People v. Espino CA1/1 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/16/21 P. v. Espino CA1/1
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
    FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION ONE
    THE PEOPLE,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                 A160602
    v.                                                                 (San Mateo County
    JORGE ESPINO,                                                      Super. Ct. Nos. SC051474A,
    SF381780A)
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Defendant Jorge Espino appeals from the trial court’s sentencing order
    that imposed a four-year jail term after he pled no contest to attempted grand
    theft and multiple counts of forgery, plus an eight-month consecutive term
    based on his violation of probation from a prior case. Espino’s sole contention
    on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the
    consecutive term because Espino challenged whether he was the defendant in
    the earlier matter. We disagree. The record makes clear that the trial court
    imposed a consecutive term because Espino took the stand and perjured
    himself at his probation violation hearing. We affirm.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    In May 2002, Espino was charged by felony complaint with commercial
    burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 460, subd. (b)), forgery (§ 470, subd. (a)), and petty
    1   All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
    theft (§ 666) in case No. SC051474A (SC matter). Espino pled no contest to
    the forgery charge and, after serving a 60-day term in jail, was placed on
    probation for three years.2 On July 31, 2002, an affidavit of probation
    violation was filed, alleging Espino had failed to report to probation and
    recommending revocation. The court revoked his probation and issued a
    bench warrant for his arrest.
    In November 2019, Espino was charged by felony information in a
    second criminal matter for grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)), attempted grand
    theft (§§ 664, 487, subd. (a)), and 33 counts of forgery (§ 470, subd. (d)) in case
    No. SF381780A (SF matter). Espino was alleged to have fraudulently cashed
    33 checks from a local funeral home business in 2011, resulting in losses
    totaling $87,800. On December 30, 2019, Espino pleaded no contest to
    attempted grand theft and four counts of forgery.
    At the April 24, 2020 sentencing hearing, counsel for Espino requested
    that he be placed on probation in the SF matter. The trial court denied the
    request because, among other reasons, Espino had been on probation (from
    the SC matter) at the time of these offenses and had absconded from
    probation for approximately 17 years. It sentenced Espino to a four-year jail
    term: a two-year term on the initial forgery count, consecutive eight-month
    terms on each of the three additional forgery counts, and a concurrent one-
    year term on the attempted grand theft count.
    The trial court then turned to the SC matter. Although there had been
    an agreement communicated to the trial court that if Espino admitted to the
    probation violation he would receive a two-year concurrent term, Espino
    requested to see a copy of the signed conditions of probation on the SC
    2Espino has used several aliases, including Ramiro Alexis Penaloza,
    Valdemar Espino-Arroyo, and Cesar Gonzalez Reyes. He was convicted in
    the SC matter under the name Ramiro Alexis Penaloza.
    2
    matter. Espino’s counsel then stated: “Your Honor, even though I showed
    him the documents probation provided to me regarding the booking photo
    associated with this case number, and I thought we had an understanding,
    my client is now denying that even though it’s a different name that he
    signed this document, the conditions of probation.”
    The trial court responded: “It’s the Court’s perception that Mr. Espino
    is not being truthful today and is playing games with the Court. So I’m—
    what I’m going to do is the sentence—so all of the promises are off, Mr.
    Espino. The sentence in the [SF matter], I’m withdrawing that sentence
    because it was based on information that is now being denied.” The court
    recalled its sentence in the SF matter, remanded Espino to custody, and set a
    hearing for identification. At the May 1, 2020 identification hearing, Espino
    admitted that he was the defendant in the earlier SC matter. The trial court
    then set a hearing to determine if a probation violation had occurred in the
    SC matter, and for sentencing in both cases.3
    At the June 5, 2020 hearing, the trial court first observed that the court
    minutes from May 8, 2002 reflected the imposition of standard conditions of
    probation on Espino, and that he had signed his conditions of probation on
    May 15th, including the condition that he keep his probation officer apprised
    of his physical whereabouts. Probation officer Edward Taylor testified that
    Espino had failed to report to probation in July 2002, despite numerous calls
    and letters directing him to do so. Espino testified that, during that time, he
    had been in custody on an immigration hold for approximately six to seven
    3 The trial court had already revoked Esposito’s probation as part of a
    third criminal matter against him, and thus the court needed only to
    determine whether Esposito had committed a violation of probation upon
    which he could be sentenced.
    3
    months before being deported to Mexico. The following exchange then
    occurred with his counsel:
    “Q: Were you released from immigration custody at some point?
    “A: Yes.
    “Q: When you were released, did you remember that you were supposed
    to check in with the probation officer?
    “A: No.
    “Q: Did you ever understand that you had a probation officer to check
    in with?
    “A: No.”
    On cross-examination, however, Espino testified that while in immigration
    custody, he told his brother to call his probation officer. Based on this
    evidence, the trial court found that Espino had violated the terms of his
    probation. The court clarified that it was basing the violation on Espino’s
    conduct prior to the filing of the affidavit on July 19, 2002.
    The trial court then proceeded with sentencing. On the SF matter, it
    sentenced Espino to the same four-year total term as had been imposed and
    then recalled at the prior sentencing hearing. On the SC matter, it sentenced
    Espino to an eight-month term to run consecutive to the four-year term in the
    SF matter. It explained: “[J]ust his original answers of no to the questions of
    whether or not he even understood he had a probation officer, I don’t find to
    be credible, again, because he stood there at his sentencing and was told he
    was going to be on probation. His probation officer met with him and went
    over his conditions with him. So I just don’t find it at all credible that he
    didn’t even know he had a probation officer and somebody to check in with.
    [¶] . . . [T]o say that, oh, I didn’t even know and I didn’t even know I had a
    probation officer, in the Court’s view, is false. [¶] So I want to make very
    4
    clear here, it is going to be eight months consecutive, but I want to make
    clear this is not because Mr. Espino decided to have a hearing. I’m not—I’m
    not punishing him for exercising his right to have a hearing. There is
    nothing wrong with that.”
    The trial court then cited People v. Howard (1993) 
    17 Cal.App.4th 999
    ,
    1004 (Howard) for its holding that, when imposing an aggravated sentence
    based on perjury, the sentencing judge must make findings on the record that
    there was a willful statement made under oath of a material matter that the
    witness knew to be false. While expressing doubt as to whether Howard
    applied in the probation context, the court continued: “[O]bviously, it was
    very material to these proceedings whether or not he knew he had a
    probation officer, whether he knew there was an obligation to report and he
    testified that he did not and then he contradicted himself and said, ‘Well, I
    told my brother to try and contact someone for me.’ One of those statements
    is false and he knew it, and that’s material to the proceedings we had here, so
    that’s the reason I think that the eight months should be consecutive.”
    This appeal followed.
    DISCUSSION
    “The determination of whether sentences shall be served consecutively
    or concurrently is a matter of discretion with the trial court, and will not be
    disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion.”
    (People v. Graham (1961) 
    198 Cal.App.2d 617
    , 620.) Here, Espino argues
    that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the eight-month
    consecutive term because it was based on the court’s “overreact[ion]” to his
    “identity dispute” at the April 24, 2020 hearing. We are not persuaded.
    While the trial court may have indicated that Espino would receive a
    two-year concurrent term if he admitted the probation violation, Espino did
    5
    not make any such admission. Instead, he denied having signed the
    conditions of probation and denied being the defendant in the SC matter.
    Based on this unexpected development, the trial court recalled its sentence
    and proceeded with the identification and probation violation hearings. At
    the probation violation hearing, Espino did not admit the violation and
    instead testified under oath that he did not know he had a probation officer.
    Espino then contradicted himself by testifying that he had asked his brother
    to contact his probation officer. As the trial court observed, Espino’s claim
    that he was unaware of his obligation to check in with his probation officer
    was willfully false, and materially so because it went to the question whether
    Espinoza knowingly violated a condition of his probation. This probation
    violation hearing—and the perjury that resulted therefrom—did not flow
    from any abuse of discretion by the trial court, but instead from Espino’s own
    conduct.
    Espino also argues that the trial court abused its discretion because
    “reasonably questioning whether you are the named defendant” and
    “frustrating the court” are not aggravating circumstances or factors that
    justify consecutive sentences under California Rules of Court, rules 4.421 and
    4.425. This argument both misapprehends the rules and ignores the trial
    court’s express reasons for imposing a consecutive term. Rules 4.421 and
    4.425 provide nonexclusive lists of circumstances in aggravation and factors
    affecting concurrent or consecutive sentences. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules
    4.421, subds. (a)–(b) [“Circumstances in aggravation include factors . . . .”] &
    4.425 [“Factors affecting the decision to impose consecutive rather than
    concurrent sentences include . . . .”].) A court may also enhance a defendant’s
    sentence upon finding that he or she committed perjury. (Howard, supra, 17
    Cal.App.4th at p. 1004.) That is what the trial court did here, with on-the-
    6
    record findings that Espino made a willful, false statement under oath that
    was material to the issue of his probation violation.
    In sum, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
    imposing the eight-month consecutive term.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    7
    _________________________
    Sanchez, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    _________________________
    Humes, P. J.
    _________________________
    Margulies, J.
    A160602
    8
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A160602

Filed Date: 12/16/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/16/2021