People v. Singh
| Decision Date | 06 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | F082580,F082584 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HARMAN PREET SINGH, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County Nos MCR060145, MCR060560. Dale J. Blea, Judge.
Joshua G. Wilson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans, Christopher J. Rench, and Doris A Calandra, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Harman Preet Singh challenges the trial court's conclusion he violated a condition of probation, resulting in a revocation of that probation. Through supplemental briefing, defendant also challenges the sentence imposed as violating Penal Code[1] section 1170, following amendments to that provision effective January 1, 2022. We affirm.
This opinion addresses two separate appeals from cases brought against defendant in the Madera County Superior Court cases Nos. MCR060145 and MCR060560. On this court's own motion the appeals were consolidated. On August 20, 2018, the Madera County District Attorney filed a complaint against defendant in case No. MCR060145, alleging defendant committed arson (§ 451, subd. (d); count 1) and attempted to set fire to a structure (§ 455; count 2). On September 28, 2018, the Madera County District Attorney filed a second amended complaint against defendant in case No. MCR060560, alleging he made a criminal threat that was likely to result in death or great bodily injury to his mother (§ 422, subd. (a); count 1), made a criminal threat that was likely to result in death or great bodily injury to his father (§ 422, subd. (a); count 2), and committed misdemeanor battery against his mother (§ 242; count 3).
On April 22, 2019, defendant pled guilty to count 1 in case No. MCR060560. During the same hearing, defendant also pled guilty to count 1 in case No. MCR060145. The trial court then suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for a period of five years for both cases Nos. MCR060145 and MCR060560, and dismissed the remaining counts alleged against him. At the time probation was granted, various conditions were imposed, including requirements that defendant attend all future court appearances and "[r]eport monthly or as directed by the Probation Officer."
On September 29, 2019, a petition to revoke defendant's probation was filed in case No. MCR060560. A similar petition was filed in case No. MCR060145 on September 30, 2019. While both petitions stated defendant failed to "[r]eport monthly or as directed by the Probation Officer," the petition in case No. MCR060145 also included the failure to register as required by section 457.1 (). On August 21, 2020, defendant admitted the violations listed in both petitions. On September 21, 2020, the trial court ordered defendant to serve 120 days in jail in case No. MCR060145, then reinstated the same terms and conditions of probation in both cases as set out earlier.
New petitions to revoke probation were filed on November 13, 2020, alleging defendant violated two conditions of probation in each case. Specifically, both petitions alleged defendant failed to "[o]bey all laws, federal, state and local," and did not "[r]eport monthly or as directed by the Probation Officer." Following a contested hearing, defendant was found to have violated the probation condition requiring him to report to his probation officer as ordered.
On March 24, 2021, the trial court revoked defendant's probation and sentenced him to three years (the upper term) on count 1 in case No. MCR060145 and designated this the principal term. The trial court then imposed a consecutive term of eight months (one-third the middle term of two years) for count 1 in case No. MCR060560,[2] for a total prison term of three years eight months.
On the same date, defendant filed a notice of appeal as to both cases.
FACTUAL SUMMARY[3]
On August 17, 2017, Madera Police Officer Kellom was dispatched to assist "Cal Fire" (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) personnel who were fighting a fire near a home. The individual who was seen setting the fire on surveillance footage returned to the scene while the firefighters were there. The firefighters pointed out this individual, who was later identified as defendant, to Kellom. Kellom reported defendant smelled of alcohol, seemed agitated, and tried to leave. Defendant was detained and placed in the back of Kellom's vehicle. A lighter was eventually found in defendant's front pocket.
On September 23, 2018, Madera Police Officer Garcia was dispatched to a home where he encountered defendant's brother. Defendant's brother reported defendant threatened to assault their mother after getting angry. His brother also stated defendant grabbed an oxygen tank and threatened to "blow up the house and kill his family."
The revocation hearings for both cases Nos. MCR060145 and MCR060560 were held concurrently on December 4, 2020. During the hearing, Madera County Probation Officer Magallanes testified defendant was required to report to the probation department at least monthly, and that he was specifically instructed to report on November 3, 2020. Defendant did not meet with Magallanes on November 3. Magallanes also determined there were no records showing defendant met with anyone else in the probation department on November 3. Magallanes testified that in the past defendant kept some appointments, but not all.
Defendant testified in his own behalf and admitted knowing he had an appointment with probation on November 3, 2020. Defendant testified he called the probation department on November 3, and that it was "on [his] phone history." Defendant claimed he was unable to reach anyone in the office because no one picked up the phone. During his testimony, defendant mentioned he had been arrested, but provided no specific evidence verifying this fact. On cross-examination, defendant admitted that his attempt to call probation did not occur until two to three days after November 3, 2020.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found defendant "violated the terms of his probation in failing to contact [the probation department] on the date specified," and that this violation applied to both cases.
Defendant argues the revocation of his probation was improper because the trial court permitted the People to prove his state of mind to a lesser standard than that required by case law. Specifically, defendant contends the trial court used a strict liability test rather than one considering whether his violation of a condition of probation was "willful." Both below and on appeal, defendant appears to suggest the violation of the probation condition was "negligent" rather than "willful." We do not agree with defendant's characterization of the case law on this issue and the distinctions he is attempting to draw.
When an individual is suspected of violating terms or conditions of their probation, they may be rearrested and subject to a hearing at which the trial court considers whether to revoke probation and impose a sentence. (§ 1203.2.) The prosecution has the burden of proving the grounds supporting revocation by a preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 447.) Case law has held a decision to revoke probation can be supported by the conclusion it serves the" 'interests of justice.'" (People v. Galvan (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 978, 981.) While the facts supporting revocation may be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, "the evidence must support a conclusion the probationer's conduct constituted a willful violation of the terms and conditions of probation." (Id. at p. 982.)
Ultimately, the evidence must show a defendant has not complied with the terms of probation, justifying the revocation of probation. (People v. Urke (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 766, 772 (Urke).)
[¶] . . . " (Urke, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at pp. 772-773.)
The discretion to revoke probation is analogous to a court's power to grant probation, and should not be disturbed absent abuse or some form of arbitrary action. (Urke, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 773.) We therefore review the trial court's decision to revoke probation for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Butcher (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 310, 318.) However, the trial court's factual findings will be reviewed for substantial evidence, and we will not reweigh conflicting evidence or determine credibility on appeal. (Ibid.; see People v. Whisenhunt (2008) 44 Cal.4th 174, 200.)
Magallanes testified defendant had been informed when he was released from jail in October 2020, to report to his probation officer on November 3, 2020. Defendant then failed to meet with Magallanes on November 3. Magallanes also had no record showing defendant attempted to reach her by phone on or around November 3. Magallanes later testified that this was not the first time defendant failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial