Medina

People v. Medina

Good Law
106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 895·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 376·2001 Daily Journal DAR 5095·89 Cal. App. 4th 318·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4167
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 22, 2001C036049California1,543 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hull, J.

Following defendant’s plea of no contest to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(2); further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code), the trial court imposed the upper term of three years in state prison but suspended execution of sentence and placed defendant on probation. Shortly thereafter, defendant admitted violating probation and the trial court imposed the previously suspended sentence. In doing so, the trial court believed it lacked discretion to reinstate defendant to probation.

Defendant appeals contending the trial court failed to recognize its discretion to reinstate defendant on probation. Defendant also contends the trial court erred in imposing a different restitution fine upon revocation of probation. We find both contentions meritorious and reverse.

Facts and Procedural History

In December 1999, defendant pleaded no contest to felony vandalism based on an incident in which he and his cohorts smashed numerous car windows. Defendant was sentenced to three years in state prison, but the trial court suspended execution of the sentence and admitted defendant to probation with terms and conditions requiring that he: (1) submit to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.