Court Opinion

ID: 9893391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-26 20:04:17.942881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:00.914753
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/26/23 P. v. Robinson CA2/4
            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

     IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                       DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,                                                   B325214

       Plaintiff and Respondent,                              Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No. 2PH04820
       v.

JOSHUA ROBINSON,

       Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Robert M. Mawahara, Judge Pro Tempore.
Affirmed.
      A. William Bartz, Jr., under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
       Defendant and appellant Joshua Devin Robinson was
convicted of a felony that required him to register as a sex
offender under Penal Code section 290. In 2022, the Division of
Adult Parole Operations filed a petition in the trial court to
revoke Robinson’s parole. The petition alleged Robinson was in
violation of a parole condition prohibiting him from associating
“with any known sex offenders, except as previously approved or
instructed by [his] parole agent.” Robinson denied the allegation.
The case was set for a contested parole revocation hearing.
       At the hearing, Robinson’s parole agent, Alejandra Rocchi,
testified to the following. After agreeing to the above-mentioned
parole condition, Robinson was fitted with a G.P.S. monitoring
device. In August 2022, using the G.P.S. monitor, Rocchi noticed
Robinson was at the home address of a parolee named O’Hara, in
Panorama City.1 Rocchi was also supervising O’Hara at the time,
and he too was a registered sex offender under Penal Code
section 290. The G.P.S. data showed Robinson was at O’Hara’s
house for about 2 hours and 28 minutes, from 10:18 a.m. until
12:46 p.m. The data also confirmed O’Hara was home during that
time.
       Before this incident, Robinson and O’Hara had been in a
sex offender group treatment class together. Robinson asked
Rocchi for permission to go to O’Hara’s house. Rocchi denied
Robinson’s request, explaining that it would be a violation of his
parole.
       The trial court found Robinson violated parole by
associating with a known sex offender and revoked parole. The
court ordered Robinson confined for 145 days in county jail,

1     Rocchi’s testimony made no mention of O’Hara’s first name.

                                2
awarded custody credit, and stated parole would be restored upon
completion of the remaining confinement.
       Robinson timely appealed, and we appointed counsel to
represent him. On May 3, 2023, appellate counsel filed a brief
raising no issues and asking us to review the record
independently under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Robinson did not respond to our letter advising him of his right to
file supplemental briefing.
       We have examined the entire record, and are satisfied no
arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-
279 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Wende, supra, 25
Cal.3d at p. 443.)

                         DISPOSITION

      The order is affirmed.

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                   CURREY, P. J.
We concur:

MORI, J.

ZUKIN, J.

                                3