People v. Hansen CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Hansen contends the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation

and sentenced him to four years in state prison.

3 A. Governing Law

"Section 1203.2(a) states that a 'court may revoke . . . probation if the court, in its

judgment, has reason to believe that the [probationer] has violated any of the conditions

of . . . probation . . . or has subsequently committed other offenses . . . .' (Italics added.)

It has long been recognized that the Legislature, through this language, intended to give

trial courts very broad discretion in determining whether a probationer has violated

probation. (See, e.g., People v. Lippner (1933) 219 Cal. 395, 400 ['. . . only in a very

extreme case should an appellate court interfere with the discretion of the trial court in

the matter of denying or revoking probation. . . .'].)" (People v. Rodriguez (1990)

Cal.3d 437, 443 (Rodriguez).)

"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…