California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Hinkston, B265925 (Cal. App. 2017):
6. Zaring, cited by appellant, does not compel a contrary conclusion. In Zaring, the trial court accepted the probationer's explanation she was 22 minutes late because she had to take her children to school due to a "last minute unforeseen circumstance," but the trial court nonetheless found her in violation of probation for failing to appear in court on time. (People v. Zaring, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 379.) Zaring concluded the trial court abused its discretion because there was no evidence the defendant's tardiness was "the result of irresponsibility, contumacious behavior or disrespect for the orders and expectations of the court." (Ibid.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.