Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Brandon Richard Kropp

April 18, 2011

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
BRANDON RICHARD KROPP, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. Nos. 08F5069, 08F5659, 09F1602)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie, Acting P. J.

P. v. Kropp

CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 this case defendant challenges the decision of the trial court finding he violated his probation and imposing a prison sentence. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Defendant pled guilty to possession of methadone and possession of methamphetamine in two separate cases (drug cases). The trial court deferred entry of judgment. (Pen. Code,*fn1 §§ 1000-1000.5.)

Defendant later pled guilty to unauthorized possession of food stamps in a new case and conceded the People's motions for entry of judgment in the drug cases. The trial court imposed a four-year, four-month term, suspended execution of sentence, and placed defendant on five years' formal probation.

The People filed a petition for revocation of probation on February 19, 2010, alleging defendant violated his probation by failing to keep the probation department accurately advised of his address and failing to report any arrest.

The trial court sustained the allegations at a contested hearing, revoked probation, and ordered execution of the previously imposed prison term.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Shasta County Probation Officer Robin Gail met defendant on January 13, 2010, and read him the terms and conditions of probation. Among the conditions was that defendant "must report any change of residence to the probation officer, immediately before, immediately after." Defendant was told that if he were ever placed in custody he must report to the probation department immediately after his release. Defendant was given a written copy of the probation conditions. He signed and initialed the conditions and appeared to understand them.

Officer Gail had no further contact with defendant, although he may have received one phone message from defendant stating that he was homeless and would contact them again. He normally keys any phone message into the department's computerized system, but his message logs show no entry for a voice mail from defendant. Officer Gail admitted it was possible he received more messages from defendant, but did not remember them and did not enter the messages into the system.

Shasta County Probation Officer Andra Hardy became defendant's probation officer at some point between January 15 and January 20, 2010. Shortly after her assignment, she sent an appointment letter to defendant's address of record: 425 Buckeye, apartment B-1. The post office ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.