How has the Court treated its error in granting probation to a defendant who was later convicted of assault?

We then analyzed the trial court's error under the Watson² harmless error standard and concluded there was no reasonable probability of a result more favorable to defendant had the error not occurred. (People v. Dobbins, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at pp. 182-183.) In supporting this conclusion, we stated as follows: "The original probation report apprised the trial court of defendant's background and other relevant information. And his record was such (including as it did numerous violations and periods of incarceration) that there was little justification for a further grant of probation. Moreover, the trial court was aware . . . that defendant's conduct while on probation had been poor. The judge who sentenced defendant was the same judge who presided over the trial and was thus intimately acquainted with the facts underlying his violation of probation, which involved use of a weapon. Considering these circumstances, there is no reason to believe that additional information would have led to reinstatement of probation." (Id. at. p. 183.)