Court Opinion

ID: 9953759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 20:02:53.789737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:48.490275
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/22/24 P. v. Cooper CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE,                                                      B326907

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                              (Los Angeles County
                                                                 Super. Ct. No. 2PH05604)
          v.

JORDAN COOPER,

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Robert M. Kawahara, Judge. Affirmed.
         Cynthia L. Barnes, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David A. Voet, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                              ___________________________
       After finding that appellant Jordan Cooper, a convicted sex
offender, violated the terms of his parole supervision by letting
the battery die on his GPS monitoring device, the trial court
revoked his parole and ordered him to serve 180 days in county
jail under Penal Code section 3010.10, subdivisions (b) and (e).1
Cooper contends the trial court lacked substantial evidence to
support its finding. We disagree and affirm.
             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       In 2019, appellant Jordan Cooper pled no contest to
conspiracy to commit pandering (§§ 182, 266i). The trial court
suspended the imposition of an eight-month sentence and placed
Cooper on probation for three years. In 2020, Cooper pled no
contest to robbery (§ 211) and sexual battery (§ 243), was
sentenced to three years for the former and six months for the
latter, to run concurrently, in addition to eight months (that had
been suspended in the prior case) to run consecutively. He was
ordered to register as a sex offender.
       Cooper was released from prison under parole supervision
in mid-September 2022, on the condition (among others) that he
wear a GPS monitoring device and charge the device at least
twice a day every 12 hours for at least one full hour each
charging time. Despite agreeing to these terms, on
September 22, 2022, Cooper allowed the battery to die on his GPS
tracking device, and rendered it inoperable for two hours. Cooper
had previously had a problem with the device and received a new
charger for it on September 20, 2022. Cooper charged the battery
for 32 minutes on the morning of September 21, 2022. When the
battery on the device gets low, it vibrates every 10 minutes. The
battery hit low at 8:26 p.m. on September 21, 2022. It then died

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                2
at 3:05 a.m. on September 22, 2022, 21 hours after the 32-minute
charging session on the morning prior.
       On September 28, 2022, the People filed a petition for
revocation of parole charging Cooper with disabling his GPS
tracking device (§§ 1203.2, 3010.10). Cooper denied the
allegation, and a contested parole revocation hearing occurred on
November 2, 2022. At that hearing, Cooper explained that the
GPS device “wouldn’t hold the charge,” and that the new charger
he received in the days before the dead battery incident “didn’t
help at all.” However, he admitted he had no information about
how long the charge was supposed to last, and he could provide
no estimation, whether in hours or minutes, of how long the
charge did in fact last after he charged it. Cooper admitted he
knew he was supposed to charge the device every morning and
evening for an hour each time, but testified that he could not
remember whether he complied with that rule. Cooper testified
that he charged the device when he “felt like” he was supposed to
charge it. He also testified that he fell asleep between 8:00 p.m.
and 9:00 p.m., was on medication that made him very drowsy,
and did not feel the device vibrate on the night/early morning the
battery died.
       At the close of evidence, the trial court observed, “there was
a full day on . . . September 21, where he should have and he
failed to charge the device prior to falling asleep . . . .” The court
then found Cooper violated Penal Code section 3010.10 by
disabling his GPS and acknowledged that the statute gave him
“no discretion” but to impose a 180-day sentence. Cooper was
given credit for 84 days, consisting of 42 actual days and 42 good
time/worktime days.

                                  3
                            DISCUSSION
       Cooper argues that substantial evidence did not support
the trial court’s finding that his parole violation was willful or
intentional. (See People v. Galvan (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 978,
981 [revocation of probation requires finding willful violation of
probation terms].) We review the trial court’s order revoking
parole for abuse of discretion, and its factual findings for
substantial evidence. (People v. Butcher (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th
310, 318.)
       Substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that
Cooper’s parole violation was willful. To be released on parole,
Cooper agreed to wear a GPS monitor and charge it twice a day
every 12 hours for at least one full hour each time. Within days
of being released, Cooper allowed the GPS battery to die on
September 22, 2022. He had reported a prior issue with the GPS
device and had received a new charger for it on September 20,
2022. But the next day, he only charged the battery for 32
minutes and it died 21 hours later. Cooper admitted he knew he
was supposed to charge the device every morning and evening for
an hour each, and he did not refute he charged it a mere 32
minutes the day before it died.
       On appeal, Cooper argues “he was working with his parole
agent to resolve a charging problem.” Even if this were
supported by the record, the record also supports the reasonable
inference that Cooper knew he was supposed to charge the GPS
monitor but simply decided not to fulfill that responsibility.
(People v. Ortiz (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1363 [“when two or
more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, a
reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for
those of the trial court”].) Sufficient evidence accordingly

                                4
supports the trial court’s finding, and there was no abuse of
discretion in revoking Cooper’s parole. (See People v. Zaring
(1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 362, 379 [irresponsible behavior or
disrespect for orders and expectations of court justifies revocation
of probation]; People v. Kingston (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 272, 278
[same].)
                          DISPOSITION
      The order is affirmed.

                                           LEE, J.*
WE CONCUR:

                        BAKER, Acting P. J.

                        MOOR, J.

     Judge of the San Bernardino Superior Court, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.

                                 5