People v. Dominguez CA2/2 ( 2023 )

Filed 7/31/23 P. v. Dominguez CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, B321143
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 2PB00742)
v.
ANGEL DOMINGUEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT:
Angel Dominguez appeals from an order denying his
motion to dismiss a petition for revocation of postrelease
community supervision (PRCS). We appointed counsel to
represent Dominguez on appeal. After examination of the record,
counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this
court to independently review the record.
BACKGROUND
On October 11, 2017, Dominguez pleaded no contest to one
count of grand theft in violation of Penal Code1 section 487,
subdivision (c). The court sentenced Dominguez to the upper
term of three years in state prison. Execution of sentence was
suspended, and Dominguez was placed on formal probation for
three years. Probation was revoked on January 8, 2018, and the
court imposed the previously suspended three-year state prison
term. Dominguez was placed on PRCS on January 9, 2020.
Dominguez was arrested on February 1, 2022, for driving a
vehicle without the owner’s consent in violation of Vehicle Code
section 10851, subdivision (a). On February 28, 2022, a petition
for revocation of PRCS was filed, alleging Dominguez had
violated the conditions of supervision by (1) engaging in criminal
conduct; (2) failing to inform the supervising agency of his
February 1, 2022 arrest; and (3) driving a vehicle without the
owner’s permission. At a hearing on February 28, 2022, the
superior court found probable cause to support revocation and
preliminarily revoked PRCS. The court ordered an arrest
warrant issued, with bail set at $45,000.
Dominguez was arrested on May 11, 2022, on the warrant
after fleeing from police. The probation officer imposed a “flash
incarceration” under section 34542 in order to hold Dominguez in
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 Section 3454, subdivision (c) defines “ ‘flash
incarceration’ ” as “a period of detention in a city or county jail
due to a violation of an offender’s conditions of postrelease
supervision. The length of the detention period can range
between one and 10 consecutive days. Flash incarceration is a
2
custody until his court appearance because he had fled from
police more than six times since the warrant had been issued.
On May 17, 2022, Dominguez moved to dismiss the petition
for revocation of PRCS on the ground that Dominguez had been
subject to a flash incarceration based on the conduct underlying
the petition. The superior court denied the motion without
prejudice pending further investigation of the circumstances of
the arrest and flash incarceration, and set an order to show cause
(OSC) regarding the motion to dismiss.
At the hearing on the OSC on May 20, 2022, the superior
court denied Dominguez’s motion to dismiss the petition for
revocation of PRCS. The court explained that under section
3454, a flash incarceration is an intermediate sanction for a
probation violation which the supervising county agency may
only impose before or in lieu of filing a petition to revoke PRCS.
Section 3455, subdivision (a) in turn provides that if the
supervising agency determines that intermediate sanctions under
section 3454, subdivision (b) (such as flash incarceration) are not
appropriate, the “agency shall petition the court pursuant to
section 1203.2 to revoke, modify, or terminate [PRCS].” The
court concluded that in this case, by filing a revocation petition
with the court, the probation department lost its authority to
impose any intermediate sanction and the May 11, 2022 flash
incarceration imposed on Dominguez therefore “was a nullity.”
tool that may be used by each county agency responsible for
postrelease supervision. Shorter, but if necessary more frequent,
periods of detention for violations of an offender’s postrelease
supervision conditions shall appropriately punish an offender
while preventing the disruption in a work or home establishment
that typically arises from longer term revocations.”
3
Nevertheless, because the probation department had authority
under section 3455, subdivision (c) to hold Dominguez in custody
on the warrant pending the first court appearance on the
revocation petition, the court found that he was not prejudiced by
the erroneous imposition of a flash incarceration on May 11,
2022.
Based on Dominguez’s admission, the superior court found
Dominguez in violation of the conditions of his PRCS. The court
revoked and reinstated PRCS on the same terms and conditions,
modified to include 150 days’ confinement in county jail.
On May 20, 2022, the superior court granted Dominguez’s
request for a certificate of probable cause, and a timely notice of
appeal was filed.
DISCUSSION
Based on our examination of the entire record we are
satisfied that defendant’s attorney has fully complied with his
responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The order denying the motion to dismiss the petition for
revocation of postrelease community supervision is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
LUI, P. J. ASHMANN-GERST, J. HOFFSTADT, J.
4