People v. Rauen
2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1503
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Timothy Thomas Rauen pleaded no contest in May 2008 to possession of methamphetamine and possessing a deadly weapon in Solano County.
- The court suspended imposition of the prison term and placed him on three years of probation in July 2008; the judgment was affirmed in October 2009.
- In June 2010 the probation department sought probation revocation based on a May 2010 Santa Cruz County arrest for felony possession of a concealed dirk or dagger, felony meth possession, misdemeanor displaying of false registration, and a probation violation.
- At the contested violation hearing, Santa Cruz County records including the plea form showing a no contest plea to two misdemeanor counts were admitted as proof of violation.
- The trial court found a probation violation based on the Santa Cruz conviction and revoked probation, imposing the suspended sentence of three years eight months.
- Rauen timely appealed, arguing the Santa Cruz conviction based on a West plea did not prove he violated the law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a West/no contest conviction support probation violation? | Rauen argues West plea lacks admission of guilt for purposes of probation | The State asserts West plea convictions are admissible to prove violation | Yes; West pleas may support violation evidence. |
| admissibility of certified conviction records to prove underlying conduct | Evidence shows conviction proves violation of law | Records alone may not prove commission of underlying crime | Conviction records are admissible to prove underlying conduct. |
| Is the use of a no contest plea under Penal Code 1016 proper for probation revocation? | 1016 permits using no contest plea as equivalent to guilty for felony offenses | No contest plea for misdemeanors may have limited collateral impact | Yes; no contest plea admissible and can establish violation. |
| Does Bradford/Chagolla support using no contest convictions to prove probation violations? | West/Alford-like reasoning supports collateral use of no contest convictions | No contest convictions may be limited in civil contexts but not criminal ones | Bradford/Chagolla support collateral use in probation revocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Monette, 25 Cal.App.4th 1572 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (preponderance standard for probation violation evidence)
- In re Alvernaz, 2 Cal.4th 924 (Cal. 1992) (West plea as nolo contendere with no factual admission)
- People v. Chagolla, Cal.App.3d 1045 (Cal. App. 1984) (West/Alford plea admissibility for collateral use)
- People v. Bradford, 15 Cal.4th 1229 (Cal. 1997) (use of no contest plea for felony conviction evidence)
- U.S. v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (conviction record may not establish enhanced status where record lacks factual basis)
- U.S. v. Nguyen, 465 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2006) (no contest pleas not by themselves prove underlying crimes; distinguishable from state rules)