Our office often receives phone calls from folks with a sense of panic in their voice. The caller explains that he or she is on probation and “picked up a new case.” The person is concerned that if they are convicted on the “new case,” they will be found in violation of their probation and remanded to county jail or state prison. The concern is valid.

The conversation then usually goes in the wrong direction. The caller asks for reassurance that if they plead “No Contest,” as compared to pleading “Guilty,” to the new charges, it will not be a probation violation. After all, pleading “Guilty” is an admission.

A “no contest” plea is indeed distinguishable from a “guilty” plea. Once who pleas “no contest” does not admit factual guilt, although it allows him to be punished as if guilty to take advantage of a plea bargain.

A recent case addressed this issue. In May, 2008, Timothy Thomas Raven pled no contest to one count of possessing methamphetamine and one count of possessing a deadly weapon. In July, 2008 the court suspended imposition of a three year, eight month prison term and placed defendant on three years of probation. One condition of his probation was that he obey all laws.

About two years after his plea and before his probation ended, Raven was arrested for felony possession of a concealed dirk or dagger (Penal Code Section 12020(a)(4), felony possession of methamphetamine (Health and Safety Code Section 11377(a)) and a misdemeanor displaying false vehicle registration (Vehicle Code Section 4462.5). Raven then pled no contest to two misdemeanor counts. His attorney refused to stipulate to a factual basis for the plea under People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595.

Rover’s probation was then revoked and the three year, eight month sentence was imposed. Raven appealed. Raven contended that evidence of his later conviction was insufficient to establish his commission of a crime due to his “no contest” plea entered under People vs. Wes, After all, he explicitly did not admit quilt. Therefore, Raven argued, his plea could not have a collateral effect or use to prove he violated any law, and hence probation.

The First Appellate District court in People v. Raven (2011 DJDAR 17234) disagreed. City Evidence Code