Early Termination of Probation Motion Denied, Torrance

We offer the following summary as a cautionary tale to remind the reader that judges are only human and certain motions for early termination of probation can be denied, even ones we expected to be granted.  

In November 2021, our client, then age 37, was arrested on suspicion of violating Penal Code § 273.5(a), felony domestic violence, as well as Penal Code § 422, felony criminal threats.  The arrest arose after his wife called 911 and the Gardena Police Department responded to his home at about 2:00 a.m.

Our client and his wife had been arguing quite a bit over finances and the increasingly difficult task of raising four children, three of whom were teenagers.  One was 21 years old, and while no longer a teenager, still lived at home.

To let off some steam, our client went out for a few drinks with friends and when he returned home at around 2:00 a.m., he made a lot of noise, waking up his wife.  Our client then proceeded to sit in a chair on their outdoor patio and fall asleep.

The wife knew her husband (our client) had been drinking and to punish him, filled up a kitchen pot with water and poured it all on top of him while he was asleep.

Our client awoke to the water and pushed his wife into the wall.  He then chased her inside the house and pulled her by her hair, only to throw her to the kitchen floor, where he punched her in the mouth.  A security camera in the kitchen recorded our client pulling her by the hair and then throwing her to the kitchen floor.  The video was later produced for the police.

After the wife called the police and they arrived, she told them that over their 18 year marriage, our client had beaten her six or seven times, but she never reported it.

Miraculously, the case was filed as a misdemeanor and not a felony, although the photographs of the wife’s bloody upper and lower lips suggested multiple punches to her face.

The client retained Greg Hill & Associates and over many months, Greg negotiated with the Torrance District Attorney’s Office, eventually resolving the case for a violation of Penal Code § 243(e)(1) due to the client’s immigration issues.  The terms of the plea bargain were no jail, but three years of informal (summary) probation with the client being obligated to attend the 52 week batterer’s program, make a $500 contribution to a batterer’s victim restitution fund, pay $220 in court fees and perform 80 hours of approved community service.  

At the half-way mark in probation, Greg emailed the client, asking him if he had completed all terms of probation except the passage of three years and if so, whether he was interested in early termination of probation and then, once probation ended, expungement.

The client did not respond to Greg’s email at first, but six months later, did.

He said he was interested in early termination of probation because his maintenance company, which he had owned and operated for 17 years, was vying for a contract with an HOA (homeowners association) for a condominium complex and the HOA had told him they could not hire his company while he was still on probation.

Our office then prepared, filed and served the motion for modification of probation so as to end it, explaining that our client had completed two years of probation and how his company was barred from getting a contract with the HOA because of our client’s still being on probation.  We explained that this was an unforeseeable consequence of probation and that this provided good cause to terminate probation early.

The judge assigned to the motion in Torrance disagreed.  She looked at the underlying crime and explained that this was really a felony domestic violence case.  Moreover, the resolution of the case for a 243(e)(1) with no jail time at all and not for 273.5(a) was remarkable, particularly because of the video, the photographs and the client’s long history of beating his wife.

The judge found it extremely relevant that our client’s wife had told the police that our client had beaten her six or seven times over the couple’s 18 year marriage and that she had never reported it until this case.  The judge clearly regarded our client as getting a windfall for only being convicted of a misdemeanor and serving no jail time.  She therefore denied the motion for early termination of probation.

We present this summary because we hope to exemplify for the reader the judge’s analysis on the underlying case facts, something many judges will not do because the statute allowing early termination of probation only says that the judge can modify the terms of probation for good cause.  Good cause is generally regarded as a change in circumstances or conditions presenting a good reason to end probation early or change a condition or term of probation.  Most judges do not consider good cause in the context of defendant’s history as claimed by a victim in a police report, but this judge did so, which we think was improper.