Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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. Martin Ray Coons

July 23, 2012


(Super. Ct. No. MCYKCRF070001318)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , J.

P. v. Coons CA3


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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Defendant Martin Ray Coons appeals from orders of the Siskiyou County Superior Court (trial court) entered January 13, 2010, finding him in violation of two conditions of his probation, and, on March 2, 2010, ordering him to serve 90 days in county jail after which probation was to be terminated as unsuccessful. Defendant contends the trial court erred in sustaining the two alleged probation violations and imposing additional jail time because the violations were not willful. We disagree and shall affirm the trial court's orders.


In June 2007, defendant, who lives in Medford, Oregon, was driving in Siskiyou County when he was stopped by a sheriff's deputy for a traffic violation. A vehicle check showed the vehicle was stolen and defendant was arrested. Defendant was searched and methamphetamine was found in his pocket.

In July, defendant was charged with vehicle theft and offenses related to his possession of methamphetamine. On March 26, 2008, defendant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine conditioned upon his being placed on Proposition 36 probation (Pen. Code, § 1210.1 et seq.) and the remaining charges being dismissed. The matter was referred to the probation department and sentencing was set for April 23, 2008. On April 23, 2008, the court accepted defendant's plea, suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on Proposition 36 probation for three years on various conditions, including that he follow the reasonable instructions of the probation officer and not leave the state of California without written permission from the probation officer. Because defendant lived in Medford, Oregon, which his counsel described as being "about an hour away" from Yreka where the case was being prosecuted, the court permitted defendant to have his probation supervised in Oregon, pursuant to procedures set forth for supervising out of state prisoners set forth in the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (Interstate Compact) (Pen. Code, § 1180 et seq.).

On September 29, 2009, defendant admitted violating his probation by failing to appear at four court ordered hearings in California. The admission was conditioned upon defendant being terminated from Proposition 36 probation and being placed on formal probation with 120 days to be served in county jail. The matter was set October 27, 2009, for sentencing.*fn1 Defendant remained in custody.

On October 16, 2009, the court granted defendant's request to be released on his own recognizance and ordered him to return on October 27, 2009. On October 26, the court received a note from a doctor stating defendant had been hospitalized and would be in the hospital for three to five additional days. The matter was continued to December 1.

On November 19, 2009, the probation department filed a "Memo" with the court requesting a warrant for defendant's arrest. The memo stated that prior to defendant's release from jail on October 16, probation officers Leigh Moore and Susan George contacted defendant in jail and informed him that he could not leave California without obtaining a valid travel permit and without initiating paperwork for the Interstate Compact. The memo further alleged that on November 6 defendant telephoned Moore from Oregon explaining that he had been in the hospital. Moore informed defendant that he was in violation of his probation and that he was to report to the probation department no later than November 9. Defendant reluctantly agreed to do so, but as of November 17 defendant had not reported as directed.

On December 1, 2009, defendant appeared for sentencing on the September 29 admissions and for arraignment for having new violations of probation. Defendant denied the violations, the matter was continued for a hearing to January 13, 2010, and defendant was permitted to reside in Oregon pending the hearing.

On January 13, 2010, following a contested hearing, the court sustained the probation violation allegations and continued the matter for sentencing until March 2.

On March 2, 2010, the court terminated defendant's Proposition 36 probation. The court then placed him on formal probation conditioned upon his serving 210 days in jail for the probation violations with credit for 132 days already served (88 actual plus 44 ...

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.