People v. Roseberry CA3, C079597

Background

Defendant William Roseberry pled no contest to willful corporal injury on a cohabitant with a weapon (§ 273.5) and admitted a weapon enhancement; execution of a 5‑year sentence was suspended and he was placed on five years’ formal probation.
Probation conditions included obeying all laws and reporting to his probation officer; the judge warned that proven probation violations would result in the five‑year prison term being imposed.
On April 24, 2015, officers contacted Roseberry and a female (Casey Landis) inside an apparently vacant residence; Roseberry initially gave the name “Robert Paul Ward.”
A records check did not confirm the false name; officers detained Roseberry, who later identified himself as William Stanley Paul Roseberry; he was booked for falsely identifying himself to a peace officer (§ 148.9) and for trespass (§ 602.5).
The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Roseberry willfully violated probation by committing § 148.9, denied reinstatement of probation, and ordered execution of the previously suspended five‑year sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probation revocation was supported by proof of a willful probation violation	Probation revocation valid because the record shows Roseberry falsely identified himself to evade proper identification and possible arrest, satisfying willfulness and preponderance standard	Argued there was insufficient evidence of a willful violation and that encounter was consensual or not a lawful detention, so § 148.9 elements were not met	Court affirmed: willful violation proved by preponderance; revocation not an abuse of discretion
Whether § 148.9 applied because there was a lawful detention/arrest	Police had reasonable suspicion to detain based on entry into vacant home; detention was investigative and not consensual, so § 148.9 applies	Contended encounter was consensual until handcuffing and thus § 148.9 did not apply; also argued no outstanding warrant so no intent to evade process	Court held detention was lawful investigative stop; § 148.9 covers falsely identifying to evade proper identification regardless of warrant status
Whether intent to evade identification or process was shown	Prosecutor: intent shown by giving another’s name and resisting verification, to avoid detection/arrest	Defense: claimed brief, momentary misidentification and eventual admission, intended to protect cohabitant, not to evade identification	Court found intent to evade proper identification was established despite later admission
Whether belated admission of true name negates § 148.9	Prosecution: statute does not provide a defense for admitting true identity after evasion attempt	Defense: argued admission after handcuffing undermines conviction under § 148.9	Court held belated admission is not a statutory defense and does not negate the offense

Key Cases Cited

People v. Jackson, 134 Cal.App.4th 929 (court may revoke probation when it has reason to believe probation terms were violated)
People v. Galvan, 155 Cal.App.4th 978 (probation violation facts must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence)
People v. Cervantes, 175 Cal.App.4th 291 (revocation requires willful violation of probation terms)
People v. Zaring, 8 Cal.App.4th 362 (same; standards for willfulness in probation revocation)
In re Tony C., 21 Cal.3d 888 (officer may detain on reasonable suspicion for brief investigative stop)
People v. Hernandez, 45 Cal.4th 295 (brief investigative detention allowed on reasonable suspicion)
People v. Jones, 224 Cal.App.3d 1309 (prior probation noncompliance can support revocation)
In re Voeurn O., 35 Cal.App.4th 793 (distinguishable: § 148.9 conviction reversed where encounter was consensual)