 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Vasquez11/14/2001
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Defendant and appellant Miguel Arturo Vasquez appeals an order revoking probation. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 23, 1999, Vasquez pleaded no contest to one count assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and one count of attempted robbery, and admitted a prior serious felony conviction of vehicular manslaughter in 1977. (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 664/211, 667, subd (a)(1).) The trial court sentenced Vasquez to a term of nine years and eight months in state prison but suspended execution of the sentence and granted Vasquez probation on condition he serve one year in the county jail and obey all laws. The report of the probation officer prepared for sentencing did not include a summary of the facts underlying Vasquez's conviction of vehicular manslaughter but indicated Vasquez had three prior convictions of narcotics related offenses which occurred in 1987, 1988 and 1990 that suggested substance abuse had been a part of Vasquez's lifestyle. The probation officer noted a grant of probation, with narcotics testing conditions, "may provide the court with a greater degree of surveillance over [Vasquez's] activities and, hopefully, deter new law violations."
At a probation violation hearing on November 29, 2000, deputy probation officer Tom Hope testified Vasquez admitted, during a video conference, that he had failed to make any payments toward the restitution fine, had failed to report to the probation department after January 3, 2000, had been convicted of driving under the influence and driving on a suspended license, had another driving under the influence case pending and believed he was in need of substance abuse treatment.
Vasquez testified in his own defense that he had been released from jail on December 11, 1999, and reported to the probation officer that he was working for a glass company. However, Vasquez had only been employed a short while and had to assist his parents financially. Vasquez claimed the probation officer told him to pay $100 per month toward his $1822 obligation and to "come up with the money or I'll send you back to jail." Vasquez further indicated he had not been able to attend court hearings because he provided care for his father who had suffered numerous strokes. Vasquez claimed he only had accepted a plea bargain in this case in order to assist his girlfriend and their child. However, by the time Vasquez had been released from jail, his girlfriend had left him with their child. Vasquez admitted he had been arrested for driving under the influence on January 3, 2000, and again on January 26, 2000, and thereafter pleaded guilty to driving under the influence and driving on a suspended license in one case and was awaiting trial on the other. Vasquez claimed he did not report to the probation officer after he was laid off because he was scared, his father was sick and he "wanted to be there for him but I don't think he will last too long." The probation officer never offered to reduce Vasquez's payments.
After hearing argument of counsel, the trial court found Vasquez in violation of probation. The trial court noted Vasquez had not reported in almost one year, had been convicted of driving under the influence and had violated probation "in various ways."
CONTENTION
Vasquez contends the tri
Page 1 2 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|