Filed 12/7/20 P. v. Montes d e Oca CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b ). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE

,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM M ONTES DE OCA

,
Defendant and Appellant. B 3000 64

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 9PH 01947 )

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert M. Kawahara

, Judge. Affirme d

. Karyn H. Bucur , under appointme nt by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant

. Xavier Becerra , Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Michael R. Johnsen and Theresa A.
Patterson

, Deputy At torneys General

, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * *2 Defendant and appellant William Montes de Oca appeals from the court’s order revoking his parole and remanding him to the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
and the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole Hearings for fut ure parole consideration.
We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was convicted of second degree murder in October 1988 and sentenced to life with the possibility of parole ( Super . Ct. L.A. Cou nty, No. A956489). In December 2017, defendant was released on supervised lifetime parole. (Pen. Code, § 3000.1.) The petition for revocation of defendant’s parole, filed on March 21, 2019, reported the relevant terms and conditions of par ole, the circumstances of the alleged violation,
and defendant’s pertinent history and background, and explained why his parole agent , Don Gonzale s , recommend ed parole be
revoked . We summarize below the petition and the testimony at the parole revocation hearing. The terms and conditions of parole , acknowledged and signed by defendant before his release from prison, included the condition that he report to his parole agent on the first working day after his release from custody and provide his residence address, telephone number, and employment information

. The terms and conditions also required that he report to his parole agent
, in advance

, any anticipated change of residence, and that
he inform his parole agent within 72 hours of any change of employ er, employment location or termination of employment. Defendant initially was placed in a transitional housing program that “ addresse [d] anti

- social cognitions and promote [d] a positive reintegration ” and he also received “ other resources”3

from the Div ision of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO).
Mr. Gonzales spoke with defendant by cell phone and “carefully explained” that a warrant could be issued if he failed to report. Defendant repeatedly said, “I’ll be there, Gonzales , I’ll be there.”
Mr. Gonzales a lso spoke with a program representative by cell phone , who said he further emphasized to defendant the importance that he “absolutely needed” to check in with his parole agent. But defendant left the program without permission and without leaving a forwar ding address.
A warrant issued and defendant was arrested for absconding from parole supervision on January 15, 2019. He was released from custody on January 18 “unbeknownst to DAPO” (appar ently, the c oun ty j ail did not place a parole hold on
defendant’ s release), and he did not report to Mr. Gonzales

. Mr. Gonzales made many unsuccessful attempts to locate
defendant , including driving through the high transient areas of Los Angeles and speaking with a representative of the program
from which he absconde d to ask if they had heard from defendant and request that

, if he arrived unannounced, they tell him to check in with his parole agent

. Mr. Gonzales submitted a second

warrant
, and on March 15, 2019, defendant was arrested again

. The petition to revoke parole stated that “[i]ntermediate sanctions have been considered. However, they have been deemed not appropriate at this time. ” The petition explained
d efendant i s a 52

- year

- old lifer parolee on parole for murder, who left his transitional housing prog ram “without prior approval from DAPO and failed to provide a forwarding address.”
Defendant “is a chronic absconder.” DAPO considered referring defendant to a residential drug treatment program as an
intermediate sanction to address this violation but c oncluded “his4

negative behavior has clearly escalated and has become a lifestyle.”
T he contested revocation hearing was held on April 29,
2019

. Defendant did not demur to the petition or otherwise object that the petition failed to comply with statutory requirements.
Mr. Gonzales testified to the efforts he made to locate defendant, including contacting the transitional housing program
defendant left without notice to see if he had been in touch with anyone there

, and looking for him on the streets. M r. Gonzales received no calls or messages from defendant

, and defendant’s name was not on any of the sign

- in sheets at the office

, indicating
defendant had not reported to the parole office sometime when
Mr. Gonzales was out in the field . Mr. Gonzales did receive a message about a month after the second warrant issued that might have been from defendant (the person had a similar accent), but th at person did not leave his name , saying only he
wanted to check in.
Defendant also testified. He said he trie d to call
Mr. Gonzales several days after his release. Defendant also tried to report in person, going to the office in Inglewood to explain he “was out of the county

, ” and he was told Mr. Gonzales was not there. Defendant said his original parole agent used to make
field visits

, and he never had to go into any office to report. Defendant said he left a message for Mr. Gonzales

, who never called him back

. Agent Cecelia Mann testified the parole office in Inglewood
has been closed since 2013 (six yea rs before defendant claimed to have reported there)

.5 The court found defendant’s testimony was not credible and that he had violated the terms of parole. The court revoked parole and remand ed defendant to the custody of the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole Hearings for further consideration in accordance with Penal Code section 3000.08, subdivision (h)

. This appeal
followed.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the court erred in not requiring DAPO

to p lead and prove it had considered intermediate sanctions short
of revocation

, as required by Penal Code section 3000.08, subdivision (f) and California R ule of C ourt , rule 4.541(e).
The contention has been forfeited. Defendant did not challenge the petit ion by way of demurrer or otherwise raise any objection on this ground in the trial court. “ The forfeiture
doctrine is a ‘ well

- established procedural principle that, with certain exceptions, an appellate court will not consider claims of
error that could have been

— but were not

— raised in the trial

court. [Citation.] ’ [Citations.] Strong policy reasons support this
rule: ‘ It is both unfair and inefficient to permit a claim of error on appeal that, if timely brought to the attention of the trial
court, co uld have been easily corrected or avoided. [Citations.] ’ ” ( People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114 ; see also People v. Upsher (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1318 [ “ Objections to defects in the form of an accusatory pleading must be made by way of
d emurrer.

. . . When a defendant fails to demur, ‘ the claimed defect in the information [is] waived. ’ ” ].)
If defendant had raised this objection below, DAPO and the court would have had an opportunity to clarify any claimed ambiguity as to any intermedi ate sanctions considered and6

rejected. H aving not done so, defendant may not raise the issue for the first time on appeal. In any event, his contention has no merit. T he petition
described above complies with the statutory requirements. ( Pen. Code, § 3 000.08 , subd. (f) [“The petition shall include a written report that contains additional information regarding the petition, including the relevant terms and conditions of parole, the circumstances of the alleged underlying violation, the history and backg round of the parolee, and any recommendations

. ”];
Cal

. Rules of Court, r ule 4.541 (e) [“ In addition to the minimum contents described in (c), a report filed by the supervising agency in conjunction with a petition to revoke parole

. . . must include
the rea sons for that agency ’ s determination that intermediate
sanctions without court intervention

. . . are inappropriate responses to the alleged violations. ”].) The petition adequately alleged why DAPO concluded that, despite “ diverse efforts ” to reintegrate defendant back into the community, defendant did not “incorporate” these resources before he absconded, and he
became “ a chronic absconder. ”
DISPOSITION
The order revoking defendant’s parole is affirmed.

GRIMES, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:
ST RATTON, J.

WILEY, J.