Background
James Jeffrey Hoff pleaded no contest on December 3, 2024, to making criminal threats against Jane Doe, his then-cohabitant. The stipulated factual basis came from a preliminary hearing held on November 19, 2024, concerning a November 1, 2024 incident. Deputies responding to a 911 open-line call found Hoff and Doe at a parked car. Doe said she made the 911 call but nothing physical happened between them. Later, outside Hoff's presence, she became emotional and said he choked her for three to four seconds and said, 'Bitch, I'm going to kill you.' A deputy observed redness on her neck. Another deputy testified about text messages in which Hoff repeatedly threatened to kill Doe and used derogatory language.
The prosecution originally charged criminal threats and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, together with prior-conviction allegations and aggravating factors. After Hoff's no contest plea to criminal threats, the trial court dismissed the remaining charges and allegations. It imposed three years of formal supervised probation, required obedience to all laws and completion of a 52-week batterers' treatment program, and served a domestic violence protective order barring contact with Doe and requiring Hoff to stay away from her home and workplace.
On November 4, 2025, the probation officer filed a notice stating Hoff was arrested on November 3, 2025, for committing new offenses against Doe and violating the criminal protective order. The trial court summarily revoked probation on November 5, 2025. At a contested November 19, 2025 evidentiary hearing, the prosecution presented evidence that Hoff entered Doe's home without permission, forced her into his vehicle, threatened her with a knife, struck her with a shovel, and took her cellphone. Hoff admitted being with Doe on numerous occasions between October 31 and November 2, including the incident she described. The trial court found that he violated probation by committing new offenses and violating the protective order.
The Court’s Holding
At the January 21, 2026 sentencing hearing, the court stated the prosecutor would move to dismiss the new-case charges for insufficient evidence if Hoff received a prison sentence in the probation-violation case. The parties agreed, and the court dismissed the second case. In the original case, it denied probation and imposed the midterm of two years for the criminal-threats conviction. Hoff filed a timely notice of appeal that same day. The opinion does not decide the merits of the dismissed new charges or identify any remaining issue concerning them.
Hoff's appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende that summarized the facts with record citations, raised no issues, and requested independent review. Counsel's declaration stated that Hoff had been advised he could file his own brief. The Court of Appeal invited additional briefing by letter dated July 23, 2026, but Hoff did not submit any. After independently reviewing the record, the court found no other reasonably arguable factual or legal issues and affirmed the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting the independent record review requested in appointed counsel's Wende brief.
- Hoff received the midterm sentence of two years in prison for his criminal-threats conviction after the trial court denied probation.
- The probation violation rested on the trial court's findings that Hoff committed new offenses and violated the domestic violence protective order.
- The separate charges arising from the November 2, 2025 incident were dismissed by agreement after the court stated the prosecutor would move to dismiss them for insufficient evidence if Hoff was sentenced to prison in the probation case.
- Hoff did not file a supplemental brief despite receiving notice of his right to do so and a specific invitation from the Court of Appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision concludes Hoff's appeal without identifying a sentencing or probation-revocation error. Its substantive result is affirmance of the two-year prison sentence following an independent Wende review, rather than a new legal ruling on criminal threats, protective orders, or probation revocation.
The opinion also distinguishes the affirmed probation-case judgment from the separate prosecution arising from the later incident. That second case was dismissed under the parties' sentencing agreement, and the appellate court did not separately adjudicate those allegations.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket