(Super. Ct. No. MCYKCRBF090000434)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
After revoking and reinstating defendant Gregory Ralph Abraria's probation multiple times, the trial court revoked and terminated his probation and sentenced him to state prison. On appeal, defendant claims the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation because the evidence did not show a "willful violation." We disagree and shall affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 29, 2009, defendant pled no contest to three of seven charged counts: assault with a deadly weapon by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,*fn1 § 245, subd. (a)(1)), corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant/child's parent (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor obstructing or delaying a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). On August 12, 2009, the trial court sentenced defendant to five years in prison and stayed execution of the sentence, placing defendant on a five-year term of felony probation.
In October 2009, defendant was charged with a violation of his probation (VOP) for his use of alcohol and drugs; the trial court revoked and reinstated his probation in March 2010, with additional conditions.
On March 17, 2011, defendant's probation officer filed a VOP alleging defendant failed to provide proof of enrollment in a batterer's treatment program by the deadline, failed to report to the probation office for an appointment three days prior, and failed to provide a current address.
On April 12, 2011, defendant successfully petitioned the court for release on his own recognizance while awaiting his VOP hearing, based on his promise to stay within a five-mile radius of the town of Yreka, immediately meet with his probation officer, and comply with all of the existing conditions of his probation. At the hearing, defendant's attorney represented that although defendant had previously been confused because he also had a pending Child Protective Services (CPS) case that required urine testing and thought one could count toward the other, he was "very clear now that he need[ed] to maintain dual contact" and "keep the CPS responsibilities and the criminal court system responsibilities jiving with each other." Defendant was present in custody in court when this representation was made.
Defendant's probation officer, Susan George, established a testing schedule for defendant; starting April 13, 2011, he was to test three times weekly. On April 26, 2011, George sought a warrant for defendant's arrest and filed a second VOP, alleging that he had failed to test on six occasions since April 13, 2011, and had absconded. George filed a third VOP on April 29, ...