Is a defendant entitled to an updated probation report because the probation officer mistakenly believed that he was ineligible for probation?

Finally, defendant asserts that he is entitled to an "updated probation report" because "the probation officer mistakenly believed [defendant] was ineligible for probation," and therefore failed to comply with rule 4.411.5(a)(9)(A), requiring a " 'reasoned discussion of the defendant's suitability and eligibility for probation . . . .' " "A probation report is advisory only. [Citation.]" (People v. Llamas (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 35, 40.) As we have explained, there is no indication the trial court based its decision on the probation report with regard to ineligibility and every indication that it did not. In addition, the report discussed rule 4.414 criteria affecting probation. The report identified factors related to the seriousness of the crime and the defendant, including that he was a passive participant, had a minor criminal record, and was remorseful, all of which were discussed by the court at the sentencing hearing. In any event, defendant did not preserve this issue by objecting to the probation officer's report in the trial court. (People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 234.)

We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying defendant probation.

Page 15

The judgment is affirmed.