Santa Clarita, Bench Warrant Recall, Probation Violation

Our client, age thirty-one in a nine-month period during 2017 to 2018.  During that time, he was convicted three times for misdemeanors out of the Santa Clarita (also called the Newhall and Valencia) courthouse.

Each case arose after the mother of his one-year old son called police, alleging our client was beating her up.

In the first 2017 case, he pled no contest to a violation of Penal Code § 415, disturbing the peace, although the case arose out of an alleged battery on the mother of his son.  The client was placed on three years of informal probation and ordered to attend twenty-six Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, attend twenty-six anger management sessions and pay total court fees of $630.

In the second 2017 case, he pled no contest to a violation of Penal Code § 148.5, filing a false police report, and 415, and was again placed on three years of informal, or summary, probation and ordered to perform thirty days (240 hours) of community service and pay a court fine of $230.

In the third case, in 2018, he pled no contest to a violation of Penal Code § 243(e)(1), battery upon a co-habitant or spouse, as well as Penal Code § 136.1, intimidating a witness and was also placed on three years of informal, or summary, probation and ordered to attend 52 batterers classes, pay a court fee of $730 and perform 28 days of community service.

After about six months of trying to attend the classes, perform community service, etc., our client gave up and stopped showing up for progress hearings in court.

The judge in the Santa Clarita Courthouse then issued bench warrants with no bail in each case for probation violations.

Six years later, in 2024, the client called Greg Hill & Associates and explained the three bench warrants and how much of the obligations he had completed before stopping to get his business going and care for his parents.

Greg went to the Torrance Courthouse and retrieved the dockets on each case and then told the client was obligations were still outstanding.

Greg then explained to the client that the goal would be to have the client avoid jail time entirely and be reinstated on probation in each case so he could eventually have each conviction expunged.  Greg recommended that the client finish all his AA meetings and try to re-enroll and finish his anger management and batterers classes.

Greg also discussed Assembly Bill 1950, which shortened the probation period for misdemeanors to one year, but with certain exceptions (including domestic violence cases).  The new law was retroactive to cases with probation that was pending, but it was unclear (there were contradictory appellate court rulings on cases with revoked probation).  This meant that in one of the client’s cases, he arguably finished probation due to the passage of one year prior to the bench warrant being issued, although he had not successfully fulfilled all his obligations of probation.

Greg also explained to the client how when one is placed on probation, the imposition of any sentence is suspended, so when one violates the terms of probation, the judge has the power to either reinstate the person on probation or impose the sentence, depending on the circumstances and the nature of the violation.

Greg and the client then appeared in the Santa Clarita courthouse and were surprised to find out that one of toughest judges (by reputation) from the Lancaster Courthouse had been transferred to Santa Clarita Courthouse and was assigned to all three of the client’s cases.  Greg explained to the client how the judge might simply recall the bench warrants, terminate probation and remand him to serve time to fulfill the terms of the suspended sentence in each case.

Quite fortunately, the judge was in a good mood and recalled each bench warrant.  She asked our client to admit his violation in each case and then reinstated him on probation.  She and Greg then discussed what obligations were still outstanding in each case and the judge set further progress hearings 90 days into the future for our client’s progress on classes and community service.

Eventually, after about nine months of further time, our client fulfilled all terms of probation and probation terminated in each case with our client successfully completing all terms, meaning he would be eligible for expungement in each case if he so desired.