P. v. Haley
Filed 7/30/12 P. v. Haley CA1/3
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
WARREN G.
HALEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
A134865
(Sonoma
County Super.
Ct.
Nos. SCR569996, SCR569692)
Warren
G. Haley (appellant) appeals after the trial court revoked his probation and
sentenced him to six years in state prison.
Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct
an independent review of the record.
Appellant was informed of his right
to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. Having independently reviewed the record, we
conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and affirm the
judgment.
Factual and Procedural Background
On
September 17, 2009, a complaint
was filed in case SCR569692, charging appellant with: (1) stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9,
subd. (b)
title="">[1],
count 1); (2) malicious interference with a power line (§ 591,
count 2); (3) malicious interference with a telephone line
(§ 591, count 3); and (4) misdemeanor violation of a criminal
protective order for domestic violence
prevention (§ 273.6, subd. (a), count 4). The complaint further alleged one prison
prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
The
complaint was based on an incident that occurred on September 14, 2009. That night, deputies from the
County Sheriff’s Department responded to the home of appellant’s wife (the
victim) regarding a restraining order violation. The victim stated that at approximately 9:00 p.m. that evening, she noticed her
bedroom window was open and the window blinds were halfway drawn up, which was
not how she had left them. As she
approached the window to close it, someone suddenly reached inside and grabbed
her arm. She looked outside and saw that
it was appellant, who was standing in her backyard. She yelled at appellant to “let her go,” but
he continued to hold her against her will.
Using her free arm, she grabbed a coffee cup and threw it at appellant,
at which time he released her. Appellant
then fled on foot. The victim’s mother
verified that she saw appellant standing outside the bedroom window. A records check confirmed appellant was the
restrained party in a served protective order that prohibited him from having
any contact with the victim from June 16,
2009, until June 16,
2012. Deputies also verified
that appellant was on an active grant of state parole.
The
victim told police that one week before this incident, she noticed her backyard
motion sensor light was not functioning.
The electrical cord had been severed and there was a pair of wire
cutters near the backyard fence. She
suspected appellant was responsible for cutting the cord. While being interviewed by police, the victim
received two voicemail messages from appellant in which he asked what she was
doing. She continued to receive calls
from appellant that night. Deputies
responded to appellant’s residence and knocked on the front door several times
and attempted to call the house telephone numerous times, but were unable to
reach him.
The
following day, deputies spoke to the victim, who explained that appellant would
hide inside his house from law enforcement and that his mother, who lived with
him, would help hide him. She also
mentioned that around the time her backyard motion sensor light stopped
working, her bedroom telephone line also stopped working. A representative from the telephone company
determined her telephone line had been severed.
On
September 25, 2009, a second complaint was filed in case SCR569996, charging
appellant with inflicting corporal injury on a spouse (§ 273.5,
subd. (a), count 1); (2) assault by means likely to cause great
bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 2); and
(3) misdemeanor violation of a criminal protective and stay away order
issued pursuant to section 136.2 (§ 166, subd. (c)(1),
count 3). The complaint alleged the
same prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) that was alleged in case SCR569692.
The
second complaint was based on an incident that occurred on September 23,
2009. That day, at approximately
2:00 p.m., officers were dispatched to a residence to investigate a
reported domestic dispute. The same
victim, appellant’s wife, was sitting on the sidewalk, crying. She stated that Jeffrey M., a mutual
friend of hers and appellant’s, had asked her to come to his residence. When she arrived, appellant was there and she
and appellant became involved in an altercation. Appellant grabbed her and forcibly pushed her
down on a couch, causing her cheek to strike the couch’s wooden armrest. He then wrapped his hand around her neck and
squeezed it, causing her to be unable to breathe for a few seconds. She struggled and was able to break free but
appellant placed his arm around her neck from behind and strangled her. He continuously screamed at her to “shut up,”
and when she was able to break free, he wrapped his hand around her neck a
second time and squeezed it to the point that she was unable to breathe for
several seconds. At that point,
Jeffrey M. told appellant that police were responding, and appellant
released her. The victim ran out of the
house and down the street, and appellant fled on foot. Officers observed swelling to the victim’s
cheek, numerous scratch marks on her neck, arm, shoulder and wrist, and
bruising on her arm.
During
a police interview, Jeffrey M. said he called police after he witnessed
appellant angrily “punch[], kick[], and body slam[]” the victim against the
couch, “chok[e]” her, and “toss[] her around like a rag doll.” He said that on the night before this
incident, he drove appellant around for “several hours” looking for the victim. He believed appellant had a firearm with him,
as he heard a “metal spinning noise,” and Jeffrey M. therefore complied,
as he felt appellant would become angry if he did not do as directed. They ultimately returned to Jeffrey M.’s
residence and spent the night there. The
following day, he called the victim at appellant’s request and told her to come
to the residence.
Officers
verified that appellant was the subject of an outstanding warrant for charges
in SCR569692 and an alleged parole violation.
At approximately 6:25 p.m., officers received information that
appellant had returned to Jeffrey M.’s residence. As officers approached the residence, they
saw appellant hiding near the inside corner of the front yard fence. Appellant complied when ordered to “lay down
on his stomach, and was placed under arrest.”
On
December 23, 2009, appellant pleaded no contest to stalking in case
SCR569692 and to inflicting corporal injury on a spouse in case SCR569996. He admitted the same prison prior that was
alleged in both complaints. In exchange
for his pleas, defense counsel represented that the court had indicated
appellant would receive a six-year suspended prison sentence, presentence
custody credit for the time spent in jail, and no credits while he participated
in the Jericho Project. Counsel also
noted that the two trailing misdemeanor charges would be dismissed. The court added that appellant was to have no
contact with the victim. On January 25,
2010, appellant was sentenced to state prison for six years with execution of
that sentence suspended. He was placed
on four years of formal probation and required to serve one year in jail.
At
a hearing on December 13, 2010, probation was modified to require appellant to
successfully complete the Turning Point treatment program rather than the
Jericho Project. All other terms of
probation were to remain in full force and effect and appellant agreed to
continue waiving any credits while he was in a treatment program. The court ordered appellant to report to
probation within two working days of the completion of the Turning Point
program. At a hearing on
December 5, 2011, appellant admitted he had not remained in contact with
probation. Based on that admission, the
court found appellant was in violation of probation.
At
sentencing on January 6, 2012, the court noted that appellant had stated
at the original sentence hearing on January 25, 2010, “ ‘I know this
is absolutely my final opportunity.’ ”
The court noted that appellant nevertheless absconded from probation and
tested positive for methamphetamine after completing the Turning Point
program. The court found appellant’s
claim he made to the court and probation that he did not know he was on
probation to be disingenuous. The court
stated it was not willing to give him “yet another last and absolutely final
opportunity.” The court terminated
appellant’s probation in both cases and imposed the six year prison term that
had been previously imposed with execution suspended. The court awarded appellant 971 days of
credits.
Discussion
We
have reviewed the entire record and conclude there are no arguable issues that
warrant further briefing. Substantial
evidence supports the trial court’s decision to revoke defendant’s
probation. Appellant was adequately
represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. There was no
briefing.
Disposition
The
judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
McGuiness,
P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Siggins, J.
_________________________
Jenkins, J.
Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
