What is the standard of review for reinstating probation for a defendant who absconded from a residential treatment program?

The trial court is granted broad authority to determine whether a probationer has violated his probation, and its ruling will be reversed on appeal only where the court abused its discretion. (People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 445.) We find no abuse here. Appellant admitted that he violated probation by failing to complete his treatment program and by absconding from probation. Based on appellant's admission, the court obviously could conclude appellant violated his probation.

Appellant also argues the court abused its discretion when it declined to reinstate probation and sentenced him to prison.

Again, the standard of review we apply is highly deferential. The trial court is granted the discretion to decide whether to reinstate probation or to sentence a defendant to prison, and its decision will only be reversed on appeal if the court abused its discretion. (People v. Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 909.) We find no abuse here. The probation report prepared for the sentencing hearing noted that appellant had a long history of alcohol abuse. The report also noted appellant committed the underlying offense "while he was participating on two grants of conditional sentence for DUI convictions." The report opined that appellant's failure to complete his residential treatment program was "not indicative of somebody who is ready to address [his] substance abuse issue[s]." The report also forecast that if appellant were released back into the community "there is a strong likelihood that he would continue to drink and endanger the public." The trial court could, based on this record, reasonably conclude appellant was not a good candidate for probation and that he should be sentenced to prison.

Appellant contends the court abused its discretion because the only reason he left his treatment program was that a person there had asked him to act dishonestly. While that was appellant's explanation for his conduct, the treatment program described appellant's departure differently. On appeal, we must assume the court accepted the program's explanation. (People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 528.)