People v. Harris CA1/3

DISCUSSION

Harris argues his sentence must be vacated and the matter remanded because the trial court failed to obtain a supplemental probation report prior to resentencing. Harris asserts the approximate two-year gap between the original probation report and his resentencing, combined with the impact of his mental illness, necessitated a new probation report. We disagree. “[A] probation report is not necessarily required if a defendant is statutorily ineligible for probation . . . .” (People v. Dobbins (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 176, 180 (Dobbins).) In such cases, the court has discretion to decide whether a probation report should be provided. (People v. Bullock (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 985, 989.) “This is not to say a probation report may not be helpful to a court on resentencing.” (Ibid.) “There may be compelling reasons for ordering a probation report even when the defendant is ineligible for probation. The defendant’s postconviction behavior and other possible developments remain relevant to the trial court’s consideration upon resentencing. Still, in many cases obtaining a new report will be a meaningless exercise. The trial court is in the best position to evaluate the need for…