 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Coppage5/12/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 Ryan Martin Coppage's probation officer alleged defendant violated probation received for three separate cases. At a consolidated hearing, the trial court found only one probation violation, that he contacted the victim. Although contacting the victim violated his probation in two of the three separate cases, it was not alleged in the probation violation petition for one of those two cases. Nonetheless, the trial court found him in violation in both cases. On appeal, defendant asserts he was denied due process because the trial court found he violated probation in both cases, even though the grounds for the violation were alleged in only one of the probation violation petitions. We disagree and affirm.
BACKGROUND
On August 2, 2001, defendant was on probation as a result of three criminal convictions: a misdemeanor conviction for making terrorist threats, a felony conviction for stalking, and a felony conviction for grand theft.
On September 10, 2001, defendant's probation officer filed a petition for each case, alleging defendant violated probation. In the terrorist threats case, the petition alleged defendant failed to comply with a reasonable instruction by his probation officer to have no contact with the victim and to make fine and restitution payments. In both the stalking and grand theft cases, the petition alleged defendant violated his probation by associating with known drug users and failing to make fine and restitution payments.
On October 15, 2001, the trial court found the only violation of probation by defendant was that he contacted the victim numerous times in violation of a reasonable instruction by his probation officer. An ex-girlfriend, who is the mother of defendant's daughter, was the victim in both the terrorist threats case and the stalking case.
On November 9, 2001, preceding the pronouncement of judgment and sentence, counsel for defendant informed the court it was only in the misdemeanor case for terrorist threats that the petition alleged a violation of a no contact order and, therefore, defendant was not in violation of probation in the stalking case. This was in response to the probation department's recommended sentencing scheme that found a violation of probation in both the stalking and terrorist threats cases.
The prosecutor argued that when the probation officer gave a reasonable directive to have no contact with the victim it was applicable to both cases because the victim was the same. He asked the court to take judicial notice of the fact defendant violated this term and condition of his probation related to the stalking conviction even though the no contact order was not mentioned in the petition for violation of probation in that case. The trial court followed the probation department's recommended sentencing scheme. It reinstated probation for the misdemeanor terrorist threats conviction with the additional conditions defendant serve 120 days in county jail and have no contact with the victim for 6 years. The trial court also reinstated probation in the felony stalking case with the additional conditions defendant serve 240 days in county jail and have no contact with the victim for 6 years. These terms were to be served consecutively.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, defendant asserts he was denied due process because he was found to
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|