Opinion
A161429
06-29-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GEORGE CLIFFORD FEACK, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CR1701534
POLLAK, P. J.
Defendant George Clifford Feack appeals the judgment imposed after the court found that he had violated his probation, revoked probation, and imposed a sentence of four years' imprisonment.
Defendant's appointed counsel has submitted a brief in accord with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and has advised defendant of his right to submit a supplemental brief, which he has not done. This court's review of the record has disclosed no issues warranting further briefing.
Background
In 2017, defendant was charged with one felony count of corporal injury to a person with whom he was in a dating relationship (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), one misdemeanor count of corporal injury to a person with whom he was in a dating relationship (ibid.) and one misdemeanor count of possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to the felony count. Defendant was advised that the maximum time of imprisonment under his plea was four years. In exchange for entry of the plea, the two misdemeanor counts were dismissed. At sentencing, the court imposed the upper term of four years in state prison, then suspended execution of sentence and placed defendant on five years' formal probation.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
The plea agreement also resolved charges pending against defendant in other cases that are not presently before this court.
On March 11, 2020, defendant was arrested on suspicion of felony sex trafficking of a minor (§ 236.1, subd. (c)(2)) and felony corporal injury on a person with whom he was in a dating relationship (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). On March 13, the district attorney filed a petition to revoke defendant's probation based on his arrest. In May 2020, defendant pled guilty to one count of misdemeanor battery (§ 242) based on the incident that led to his March 2020 arrest and admitted a violation of probation in the present action. Thereafter, the court revoked defendant's probation and imposed the four-year sentence.
Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal.
1
Discussion
Defendant was properly advised before admitting to the probation violation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking defendant's probation based on his admission or by refusing to reinstate probation at the sentencing hearing. The trial court reasonably observed that defendant poses “a risk to women in the way he interacts with women and the way he treats women.” The four-year term imposed by the court is consistent with the terms of his plea bargain and amply supported by the factors in aggravation identified by the court, including that defendant has a lengthy criminal history, much of which involves domestic violence, and has served three prior prison terms. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(1), (2), & (3).)
There is no issue as to the fines and fees imposed, as the court struck some fees and imposed a restitution amount greater than the statutory minimum, and counsel did not object. (§ 1202.4, subd. (c) [court may consider inability to pay in imposing a restitution fine above the statutory minimum]; People v. Aviles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1073 [“when a court imposes fees and/or fines pursuant to statutes that specifically include ability to pay findings, the defendant must raise an objection at the sentencing hearing or forfeit the appellate claim that the court failed to make such a finding or there was no evidence of the defendant's ability to pay the imposed amounts”], disagreed with on other grounds by People v. Belloso (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 647, 649, 659-662, review granted Mar. 11, 2020, S259755.)
Based on our review of the appellate record, it appears that defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: STREETER, J., BROWN, J.