Opinion
A157141
03-10-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ZACHARY GEORGE REZENTES, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR332415)
Defendant Zachary George Rezentes appeals the judgment imposed after the court found that he had violated his probation, revoked probation, and imposed a sentence of six years' imprisonment. Rezentes's appointed counsel has submitted a brief in accord with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and has advised Rezentes 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.
Rezentes was charged in Contra Costa County in 2016 with inflicting traumatic corporal injury on his girlfriend (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and with first degree burglary (§ 459), with enhancements including great bodily injury inflicted during domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). In February 2017, he pled no contest to the charge of violating section 273.5, subdivision (a) and to the section 12022.7, subdivision (e) enhancement. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the People dismissed the burglary count and the court placed Rezentes on three years' probation, with a 364-day jail commitment satisfied by time served, and ordered him to report to the probation office, perform community service, and participate in a domestic violence program.
The court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(2)) and a suspended $300 probation-revocation fine (§ 1202.44), waived a $500 domestic-violence fund fee (§ 1203.097, subd. (a)(5)), and reserved the issue of direct victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)). As part of the same plea agreement, Rezentes also pled no contest to a charge in another case of being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and received a sentence that was satisfied by time served. At the same hearing the court also ordered Rezentes's probations in two other, prior matters terminated unsuccessfully.
Rezentes subsequently moved to Solano County to live with his mother and, in August 2017, the Contra Costa County Superior Court ordered his probation transferred to the superior court of that county.
In December 2017, the Solano court revoked probation and, in February 2018, Rezentes waived his rights and admitted that he violated probation by failing to report to the probation office and to report all his arrests. In March 2018, after reviewing a supplemental probation report, the court reinstated Rezentes's probation but ordered him to commit himself to the Options Recovery Services program.
The probation office's February 2019 supplemental report, submitted in connection with Rezentes's later resentencing, states that he was arrested in October 2017 in Oregon, on charges of criminal mischief and other crimes, based on having broken into and attempted to steal a vehicle.
Options Recovery Services provides sober-living services to persons with dual mental-health and substance-abuse problems. --------
In May 2018, the court issued a bench warrant and an order revoking probation, based on allegations that Rezentes had left Options Recovery Services in mid-April and had not contacted the probation office. In October 2018, after several continuances, Rezentes waived his rights and admitted the violation. The court continued the matter to obtain a presentence report and allow defense counsel to marshal mitigation evidence.
In November 2018, defense counsel declared a doubt as to Rezentes's competence to stand trial, and the court suspended criminal proceedings and appointed a psychologist to examine him. In January 2019, the psychologist submitted a report finding Rezentes competent and the court found him competent and reinstated criminal proceedings.
In February 2019, the court received a supplemental probation report detailing Rezentes's history of criminal offenses, mental-health problems, and drug abuse, and recommending reinstatement of probation. At the sentencing hearing defendant's mother read a letter to the court urging it to reinstate probation and order Rezentes to enter a residential dual-diagnosis facility, and defense counsel read a letter from Rezentes's 11-year-old daughter asking the court not to send her father to prison. Those requests notwithstanding, defense counsel did not ask the court to reinstate probation. Instead, counsel asked the court to strike the great-bodily-injury enhancement under section 12022.7, subdivision (e), to find that the mitigating factors of Rezentes's mental-health and substance-abuse problems outweigh the aggravating factors, and to sentence him to the low term of two years' imprisonment on the section 273.5, subdivision (a) count. The People urged the court to sentence Rezentes to the three-year middle term on that count plus three years for the section 12022.7, subdivision (e) enhancement.
The court declined to consider reinstating probation because the defense did not request it. The court acknowledged the mitigating circumstances but noted the aggravating factors of Rezentes's record and the increasingly violent nature of his offenses. The court sentenced Rezentes to the middle term of three years on the section 273.5, subdivision (a) count and to the low term of three years on the section 12022.7, subdivision (e) enhancement. The court found Rezentes entitled to credits of 471 actual days served and 70 days' worktime credits pursuant to sections 2933 and 2933.1. Rezentes filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and determined that it does not contain any arguable issues. Rezentes was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, and the record reveals no issues that merit further briefing. Although counsel chose not to make a request at the sentencing hearing that probation be reinstated, the court's disposition makes clear that any such request would have been futile.
The judgment is affirmed.
POLLAK, P. J. WE CONCUR: STREETER, J.
TUCHER, J.