Filed 8/21/25 P. v. Mendez CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD MENDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
G063827 (Super. Ct. No. 19WF2485) O P I N I O N |
|---|
Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheri T. Pham, Judge. Affirmed.
Stephanie A. Lickel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie H. Chow and Melissa Mandel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Richard Mendez appeals from an order revoking his probation and imposing a previously suspended prison sentence. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.
FACTS
Mendez assaulted a man with a baseball bat and smashed the rear windshield of a car, all for the benefit of a criminal street gang. He was charged with assault with a deadly weapon, vandalism, and street terrorism. The information also alleged he acted with the specific intent to promote criminal conduct by a street gang and that he had a prior strike and a prior serious felony conviction.
In exchange for a guilty plea, the prosecution offered Mendez two years of probation with a six-year prison term, execution of sentence suspended, and agreed to reduce two charges to misdemeanors and strike the serious felony prior. The trial court accepted the plea bargain with “reluctance,” noting it almost never accepted such pleas. The court cautioned Mendez that in the event of a probation violation, the court would impose the agreed-upon six-year term, explaining: “if you violate probation during the next two years, . . . I don’t want to hear any whining or pleading.” The court added, “[Y]ou have to be prepared to get the six years.” Mendez acknowledged he understood.
About a year later, Mendez violated his probation in multiple ways: he spent time with taggers in gang territory at 2:00 a.m. in violation of his 8:00 p.m. curfew, fled from police, resisted arrest, and tested positive for cocaine. The trial court found Mendez had violated his probation, revoked his probation, and imposed the previously suspended six-year sentence. In explaining its ruling, the court reminded Mendez that he had been warned at sentencing that the prison sentence would be imposed if he came back on a violation, and the court planned to follow through on that. In the court’s words, it had to “give some meaning to the contract,” “I have to follow . . . my word,” and “[w]hen you sign up for that, you have to be prepared . . . to own up and accept responsibility when you fail.”
DISCUSSION
When a trial court has reason to believe a defendant violated any condition of his probation, it may revoke and terminate probation if the interests of justice so require. (Pen. Code, § 1203.2, subd. (a).) If the defendant’s sentence had been previously suspended, the court may revoke the suspension of the sentence and order the judgment be in full force and effect. (Id., subd. (c).) Granting and revoking probation “‘are entirely within the sound discretion of the trial court,’” and that “‘discretion will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abusive or arbitrary action.’” (People v. Urke (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 766, 773.)
Citing various comments the trial court made during the plea hearing and at the contested probation violation hearing, Mendez asserts the court misunderstood the scope of its discretion. According to Mendez, the court “predetermined the outcome” and wrongly believed it had no choice but to terminate probation in the event of a probation violation. (See People v. Bolian (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1421 [trial court abuses its discretion if it misunderstands or is unaware of its discretion to reinstate or revoke probation].) We disagree.
We have reviewed the transcripts from the plea hearing and the probation violation hearing. Read in context and taken as a whole, the record does not support Mendez’s argument. The court’s initial comments at the plea hearing were plainly meant to incentivize Mendez to comply with the terms of the probation. And its subsequent comments at the probation violation hearing were intended to explain its reasons for terminating probation— Mendez’s new offenses and his open disregard for his probation terms.
The fact the trial court did not discuss alternative options does not show an abuse of discretion. “On appeal, we presume that the trial court followed established law and thus properly exercised its discretion in sentencing a criminal defendant[, . . . and] we may not assume the court was unaware of its discretion simply because it failed to explicitly refer to its alternative sentencing choices.” (People v. Weddington (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 468, 492.) On this record, we discern no abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
SCOTT, J.
WE CONCUR:
MOORE, ACTING P. J.
SANCHEZ, J.