Full Opinion

Filed 10/27/26 P. v. Hoff CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F091067 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR-24-013834) v. JAMES JEFFREY HOFF, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Carrie M. Stephens, Judge. Julia J. Spikes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Harrell, J. and Guerra, J. INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant James Jeffrey Hoff (defendant) pleaded no contest to making criminal threats against his then-cohabitant (Pen. Code,1 § 422). He was placed on probation and subject to a protective order prohibiting contact with the victim. He was subsequently arrested for committing new offenses against the victim and probation was revoked. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found he violated probation and sentenced him to the midterm of two years in prison for criminal threats. On appeal, defendant’s counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 1, 2024, deputies from the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department responded to a dispatch about a 911 “open line” call from a female who was screaming, “Choke me again.” The call’s location was “pinged” in the area of Highway 108 and Brady.2 When the deputies arrived at that location, they encountered defendant and Jane Doe at a parked car. Jane Doe was not crying. The deputies asked if she called 911. Jane Doe said she made the 911 call but nothing physical happened between them. The deputies found drug paraphernalia in the car. After the paraphernalia was found, Deputy Don Villapudua spoke separately to Jane Doe out of defendant’s presence and asked why she called 911. Jane Doe became very emotional and started to cry. She 1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code. 2 The following facts are from the preliminary hearing held on November 19, 2024, which the parties stipulated to as the factual basis for defendant’s plea to criminal threats. 2. said defendant was her boyfriend, and he choked her for three to four seconds while they were sitting in their parked car. Jane Doe said the incident happened when she was sitting in the driver’s seat and defendant was in the front passenger seat of the car. They argued about gas money, and because she did not want to remain in the relationship. Jane Doe said defendant used his right hand to choke her and said, “Bitch, I’m going to kill you,” and she was afraid for her life. Jane Doe said defendant pushed her neck back into the car seat with enough force that her head was also pushed back. Jane Doe reported she had neck pain and a sensation like needles were being poked in her skin. Villapudua observed redness on her neck. Jane Doe said she had been in a relationship with defendant for about one year, and she had lived with defendant for the past five months. Deputy Justin Camara testified he spoke separately to defendant. Defendant said they argued about gas money, but asserted he had text messages that proved his innocence and that Jane Doe assaulted him. Camara testified he reviewed the text messages on defendant’s phone. Defendant confirmed he designated Jane Doe on his phone messages as “stupid bitch.” Defendant’s first message to Jane Doe was about money. His other messages to her contained “[s]ome very disparaging derogatory terms.” Defendant texted to Jane Doe “that she’s done, you’re dead,” and “you’re a dead tweaker.” Defendant’s messages to her also contained homophobic and racial slurs. Camara testified defendant threatened to kill her more than 10 times in the text messages.3 3 The prosecution introduced into evidence printouts of the text messages as supporting exhibits. 3. The Charges On December 3, 2024, an information was filed in Stanislaus Superior Court that charged defendant with count 1, criminal threats to Jane Doe (§ 422, subd. (a)); and count 2, assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury on Jane Doe (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). It was further alleged defendant had two prior serious felony conviction enhancements (§ 667, subd. (a)) and two prior strike convictions; and there were aggravating factors based on his numerous and increasing criminal activity, and his prior prison term (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2) & (3)). Plea and Probation Also on December 3, 2024, defendant pleaded no contest to count 1, criminal threats. The trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss the remaining charges and allegations. The trial court placed defendant on formal supervised probation for three years subject to certain terms and conditions, including to obey all laws and completion of a 52-week batterers’ treatment program. The trial court served defendant with a domestic violence criminal protective order that prohibited him from all contact with Jane Doe, harassing, striking, or abusing her, and to stay at least 100 yards away from her home and workplace (§§ 1203.097, subd. (a)(2), 273.5, subd. (j)). 4. PROBATION VIOLATION At 6:00 a.m. on November 2, 2025, Deputy Miguel Garcia responded to dispatch about a 911 call of a possible domestic violence incident, where a female and male could be heard in the background and the call was suddenly disconnected.4 Garcia responded to the location where the phone “pinged” in Modesto, and met Jane Doe. She was upset and the majority of her sweatshirt was wet. Jane Doe said a few hours earlier, defendant entered her own home (in another location) through an unlocked door, without notice or permission. He immediately argued and accused her of cheating on him. Defendant dragged her outside by the hair and forcibly put her inside his vehicle. Jane Doe said defendant drove erratically at a high rate of speed and made random turns. Defendant had a knife, and he threatened to slash her throat and kill her. Jane Doe said she asked to get out of the vehicle and defendant refused. Defendant eventually stopped at a market. Jane Doe tried to get out but defendant started to drive again. Defendant drove to his own residence, which was a trailer. Jane Doe said defendant pulled into an alley, apparently near his trailer. Defendant grabbed her cellphone and put it inside his trailer. Jane Doe again tried to get out of the car. Defendant returned with a shovel and hit her left hip and buttocks. They struggled over the shovel, Jane Doe got control of it, and defendant let it go. Defendant grabbed a hose and sprayed Jane Doe with water. Jane Doe said she went into the trailer with defendant and they argued. Jane Doe said she regained control of her cellphone and called 911. Defendant took her cellphone by force and then he ran away. 4 The following evidence about the probation violation is from the contested evidentiary hearing held on November 19, 2025. 5. Jane Doe reported injuries to her left hip and buttocks area, and a female deputy took photographs of bruises. Another deputy found a knife in a nearby trash can, and two shovels. On November 3, 2025, Detective Alejandro Fuentes located defendant. Defendant admitted he had been with Jane Doe on numerous times between October 31 and November 2, 2025, including the incident described by Jane Doe. Revocation of Probation On November 4, 2025, the probation officer filed a notice with the trial court that defendant violated probation because he was arrested on November 3, 2025, for committing new offenses against Jane Doe and violating the criminal protective order. The notice stated defendant was arrested for committing multiple offenses, including burglary, kidnapping, and a new charge of criminal threats. On November 5, 2025, the trial court summarily revoked defendant’s probation. On November 10, 2025, defendant requested a contested evidentiary hearing on the probation violation. In addition, several new charges were filed against him based on the November 2, 2025, incident.5 Evidentiary Hearing On November 19, 2025, the trial court conducted a joint preliminary hearing on the new charges filed against defendant, and a contested evidentiary hearing on his alleged probation violation. The prosecution introduced the evidence summarized above. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court held defendant to answer in the new case for committing the following offenses against Jane Doe on November 2, 2025: count 2, first degree burglary (§ 459); count 3, kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)); count 4, criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)) with a deadly weapon enhancement (§ 12022, 5 The instant record does not contain the complaint that was filed for the new charges arising from the November 2, 2025 incident, but the trial court later recited the counts that defendant was being held to answer to. 6. subd. (b)(1)); count 5, assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); count 6, robbery (§ 211); count 7, infliction of a corporal injury (§ 273.5, subd. (a)); count 8, misdemeanor drawing a deadly weapon in a threatening manner (§ 417, subd. (a)(1)); count 9, misdemeanor intentional and knowing violation of a court order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)); and count 10, misdemeanor destroying a cellphone to prevent calling for help (§ 591.5). The trial court also found defendant violated probation based on committing new offenses and violating the protective order. Sentencing On January 21, 2026, the trial court convened the scheduled sentencing hearing in the probation violation case. The court stated the prosecutor would move to dismiss the new charges filed against defendant for the incident on November 2, 2025, for insufficient evidence if defendant was sentenced to prison in the probation violation case. The parties agreed and the court dismissed the second case. As to the original case, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years for his conviction of committing criminal threats. On the same day, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION As noted above, defendant’s counsel filed a Wende brief with this court. The brief also included counsel’s declaration indicating that defendant was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on July 23, 2026, we invited defendant to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so. After independent review of the record, we find that no other reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. 7.