People v. Woodall
| Decision Date | 11 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | D062005 |
| Citation | 216 Cal.App.4th 1221,157 Cal.Rptr.3d 220 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Shawn James Allen WOODALL, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
See 3 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Punishment, § 684 et seq.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Desiree Bruce–Lyle, Judge. Affirmed. (Super.Ct. No. SCD236538)
Law Office of Kurt David Hermansen, Kurt David Hermansen, San Diego, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Laura A. Glennon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In this appeal Shawn Woodall challenges the trial court's order revoking his probation. He argues that the statute governing probation revocation proceedings (Pen.Code,1§ 1203.2) violates the federal Constitution () because (1) it permits a warrant to be issued for a probationer's arrest unsupported by statements made by oath or affirmation, and (2) it does not require a preliminary probable cause hearing before a final revocation hearing as mandated by the United States Supreme Court in Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 ( Morrissey ). We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.2
On September 29, 2011, defendant (representing himself) pled guilty to attempted possession of a controlled substance (Oxycodone) for sale, in exchange for a promise of a one-year sentence. At a sentencing hearing on December 12, 2011, the prosecutor told the court (Judge Melinda Lasater) that defendant had expressed an interest in participating in the reentry drug court program; the prosecutor believed defendant was eligible for the program; and defendant had been offered a one-year stayed sentence and probation grant conditioned on his participation in the program. Based on these representations, the court scheduled a sentencing hearing before Judge Desiree Bruce–Lyle, who was presiding over the reentry drug court program.
On January 3, 2012, the drug court suspended execution of a one-year prison sentence; placed defendant on three years' formal probation; and ordered him to complete a drug court program as a condition of probation. With defendant's agreement, counsel was appointed for purposes of representing him during his participation in drug court. The court scheduled a review hearing for January 9, 2012.
Defendant was released from jail on January 4 or 5, 2012, and he appeared at the January 9 review hearing accompanied by a drug court team member. Defendant told the drug court that he has a “life-threatening illness” and he was having trouble getting his medication. The court instructed the drug court team member to assist defendant with this matter, and told defendant to “lean on the folks at treatment” and “let them know what you need help with.” The court set the next review hearing for January 17, 2012.
On January 11, 2012, two days after the January 9 review hearing, defendant left the drug court treatment program without letting anyone from the program know where he was going or where he was residing.3
On January 12, 2012, the drug court issued an order finding that defendant was in violation of the reentry court participant contract because he had “failed to fulfill terms of the treatment program.” The court summarily revoked his probation and issued a bench warrant for his arrest.
On February 18, 2012 (over one month after he had absconded), defendant was arrested. On February 27, 2012, he appeared in custody before the drug court represented by counsel. The court informed defendant that it and the drug treatment team had read a letter he had submitted and discussed whether he should be permitted to continue in the drug treatment program. The court told defendant he could personally address the court and say “everything that you want the court and the [treatment] team to consider.”
Defendant told the court that he suffers from Parkinson's disease and a seizure disorder, and based on the court's earlier order the drug treatment team had given him advice on where to go to get the life-saving medications he needed for his terminal illness. Defendant described his repeated efforts to get his medications at various facilities, which proved fruitless due to a delay in getting his medical records. He also told the court his medications cost about $1,000 monthly; he could not afford to pay for them; he was “just stressed out” and left the drug treatment program; and his girlfriend ultimately went across the border and obtained some medication for his illness.
The court responded that defendant had been in the program for three days; he then decided to “go do whatever it is [he] felt [he] needed to do”; he had been gone since January 11; and if he had intended to stay with the program he would have contacted someone in the program after he started getting his medication from across the border. The court concluded that defendant was not suitable for the reentry drug court program, terminated him from the program, and revoked his probation.
At the conclusion of the February 27 hearing, defendant (reinstated to pro. per. status) objected to the “summary revocation process” and requested an evidentiary hearing as required by Morrissey. The court set the matter for hearing on March 23, 2012.
To assist the court at the upcoming evidentiary hearing, defendant's probation officer (Rico Boco) interviewed defendant at the jail on March 9, and interviewed defendant's drug court treatment counselor (Jack Boyce) on March 13. Defendant told Boco that he left the drug treatment program because he “ ‘panicked’ ” when he did not have his medications and felt he “ ‘could not get help anywhere’ ”; he went to Mexico about 10 times to get medication because the cost was lower; and he “ ‘had to do whatever it took to save [his] life.’ ” Drug counselor Boyce confirmed defendant's unsuccessful efforts to get his medications at two medical facilities. After these two failed attempts, on January 11, 2012 (the day defendant absconded from the program), Boyce suggested that defendant go to the University of California San Diego hospital emergency room; however, when Boyce later contacted the hospital he was told it had no record of defendant's arrival at the hospital.
After interviewing defendant and Boyce, Boco prepared a supplemental probation report setting forth the alleged probation violations. The report stated defendant had violated probation by absconding from the reentry drug court program on January 11, 2012, and by leaving San Diego County and traveling to Mexico without the probation officer's permission.
Prior to the scheduled March 23 evidentiary hearing, defendant filed pleadings raising facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the probation revocation procedures set forth in section 1203.2, claiming that the Morrissey due process requirements had not been satisfied. At the March 23 hearing, the trial court considered his constitutional claims and ruled the Morrissey due process safeguards were “inherently present” in section 1203.2. Further, the court stated the upcoming formal revocation hearing, which would afford defendant an opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence, sufficed to protect his due process rights. The court granted defendant's request for a continuance based on his claim that he had not received a copy of the supplemental probation report until that morning. The evidentiary hearing was reset for April 6, 2012, and thereafter the hearing was continued to April 17, 2012, at defendant's request so he could reissue a subpoena that was defective.
For purposes of the April evidentiary hearing, the parties stipulated that defendant suffered from a painful medical condition and that he had been prescribed medication. The court considered Boco's supplemental probation report and heard testimony from Boco (called by the prosecution), drug counselor Boyce (called by defendant), and defendant. During his testimony Boco reiterated the probation violations and the explanations provided by defendant as set forth in the supplemental probation report. Boyce confirmed that defendant told him he was concerned because he did not have the medications he needed for his illness, and Boyce tried to help him get his medications.
Testifying on his own behalf, defendant admitted the probation violation allegations, stating he left the country because he was sick and needed his medications. He acknowledged he made a mistake, and requested that the court consider his problem getting his medications as a mitigating factor for his probation violations. The prosecutor argued that it was uncontroverted that defendant violated his probation terms, and although he may have a medical condition requiring medication, his conduct showed he was a “manipulative person” who would adhere only to those terms and conditions that he chose to follow.
The court stated that although it empathized with defendant's medical condition, it did not find his condition a sufficient excuse for violating his probation conditions. The court assessed that defendant did not give the treatment program members sufficient time to attempt to help him address his medical condition, and that his focus was “on getting medication and doing treatment his way.” The court concluded he was no longer appropriate for the drug court program; revoked his probation; and ordered execution of the one-year sentence.
Defendant does not dispute that there were substantive reasons that support the court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Douglas
...need not decide whether it was also a lawful Terry stop or, as the People argue, a lawful arrest.11 (Cf. People v. Woodall (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1221, 1233-1234, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 220 [arrest warrant not required for probationer].)DISPOSITIONThe judgment is affirmed.We concur: Reardon, Actin......
-
People v. Deleon
...hearing requirement applies to both parole and probation revocation proceedings under section 1203.2. (See People v. Woodall (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1221, 1238, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 220 [given "well-established case authority" the court "construe[s] section 1203.2 to impliedly require a probable ......
-
Williams v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.
...F.Supp.2d 1125, People v. Coleman (1975) 13 Cal.3d 867, 120 Cal.Rptr. 384, 533 P.2d 1024 (Coleman ), and People v. Woodall (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1221, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 220 (Woodall ). These cases do not support the People's contention.The People assert Valdivia III “said ... that bifurcated......
-
People v. Byron
...at the revocation hearing. (In re La Croix (1974) 12 Cal.3d 146, 154–155, 115 Cal.Rptr. 344, 524 P.2d 816 ; People v. Woodall (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1221, 1238, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 220 ; In re Winn (1975) 13 Cal.3d 694, 698, 119 Cal.Rptr. 496, 532 P.2d 144 [defendant has burden of showing preju......