Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard M. King, Judge, Super. Ct. No. 04CF0855.
Amanda F. Benedict, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Scott C. Taylor and Kelley Johnson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RYLAARSDAM, J.
Defendant Jose Alfredo Vargas appeals from an order revoking his probation and ordering him to serve two years in state prison and pay $200 in restitution. The thrust of his argument is there is insufficient evidence to justify the court’s finding he violated a condition of his probation. As a result, he claims, the trial court abused its discretion in terminating his probation. Finding none of these claims meritorious, we affirm.
FACTS
Gang detective Mauricio Estrada testified he was working gang suppression patrol in a known Walnut Street gang territory in March 2006. While he was driving in a marked police vehicle, he saw defendant walking and heard him yell “juaras,” Spanish slang for “cops.” Defendant immediately entered the passenger side of a parked car. The driver of the car denied knowing or ever seeing defendant before; he told Estrada he was scared and surprised when defendant got into the car. Estrada also noticed a second car, parked directly in front of the car defendant entered, with a group of people inside as well as standing around it.
Estrada testified that he then spoke to defendant and specifically asked him if he was on “gang terms probation.” Defendant admitted it and said he “messed up.” He knew his probation terms prohibited him from associating with the people in the nearby vehicle because they were members of the Walnut Street gang; defendant had been a member of that gang for three years. Estrada subsequently contacted the others in the nearby vehicle and determined that three of them were on probation and one on parole.
Estrada arrested defendant for violating probation by associating with people “disapproved by [his] Probation Officer.” At the probation violation hearing the court found defendant violated probation.
DISCUSSION
1. Substantial Evidence
Defendant contends the court erred in finding he violated probation by “associat[ing] with [people] on probation, parole, or . . . gang members.” But the decision is supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1161.) The court found, and we agree, that defendant’s admissions to Estrada are sufficient evidence of his awareness of the terms of his probation and that he violated them.
Defendant argues his only connection with the occupants of the nearby parked car is that he happened to be walking on the same street, pointing out that he only lives within two blocks of where Estrada first observed him. This argument is unpersuasive based on Estrada’s testimony about defendant’s suspicious behavior, including yelling “juaras” and jumping into the car of someone he did not know when he observed Estrada.
Furthermore, Estrada’s testimony that three of the occupants of the nearby vehicle were on probation and one on parole, in conjunction with defendant’s statement that the people in the vehicle were Walnut Street gang members, is sufficient to support the finding they were persons with whom defendant was prohibited from associating.
2. Abuse of Discretion
“The court may revoke . . . probation if . . ., in its judgment, [it] has reason to believe . . . that the person has violated any of the conditions of his . . . probation . . . .” (Cal. Pen. Code,§ 1203.2, subd. (a).) This decision will only be reversed on appeal if defendant can establish that the trial court abused its discretion. (People v Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 443.)
Because the evidence supports the finding defendant violated probation, this is defendant’s third probation violation, and one of the previous violations was for similar conduct, the court did not abuse its discretion.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed
WE CONCUR: SILLS, P. J., BEDSWORTH, J.