MODESTO, CA – Judge Carrie Stephens ruled against an unhoused accused man for a contested probation violation here in Stanislaus County Superior Court last week, despite the accused’s claimed efforts to contact his probation officer, who agreed they may have missed the call.
Deputy Public Defender Komnith Moth argued the accused attempted to follow probation conditions. But his circumstances made it difficult.
However, Deputy District Attorney James Howard Langston argued the accused failed to report to probation officers in person, communicate via phone or mail, or report a change in his address.
In a prior hearing, the accused listed a homeless shelter—the Gospel Mission in Modesto—as a residence for probation. However, the accused subsequently left the mission and could not receive letters from the probation office.
DDA Langston called Deputy Probation Officer Maribel Garcia to the stand to testify about the accused’s alleged probation violation.
When asked about attempts to contact the accused, Officer Garcia stated, “We mailed him two appointment letters to his last known mailing address as well as attempted to contact him via phone to the last reported number …the mail was returned back to us …and the phone call was not returned.”
During cross-examination, DPD Moth asked, “Is it possible that you may have missed a call from my client?” to which Officer Garcia responded, “Could’ve been.”
The accused testified he had attempted to contact the probation office twice via “the 1-800 number provided … I was in contact with the daily duty officer …I made the two phone calls through a Metro phone and the records are there of the phone calls I made.”
When the accused was asked if he had received any calls from Officer Garcia, he stated, “It is possible that she contacted me, but I did not receive it.”
Officer Garcia also indicated the accused had failed to report to her in person within seven days of their release and during the first 15 months.
During closing arguments, DPD Moth stated, “My client was making every attempt that he thought he could to comply with his terms of probation… he made a good faith attempt to comply with his terms of probation. ”
Despite the accused’s history of being unhoused and the various challenges that come with that, the judge ruled the accused violated probation, failing to “provide a change of address, …failed to contact probation, … and failed to report.”
Judge Stephens added, “I am sympathetic that it might be difficult under (the accused’s) circumstances, but it doesn’t seem like it was impossible for him to do so.”
