What is the difference between a defendant's failure to comply with the terms of his probation and his subsequent breach of probation?

The instant case is significantly different from both Galvan and Zaring. Unlike Galvan, there is evidence here as to when defendant reentered the United States. He did so in early 2001, and thereafter never made any attempt to comply with the condition of probation that he serve 180 days in the county jail. Although defendant makes much of the supposed distinction that he, unlike the defendant in Galvan, was never expressly ordered to report to probation upon his reentry into the United States, defendant was nevertheless fully aware of his obligation to serve 180 days in jail, an obligation he knew he had not fulfilled, and which he even took deliberate steps to avoid for seven or eight years after his return. Thus, in contrast to Zaring, here we may conclude that defendant's failure to fulfill the terms of his probation was "the result of irresponsibility, contumacious behavior or disrespect for the orders and expectations of the court." (People v. Zaring, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 379.)