People v. Lammey

11 Citing cases

  1. People v. Cook

    E068458 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2018)

    Moreover, contrary to defendant's assertion, there is no evidence on this record to show that defendant was entitled to a grant of probation under section 1203.066, subdivision (d)(1). (See People v. Lammey (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 92, 98 (Lammey) ["Here, appellant presented no evidence regarding whether the child's best interest required that he not be imprisoned. . . . Thus appellant failed to carry his burden of persuading the court to grant probation."].) Specifically, there is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that the trial court would have found rehabilitation of the defendant was feasible and that the defendant was amenable to undergoing treatment.

  2. People v. Sinohue

    No. B261638 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 1, 2016)

    The defendant has the burden to present evidence showing he is entitled to consideration for probation under section 1203.066, subdivision (c). (People v. Groomes, supra, at p. 89; People v. Lammey (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 92, 98.) Under the plain terms of the statute, even if the court finds all five section 1203.066 requirements have been established, it is not required to grant probation.

  3. People v. Rodriguez

    E056943 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 23, 2014)

    There is no evidence on this record to show that defendant was entitled to a grant of probation under the 2005 version of section 1203.066, subdivision (c). (See People v. Lammey (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 92, 98 ["Here, appellant presented no evidence regarding whether the child's best interest required that he not be imprisoned . . . . Thus appellant failed to carry his burden of persuading the court to grant probation."].) Alternatively stated, because there was no evidence under the circumstances of this case on which the trial court could have found a grant of probation to defendant would have been in the child victims' best interest, the trial court did not prejudicially err by denying him probation.

  4. People v. Rodriguez

    E056943 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 23, 2014)

    There is no evidence on this record to show that defendant was entitled to a grant of probation under the 2005 version of section 1203.066, subdivision (c). (See People v. Lammey (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 92, 98 ["Here, appellant presented no evidence regarding whether the child' s best interest required that he not be imprisoned . . . . Thus appellant failed to carry his burden of persuading the court to grant probation."].) Alternatively stated, because there was no evidence under the circumstances of this case on which the trial court could have found a grant of probation to defendant would have been in the child victims' best interest, the trial court did not prejudicially err by denying him probation.

  5. People v. Harral

    No. E048048 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 7, 2010)

    The trial court could reasonably infer from the statements made in the original and supplemental probation reports, Static-99 risk assessment report, and the psychological evaluation report, that defendant remained estranged from the victims and their parents, and it was highly unlikely that much had changed in this regard. Defendant had the burden of proving the five factors required for imposing probation (former section 1203.066(c)) (People v. Lammey (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 92, 98 (Lammey)). He failed to meet that burden of establishing the second factor by not providing any evidence whatsoever showing that probation was in the victims’ best interests.

  6. People v. Groomes

    14 Cal.App.4th 84 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 35 times
    Finding that a defendant who did not know the victim before the molestation was not a "relative" under section 1203.066(c), even though the defendant was married to the victim's distant blood relative

    This court has previously held that a defendant has the burden to present evidence showing that he is entitled to consideration for probation under subdivision (c) of section 1203.066. ( People v. Lammey (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 92, 98 [ 264 Cal.Rptr. 569].) Appellant claimed below and on appeal that he is a "relative" of the victim within the meaning of section 1203.066, subdivision (c)(1).

  7. People v. Taylor

    No. C085359 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2021)

    Any error in failing to consider whether defendant was eligible for probation is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, however, because on this record, defendant is not eligible for probation. (Wutzke, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 932; People v. Lammey (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 92, 98.) Under the former law, defendant is not eligible for probation unless all five criteria in former section 1203.066, subdivision (c) are established.

  8. People v. Garbi

    C086126 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 10, 2019)

    Moreover, there is no evidence to affirmatively show that it was in the best interests of the children for their abuser to receive probation. (See People v. Lammey (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 92, 98 ["Here, appellant presented no evidence regarding whether the child's best interest required that he not be imprisoned . . . . Thus appellant failed to carry his burden of persuading the court to grant probation"].) Accordingly, the court was well within its discretion to find that defendant's release on probation was not in their best interests.

  9. People v. Ochoa

    2d Crim. No. B266004 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 27, 2016)

    Appellant, however, presented no evidence that a grant of probation was in the victim's best interest or that the trial court should depart from the norm of a state prison sentence. (People v. Lammey (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 92, 98; People v. McLaughlin, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 1039.) Simply put, appellant asks us to do exactly what the California Supreme Court has said we may not do - reweigh the sentencing factors.

  10. People v. Lenoir

    No. B223205 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 19, 2011)

    “[A] defendant has the burden to present evidence showing that he is entitled to consideration for probation under subdivision (c) of section 1203.066.” (People v. Groomes (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 84, 89; accord, People v. Lammey (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 92, 98.) Testimony indicated that appellant was the victims’ half brother, satisfying section 1203.066, former subdivision (c)(1).