People v. Bolian
231 Cal. App. 4th 1415
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant was found to have violated felony probation; DPO Morales recommended revocation but reinstatement on modified terms (some jail time and drug treatment).
- DPO’s reports inconsistently described the original disposition: one said “imposition of sentence suspended,” another said “state prison – suspended.”
- At sentencing the trial judge questioned whether the DPO knew whether execution of sentence was suspended (ESS) versus suspension of imposition, and stated it would be "illegal and improper" to reinstate and modify probation in that context.
- Defense counsel asked the court to follow the DPO recommendation to reinstate with modifications; the court instead revoked probation and executed the previously imposed sentence.
- The appellate court analyzed whether the trial court misunderstood its discretion to reinstate and modify probation, and whether that misunderstanding required remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had discretion to reinstate probation on modified terms after finding a violation | DPO and defense: court could reinstate and impose additional jail/time and treatment as sanctions | Trial court: believed reinstating/modifying probation when sentence execution was suspended would be illegal or limited to de minimis violations | Court: Trial court may have misunderstood its discretion; it retained broad discretion to reinstate or terminate probation, so remand required |
| Whether the distinction between suspended imposition and suspended execution prevented reinstatement or modification | Defense/DPO: distinction did not affect recommendation to reinstate and modify probation | Trial court: focused on difference and thought it limited options (ESS prevents undercutting another judge) | Court: Difference matters only if termination chosen; it does not remove discretion to reinstate/modify; court’s mistaken belief required remand |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hawthorne, 226 Cal.App.3d 789 (1991) (probation violation does not automatically require revocation and imprisonment)
- People v. Medina, 89 Cal.App.4th 318 (2001) (trial court retains discretion to reinstate probation even when execution of a sentence was suspended)
- People v. Howard, 16 Cal.4th 1081 (1997) (when execution of sentence was suspended, upon revocation the court must ordinarily order the previously imposed sentence into effect)
- People v. Angus, 114 Cal.App.3d 973 (1980) (failure to exercise discretion equates to refusal to exercise jurisdiction)
- People v. Brown, 147 Cal.App.4th 1213 (2007) (remand required when record shows trial court misunderstood its sentencing discretion)
- People v. Covington, 82 Cal.App.4th 1263 (2000) (decision to reinstate or terminate probation lies within trial court discretion)
- People v. Belmontes, 34 Cal.3d 335 (1983) (defendants entitled to sentencing decisions made with informed discretion)