed her to remain in the lobby until she returned with water for defendant to drink. When she returned to the lobby 10 to 15 minutes later, defendant was gone. When defendant failed to return to the office on June 14, the probation officer called her the next day and left a voicemail telling her to report on June 16, followed by another voicemail on June 16 reminding her to report before 5:00 p.m. that day. Defendant did not report on June 16 and did not call the office until after business hours that day. The court found, based on the above testimony, that defendant had violated her probation.

On August 4, 2021, the court terminated probation and imposed a four-year prison sentence plus fines and fees. The court awarded defendant credit for time served of 188 custody and 188 conduct credits under section 4019, for a total of 376 presentence credits.

Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal.

Discussion

Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that defendant violated the terms of her probation. The terms of defendant’s probation required, among other things, that she abstain from use of alcohol, submit to alcohol and drug testing as directed, and report to and comply with the orders of her probation officer. At the revocation hearing, defense counsel argued that drinking rubbing alcohol should not be considered a violation of the no-alcohol term absent evidence that rubbing alcohol was similar in impact to an alcoholic drink consumed for intoxication. Defendant reiterates this argument in her supplemental brief. We need not decide this issue as there is ample evidence that defendant failed to comply with her probation officer’s instructions to test on June 14 and report on June 16.

Defendant’s explanations for her failure to test on June 14 and report on June 16, asserted for the first time in her supplemental brief on appeal, rely on facts outside the record. These justifications could have and should have been presented under oath at the probation revocation hearing where the judge would have been able to evaluate her veracity.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, she was not entitled to reduction of her felony conviction to a misdemeanor prior to sentencing. Defendant contends that her conviction should have been reduced in March 2020 prior to “all subsequent damaging probation history.” Defendant, however, admitted to her probation officer that she had consumed alcohol in September 2018. In February 2019, she had her probation revoked based on her failure to enter a rehabilitation program, submit to testing and report to probation as directed. Finally, in September 2019, defendant was arrested for a suspected assault. Accordingly, as of March 2020, defendant was not in compliance with the terms of her probation as required by the stipulation in her plea agreement.[2]

Given defendant’s prior unsuccessful attempts at probation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reinstate probation. The court did not err in sentencing defendant to the midterm of four years. The trial court reasonably concluded that the aggravating and mitigating factors were offsetting and supported imposition of the midterm.

Remand is necessary, however, for recalculation of defendant’s custody credits. The probation report calculated defendant’s 188 actual days in custody based solely on time spent in Solano County jail. The probation department’s calculation is consistent with periods of custody reflected in the clerk’s transcript. However, the record reflects that defendant spent at least 35 days in a rehabilitation program between April 5 and May 9, 2019, and possibly additional days in 2018. Under section 2900.5, subdivision (f), defendant is entitled to credit for days spent in a qualifying rehabilitation facility.[3] (See People v. Thurman (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1460 [“[A] defendant who is sentenced either to county jail or to state prison is entitled to credit against the term of imprisonment for days spent in custody, either before sentencing or after sentencing as a condition of probation, and this includes custodial time in a residential treatment facility.”].) Defendant did not waive her right to credits for time served in a rehabilitation program. Accordingly, remand is necessary to determine the actual days credit due defendant for time served in a rehabilitation program.

Disposition

The matter is remanded for recalculation of defendant’s custody credits. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.

POLLAK, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

STREETER, J.

BROWN, J.


[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.

[2] Defendant misreads the stipulation when suggesting that completion or compliance with a “program” alone would warrant the reduction of the felony conviction.

[3] Section 2900.5, subdivision (f) reads: “If a defendant serves time in a camp, work furlough facility, halfway house, rehabilitation facility, hospital, juvenile detention facility, similar residential facility, or home detention program pursuant to Section 1203.016, 1203.017, or 1203.018, in lieu of imprisonment in a county jail, the time spent in these facilities or programs shall qualify as mandatory time in jail.”





Description Defendant Aileka Pennewell appeals a judgment revoking her probation and imposing a four-year prison sentence. Her court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant has submitted a letter brief arguing that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the probation violation findings, (2) the prison term should be reversed because her felony conviction upon which it was based should have been reduced to a misdemeanor prior to the filing of the probation revocation petition, and (3) the court made unspecified errors in calculating her credits. Having reviewed the supplemental briefing and the record, we conclude no issue warrants further briefing. We have identified an error in the calculation of custody credits and with the Attorney General having no objection, we shall remand for the limited purpose of allowing the court to recalculate defendant’s custody credits.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 4 views. Averaging 4 views per day.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale