Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo Super. Ct. Nos. F398281, F406337, Dodie A. Harman, Judge
Richard Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan, Kathy S. Pomerantz, Dana M. Ali, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
GILBERT, P.J.
Prentice Durrell Booker appeals an order revoking his probation following his no contest pleas to possession of methamphetamine, in two separate cases. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) We conclude that substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that Booker violated his probation conditions. We affirm.
FACTS
In May of 2007, after pleading no contest in case No. F398281, the court placed Booker on probation and ordered him to follow the directives of his probation officers. It suspended the execution of a four-year prison sentence upon Booker's successful completion of drug court or a Proposition 36 program.
Four months later, Booker pled no contest to a second drug possession charge in case No. F406337 and admitted that he had two prior strike convictions. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the two priors were struck at sentencing and Booker waived Proposition 36. He was placed on probation with the conditions that he follows the directives of his probation officers and completes a one-year residential treatment program.
In November of 2007, Booker admitted that he violated his Proposition 36 probation in case No. F398281. Probation was reinstated and Booker was ordered to complete a residential treatment program.
On June 12, 2008, the probation department transported Booker to the Teen Challenge drug treatment program. Four days later Teen Challenge informed probation officer Arnold Castillo that Booker had left the program. A Teen Challenge representative told him that one of the reasons Booker was asked to leave was because he had been taking a prescription medication.
Castillo was unable to contact Booker. Booker had not requested permission from the probation department to leave the treatment center. He was cited for a probation violation for leaving Teen Challenge. At the July 1 hearing, the court reinstated his probation, but advised Booker that this was "his last opportunity to complete the residential treatment program."
On July 9, Castillo drove Booker to Teen Challenge. Castillo testified that he told Booker that if he did not complete the Teen Challenge program, his probation would be revoked and he would be sent to prison.
On July 24, Larry Jewell of Teen Challenge called probation officer Yvonne Robbins to inform her that he had granted Booker a 30-day leave of absence from the program. Robbins told Jewell that Booker "must report in person" to the probation department when he arrives home. Jewell advised Booker about this reporting requirement. Booker went home, but did not report to Robbins.
On July 25, Castillo called Booker and told him that he had violated his probation condition by leaving the drug treatment facility. He told him that he had to report to the probation office the next day. Booker replied that "it was B.S." and hung up the phone. Booker never reported to the probation office.
Castillo spoke to a representative of Teen Challenge who told him that Booker had not returned to that facility.
On August 14, 2008, Castillo requested the court to issue a bench warrant. In his letter he said Booker "failed to attend a treatment review hearing on 07/29/08. The Defendant also left Teen Challenge Residential Facility where he was ordered by the court to enroll and complete a 1-year program. On July 24, this officer advised the defendant that he was in violation and directed him [to] come to the probation department forthwith. The defendant did not show up as directed, his whereabouts are unknown at this time."
At the revocation hearing, Booker introduced a letter from Jewell to Robbins, where Jewell stated, in relevant part, "[Booker] went on a Dr. [a]ppointment on July 23, 2008[.] He returned on July 24, 2008. Upon his return he stated that the Dr. was requiring several more appointments and [X-rays]. I informed [Booker] that we were not able to accommodate ongoing medical problems. That we would give him a 30 day leave of absence to take care of these issues. I called probation at that time to inform them of our policy. It was my understanding that probation was OK with that. Mr. Booker was informed that he must report IN PERSON upon getting home."
Booker testified that when he first went to Teen Challenge he had to leave because he did not have an I.D. and a social security card. He was not asked to leave because he had taken prescription medications. On his second visit to Teen Challenge, he participated in the program and did not ask to be removed from it. After receiving his 30-day leave of absence, he intended to return to the program. He was never advised that if he did not complete his treatment requirement he could be sent to prison. Castillo called him on July 25, but he did not require him to come into the probation office. Castillo gave him the option of remaining at home until the probation department picked him up. But they never came to his house.
Booker called Robbins as a witness. She testified that there was an error in Jewell's letter. She was asked; "Did you advise Teen Challenge that a leave of absence was okay?" She said, "No, I did not. [¶]... [¶] I did not tell [Jewell] that it was okay because he wasn't asking for my permission." Robbins said she told Jewell that "Mr. Booker must report in person upon getting home." She said, "He never reported to me."
The court found that Booker had violated his probation conditions. It said, "there were two separate attempts to get him into that program and get him to stay in that program, and on each occasion he left the program."
DISCUSSION
Booker contends there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings that he violated his probation conditions. We disagree.
In deciding the sufficiency of the evidence, we draw all reasonable inferences from the record to support the judgment. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.) We do not weigh the evidence or decide the credibility of the witnesses as that is a matter for the trial court. (Ibid.) The decision to revoke probation is a matter that "'rests entirely in the sound discretion of the trial court.'" (People v. Angus (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 973, 987.) A court may revoke probation where the defendant refuses the request of his or her probation officers to report to the probation department. (People v. Johnson (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 284, 300.)
Booker claims the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that he violated his probation conditions by leaving the drug treatment center without permission. He argues that because he left after obtaining permission from Teen Challenge he was not in violation of probation. But his drug treatment and rehabilitation were under the supervision of the probation department, not the treatment facility. Booker's probation conditions included the requirement that he: 1) "Complete a one year residential treatment program, as approved of by Probation" (italics added), 2) "follow the reasonable directives of any Probation Officer," and 3) "[c]ooperate in any counseling... program as directed."
Booker refused to follow the directions of his probation officers. From Robbins' testimony, the court could reasonably infer that Booker did not have her permission to leave Teen Challenge. After being informed that the facility granted a leave of absence, she required Booker to immediately report in person to the probation office, but he never complied.
After Castillo discovered that Booker left Teen Challenge, he warned him that leaving was a probation violation and he must report to the probation office the next day. But Booker did not comply and did not return to Teen Challenge. Three weeks later, the department requested a bench warrant after Booker failed to report and his probation officer had no information about his whereabouts.
Booker suggests that there was a conflict between what Teen Challenge told him and the directives of his probation officers. But his probation conditions required him to follow the orders of his probation officers. Moreover, there was no conflict regarding Booker's obligation to immediately report to the probation department. Jewell of Teen Challenge said, "Booker was informed that he must report IN PERSON upon getting home." There is no evidence that Teen Challenge ever indicated that Booker could ignore his probation officers.
Booker claims that if the probation department had not requested a warrant for his arrest, he would have completed the Teen Challenge program. But the trial court could reasonably find that was not the case. Castillo said that in June of 2008, Booker told him that "he simply walked away from the [Teen Challenge] program" because he had "some medical issues." But, when Castillo asked him what they were, Booker "wasn't very specific." On July 1, the court told Booker that he had only one more opportunity to complete the treatment program. But again he left. Booker claims he "did not leave of his own accord" and that Teen Challenge told him to leave to handle his medical problems.
But from Castillo's testimony, the court could reasonably infer that Booker used the medical claim to avoid drug treatment. Castillo said Booker never provided proof to the probation department that he needed to make medical appointments. In addition, Booker was recalcitrant. When Castillo told him he must report to the probation office, Booker replied that it "was B.S." and hung up the phone. His failure to report prevented his probation officers from making "an assessment of [his] performance on probation." (People v. Johnson, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 304.) "[A] trial court may properly deem such conduct to be an implied refusal of 'drug treatment as a condition of probation'...." (Ibid.) From Castillo's testimony and Booker's recalcitrance, the court could reject the claim that his medical condition required him to leave Teen Challenge.
Booker contends that Castillo's testimony was inconsistent and is contradicted by other evidence. But we do not resolve evidentiary conflicts, weigh the evidence or decide the credibility of witnesses. (People v. Ochoa, supra, 6 Cal.4th 1206.) The evidence is sufficient. Booker has not shown an abuse of discretion.
The judgments are affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, J.,COFFEE, J.