Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Francisco County Super. Ct. Nos. 187737, 196015
RIVERA, J.
Defendant Eugene Hart appeals after the trial court revoked his probation in two cases and sentenced him to prison. We affirm.
I. Background
In case No. 187737, defendant pled guilty to carjacking in November 2002. (Pen. Code, § 215.) The trial court suspended execution of a five-year prison sentence and placed defendant on probation. Among the conditions of probation was the requirement that he obey all laws.
In case No. 196015, defendant pled guilty in December 2005 to one count of possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), and one count of possession of marijuana (id., § 11357, subd. (b)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation, which included the condition that he obey all laws. Defendant admitted violating his probation in case No. 187737, and probation was reinstated.
The People moved to revoke defendant’s probation in both cases on the ground he had battered his girlfriend. At a contested hearing on the motion, Officer Dennis Lai of the San Francisco Police Department testified that on the afternoon of February 5, 2007, he was called to an apartment in San Francisco. When he arrived, he saw Veronica Barahona and defendant inside the apartment. Barahona had a bruise about the size of a baseball under her eye, and she had a cut inside her lip, although Lai did not recall whether it was on the upper or the lower lip. Barahona was crying as Lai spoke with her. Lai later spoke with defendant, who told Lai he and Barahona had argued, he had pushed her, and she had fallen to the ground. He refused to say anything else, except that he was sorry. Lai saw scratch marks on defendant’s arms, but no injuries or bruising to his face or bleeding on his chest.
Barahona testified at the hearing that defendant was her boyfriend and the father of her newborn child. The apartment she and defendant had been in on February 5 belonged to a friend named DeeDee. Barahona testified that she had lied to Lai about what had happened. After counsel was appointed for her, she asserted her rights under the Fifth Amendment.
The child was born in June 2007, a few days before the probation revocation hearing.
Sonya Buford, who had been in another apartment in the building, testified that on February 5, 2007, defendant knocked on her door and asked her to call DeeDee. He looked excited or worried, he had scratches on him, and he looked as if he had been in a “scuffle.” Buford called DeeDee, then went to DeeDee’s apartment. There she saw defendant in handcuffs, and Barahona crying and upset. She did not notice any bruises on Barahona. The apartment, which was usually neat, looked disorganized, “like it had been a scuffle.”
Defendant testified that on the afternoon in question, he believed his relationship with Barahona was not working out, and he had told her that he wanted to separate from her. Barahona, who was five and a half months pregnant at the time, attacked him as he sat on the couch, punching him in the face with her fists, scratching his shoulder, and causing bleeding on his chest. Barahona weighed more than defendant did, and he felt helpless. He shoved her off him, and she lost her balance and fell. Defendant got up and saw that Barahona had a 14-inch long steak knife in her hand and was getting ready to come toward him. He left the apartment and ran to Buford’s apartment. He told her he and Barahona had gotten into an argument and it had “got kind of physical.” Buford let him into her apartment, but defendant became concerned about Barahona and returned to DeeDee’s apartment. Barahona was sitting peacefully, and told him the police were on their way. Officers arrived, and Barahona told them defendant had hit her. Defendant testified that he told an officer that Barahona had been attacking him, and that he later told Lai that she had attacked him before he pushed her.
His statement was admitted only to explain his subsequent conduct.
The trial court found defendant had violated probation in both cases. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted that defendant’s probation had been revoked and modified multiple times in case No. 187737. The court revoked probation and imposed the previously suspended five-year prison term in case No. 187737, and a concurrent 16-month term in case No. 196015.
The details of the previous revocations do not concern us here.
II. Discussion
Defendant contends the evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that he violated his probation. “Before a defendant’s probation may be revoked, a preponderance of the evidence must support a probation violation.” (People v. Shepherd (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1197; see also People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 447.) Trial courts have “very broad discretion in determining whether a probationer has violated probation,” and “ ‘only in a very extreme case should an appellate court interfere with the discretion of the trial court in the matter of denying or revoking probation.’ ” (People v. Rodriguez, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 443; see also People v. Michael W. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1119 [“revocation of probation decisions are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard”].)
There was no abuse of discretion here. Lai saw Barahona with a large bruise on her face and a cut inside her lip. She was crying as she spoke with him. Defendant told Lai he had pushed Barahona during an argument. The trial court could reasonably conclude this evidence showed by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had committed battery.
Battery is defined as “any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.” (Pen. Code, § 242.)
Defendant contends, however, that his own testimony refuted the People’s theory that he had pushed Barahona and knocked her down, and that because Barahona refused to testify, there was no other percipient witness testimony. Whatever defendant’s testimony, the trial court could reasonably conclude from Lai’s observations and defendant’s statements to him that defendant violated his probation.
III. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RUVOLO, P. J., SEPULVEDA, J.