Opinion
A156938
01-30-2020
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GREGORY TERRAZAS, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Case No. FCR336914) MEMORANDUM OPINION
We conclude this matter is proper for disposition by memorandum opinion in accordance with the California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. We therefore recite the facts only as necessary to resolve the issues on appeal.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in finding that he violated the terms of his felony probation by failing to obey all laws. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In March 2018, defendant was charged with one count of possessing methamphetamine for sale, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378. Defendant entered a nolo contendere plea and on February 8, 2019, he was placed on formal probation for a term of three years. Among other terms of his probation, defendant was ordered to obey all laws and to submit his person, real or personal property, vehicle, and any object under his custody or control to search or seizure by any peace or probation officer at any time with or without a warrant, notice, consent, or cause.
Approximately one month after the grant of probation, defendant's probation was revoked based on an alleged failure to obey all laws. The matter proceeded to a contested hearing.
At the hearing, Officer David McDonald testified that on March 14, 2019, he was in Vacaville working as a community response unit detective when he saw the defendant, whom he knew from prior interactions. Officer McDonald knew that defendant had a prior conviction for controlled substance sales and was on probation subject to a search condition. When Officer McDonald first contacted him, defendant was walking with another male away from a homeless encampment that defendant stated was his. Officer McDonald had seen defendant at the same encampment two months earlier.
The encampment included a tent, which Officer McDonald searched. He found a small plastic baggie containing an off-white crystalline substance which he believed to be methamphetamine, based on his training and experience as a police officer, having been educated in controlled substances at the police academy, and having seen methamphetamine "in multiple forms hundreds of times." Less than two feet from the baggie of methamphetamine was probation paperwork in the name of defendant. There was only one bed in in the tent, and the probation paperwork in defendant's name was on the bed.
After being Mirandized , defendant denied that the methamphetamine was his, stated he was sharing the tent with another man, and asked Officer McDonald whether McDonald thought defendant would leave such "stuff" out in the open. Defendant also told Officer McDonald that he and the other man were "sleeping in shifts in the bed," and that one would be there when the other was not.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 --------
The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated his probation by failure to obey all laws. After receiving a supplemental report from the Probation Department, the court reinstated probation on the prior terms and conditions, with a modification requiring defendant to serve an additional 90 days in custody (with credit for having served 48 actual days).
This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
The prosecution is required to prove a violation of probation by a preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Buell (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 682, 687.) "We consider 'whether, upon review of the entire record, there is substantial evidence of solid value, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the trial court's decision.' [Citation.] Substantial evidence is evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value." (Ibid.) This court gives great deference to the trial court and will resolve all inferences and intendments in favor of the judgment. (Ibid.) In addition, " 'all conflicting evidence will be resolved in favor of the decision.' " (Ibid.)
Under these authorities and in light of the record, defendant fails to establish that the court erred in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated his probation by failing to obey all laws. Officer McDonald's testimony provided substantial evidence that the baggie contained methamphetamine and that the baggie was defendant's. Officer McDonald's testimony was based on his training and significant experience (People v. Sonleitner (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 364, 369), as well as the fact that the baggie was found less than two feet from paperwork in defendant's name on the only bed in the tent. Although defendant denied the methamphetamine was his, the trial court was within its discretion to credit the officer's testimony as to the circumstantial evidence indicating possession over defendant's self-serving denial. (People v. Sanchez (2019) 7 Cal.5th 14, 48 [record supports trial court's crediting of officers' testimony over defendant's "sharply differing" statement of events].) In addition, defendant's question to Officer McDonald—asking rhetorically whether McDonald thought defendant would leave the "stuff out in the open—corroborated the officer's opinion that the substance was indeed methamphetamine.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
BROWN, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
STREETER, ACTING P. J. /s/_________
TUCHER, J.