Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. C153886
Jones, P.J.
Felix Thurman appeals contending the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to reinstate his probation. We disagree and affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 3, 2006, pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant pleaded no contest to one count of possessing heroin. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350.) On December 6, 2006, the trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation for five years.
Less than two weeks later, on December 19, 2006, Oakland Police Officer Jason Skrdlant was on patrol when he noticed a car that had no license plates. The officer stopped the car. Appellant was in the front passenger seat. After determining that appellant was on probation, the officer searched him. In appellant’s wallet, the officer found about five identification cards and four bank cards, none of which were in appellant’s name. During a subsequent interview, appellant admitted that he knew the cards were stolen. Appellant said he had never tried to use the cards and that he had “forgotten” that he had them.
Based on this incident, a petition was filed to revoke appellant’s probation on the ground that he possessed stolen property. After a contested hearing, the court found the allegation to be true. The court then declined to reinstate appellant’s probation and sentenced him to the upper term of three years for his underlying possession offense.
II. DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to reinstate his probation.
“Sentencing choices such as the one at issue here, whether to reinstate probation or sentence a defendant to prison, are reviewed for abuse of discretion. ‘A denial or a grant of probation generally rests within the broad discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.’ [Citation.] A court abuses its discretion ‘whenever the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.’ [Citation.] We will not interfere with the trial court’s exercise of discretion ‘when it has considered all facts bearing on the offense and the defendant to be sentenced.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 909-910.)
Here, appellant contends the trial court should have reinstated his probation. Echoing arguments that were first advanced by his attorney to the trial court, appellant notes that his violation was “fairly de minimis as these cases go,” there was no evidence he attempted to use any of the cards in his possession, there was no evidence that he was the one who stole them, he was cooperative with the police, and he had no weapons or controlled substances in his possession when he was arrested.
While those factors may have weighed in appellant’s favor, other significant factors were also present. As the prosecutor noted, appellant had a lengthy prior record, “Upwards of seven different felony convictions. And he also was just placed on a new felony probation back in December . . . he received a big break from the District Attorney’s Office back in December. I believe that there was an exposure of about 25 years when he went on the new probation. And he was given a big break. And that was, I think, a mere two weeks before he then picked up this new charge. [¶] So because of his long history, his prior convictions . . . and the fact that he picked up this new case so close to grant of probation, I am asking that the Court sentence the defendant to the maximum on the probation violation . . . .”
We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion when, after weighing these competing concerns, it decided not to reinstate appellant’s probation.
III. DISPOSITION
The order revoking probation is affirmed.
We concur: Simons, J., Needham, J.