P. v. Lugo
Filed 8/18/06 P. v. Lugo CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROSENDO HURTADO LUGO, Defendant and Appellant. | E039001 (Super. Ct. No. HEF1712) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michael S. Hider, Judge. (Retired judge of the Merced Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Brent Riggs, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Pamela Ratner Sobeck, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and David Delgado-Rucci, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Rosendo Hurtado Lugo (defendant) pled guilty to one count of felony spousal abuse. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).)[1] The court granted defendant probation for 36 months on various terms and conditions. Defendant violated probation several times, and the court eventually sentenced him to state prison for three years.
On appeal, defendant contends: 1) he was denied his constitutional right to confront a witness when the prosecution presented hearsay evidence to support its contention defendant violated probation condition number 10; 2) probation condition number 10 was unconstitutionally vague; 3) there was insufficient admissible evidence he violated probation condition number 17; and 4) the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to prison. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[2]
Defendant signed a written plea agreement acknowledging his guilty plea carried a potential sentence of two to four years in state prison. He also signed a form listing his probation conditions, which included the requirements defendant enroll in a 52-week â€
