Court Opinion

ID: 9945938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 20:02:55.068367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:23:21.028024
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/28/24 P. v. Carson CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E080236

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. BPR2201157)

 WILLIAM LEROY CARSON,                                                   OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Gary Polk, Judge.

Affirmed.

         Eric Multhaup, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Heather B.

Arambarri, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
                                     INTRODUCTION

       Defendant and appellant William Carson appeals from the trial court’s finding that

he violated his parole conditions by failing to report to his parole agent within one

working day of his release from custody. We affirm.

                             PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       Defendant’s criminal history includes eight felony convictions and eight

misdemeanor convictions, dating back to 1987. In January 1994, he was convicted of

committing a lewd and lascivious act against a child under 14 (Pen. Code,1 § 288,

subd. (a)), and, as a result, he was required to register as a sex offender.

       In July 2020, defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance

(Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)(1)) and failure to register as a sex offender

(§ 290.018, subd. (b)(1)). He was sentenced to 32 months in prison and subsequently

released on parole under specified conditions, including that he participate in continuous

GPS (Global Positioning System) monitoring and that he report to his parole agent “on

the first working day” following his release from custody. On August 18, 2022,

defendant was returned to county jail for 180 days for absconding and disabling his GPS

device.

       On October 18, 2022, the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) filed a

parole revocation petition (the petition), alleging that defendant violated the condition

that he report to his parole agent “ ‘on the first working day following [his] release,’ ”

       1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise
indicated.

                                               2
and that he failed to report to his parole agent “ ‘within one working day following

release from custody’ ” to have a GPS device affixed to him, pursuant to section 3010.10,

subdivision (a) (for persons required to register as sex offenders). The petition

specifically alleged that defendant was released from county jail on October 6, and failed

to report to the parole office on the first working day after his release (October 7) to have

a GPS device placed on his person. The petition alleged that defendant, instead, reported

to the parole office at approximately 6:00 p.m. on October 10, and he was arrested on

October 11, for the violations. While being transported to the detention center, he was

asked why he failed to report on time. Defendant said he was released on October 6, and

went around looking for his property that his friends were holding for him, and by the

time he realized he needed to report to the parole office, it was closed. The petition also

stated that he had a history of removing and/or disabling his GPS device, he had had

multiple parole violations since his initial release date, and nine of those violations

resulted in his parole being revoked.

       The court held a parole revocation hearing on November 18, 2022. The People

called defendant’s parole agent (the agent) as a witness. The agent testified that he was

assigned to defendant’s case in September 2022, about one month prior to his release

from custody. The agent testified that, under defendant’s parole conditions, he was

required to report to his parole agent on the first working day following his release from

custody, and he was required to participate in continuous GPS monitoring due to his 1994

conviction of lewd and lascivious conduct with a 14-year-old. On Tuesday, October 11,

the agent was routinely checking the county jail website called JIMS (Jail Inmate

                                              3
Management System) for all the parolees on his caseload, and defendant’s name came up.

The agent thereby learned that defendant was released from custody on October 6.

Defendant was thus required to report to him on October 7, which was a Friday. The

agent testified that he did not receive any type of communication from defendant from

October 6 to October 10. He further testified that the parole office was regularly open

Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and that defendant reported to the

parole office after hours on October 10.

       The agent also testified that, on October 11, 2022, he noticed defendant’s GPS

location was not far from the parole office, so he drove over to interview him. The agent

asked defendant why he had not reported to the parole office as required, and defendant

said he was released from custody on October 6, and went to gather his belongings from

his friends, and by the time he realized what time it was on October 7, the office had

closed. Defendant also said he used methamphetamine over the weekend. The agent

asked defendant why he did not report to the parole office on Monday, October 10, and

defendant had nothing to say; he just referred back to using methamphetamine that

weekend.

       The prosecutor asked the agent if he had considered sanctions in this case. The

agent said he did not think sanctions were appropriate since defendant had been on parole

for a long time, had a total of approximately 24 prior parole violations, and had been

continued on parole and “referred to a program” maybe 15 or 16 times. The agent said

defendant had been returned to custody nine times throughout this parole period, so

                                             4
“[t]his [was] nothing new for him.” The agent recommended that defendant be returned

to custody for 180 days.

       On cross-examination, defense counsel showed the agent an alleged printout from

the JIMS website, which reflected that defendant was released from custody on

October 7, 2022. The agent acknowledged the printout indicated defendant was released

on October 7, and that he (the agent) could have been mistaken about defendant’s release

date being October 6. He confirmed that if defendant was released on October 7, he

would have been required to report to the parole office by the end of the business day on

Monday, October 10. At defense counsel’s request, the court then took judicial notice

that October 10 was Columbus Day. Defense counsel reminded the agent that he testified

defendant had a GPS device placed on him on October 10. The agent confirmed that

defendant did not report until 6:00 p.m., which was after hours; thus, he reported an hour

after the office was closed.

       On redirect examination, the agent testified that, when he looked at the JIMS

website to confirm when defendant was released, it said something different than the

printout defense counsel presented in court. The agent also repeated that when he spoke

to defendant, defendant said he was released on October 6, 2022. The agent further

testified that defendant had a history of “disabling, absconding, removing the GPS

device,” and that his previous violation was similar in that his GPS battery went dead,

and he waited until after hours to go to the parole office and put the monitor on a charger.

The agent testified that defendant knew when the office closed, and he was developing a

                                             5
pattern of waiting until the office was closed, perhaps in the hope that his agent was not

at the office and “somebody else deals with it.”

       On cross-examination, the agent testified that parolees still have to report on

federal holidays if it’s a regular working day. The court then addressed the agent and

asked whether the parole office was a state or county office, and the agent confirmed it

was a state office. The court asked if the state recognized Columbus Day as a holiday,

and the agent said it was a regular working day. The court then took judicial notice that

defendant was in court for a revocation hearing on a different case at 1:30 p.m., on

October 6, 2022 and, in that case, defendant was found to be in violation of his parole

supervision, although it was nonwillful; consequently, he was sentenced to 100 days in

custody, his release date was October 6, and he was ordered to report to the parole office

one business day from his release. Defense counsel interjected, “That’s exactly what

happened. He was actually given credit for time served and released that day.” The court

then asked the agent if he knew what time defendant was released, and the agent

responded he only knew that when he looked on the JIMS website, it listed defendant as

being released on October 6, which was consistent with the court’s order that he be

released on October 6. The court confirmed that if defendant was released on October 6,

he would have been required to report to the parole office on October 7; but, if he was

released on October 7, he would have been required to report on October 10. The court

then reiterated that defendant told the agent he was released on October 6. The court

asked more questions, and the agent testified that defendant knew where the parole office

was located, since he had previously checked in there.

                                             6
       Defendant testified on his own behalf and said he did have a parole revocation

hearing on October 6, 2022, and that the court gave him credit for time served for 100

days. However, defendant said he was not released that day. He said he was at the

Banning courthouse until 5:00 p.m. and was transported to the Banning jail at 7:00 p.m.

He was then transported to the Riverside County jail at approximately 7:30 p.m., where

he stayed until he was called to be released, at 1:15 a.m. Defendant said he was not

released until later that morning; thus, his release was October 7. His understanding was

he had to report to the parole office within 24 business hours of his release, not including

the weekend. Defendant said he was confused as to whether Columbus Day was a

holiday, since he always had that day off from school when he was growing up.

However, on the afternoon of October 10, he was “made aware” that it was not a holiday,

so he got on a bus and went as quickly as he could to the parole office, but he was late.

Defendant testified that he arrived at the parole office at 5:15 p.m. or 5:20 p.m., the front

door was locked, and he banged on it, but nobody answered. Defendant said he sat on the

bench outside and “hoped,” since there were still a couple parole officer cars outside.

Sometime later, someone pulled up to the office and the back door opened. Defendant

saw an officer and asked if his parole officer was still there, and the officer said no.

Defendant told that officer he was supposed to report and needed to get a monitor put on

him. So, that officer put a GPS monitor on him. Defendant said that officer told him to

call and make sure he was at the parole office the next day at noon. Defendant just

stayed at the parole office until the morning, since he was homeless. He had gone to get

some breakfast when the agent contacted him. Defendant testified that he told the agent

                                              7
he was released from custody on October 7, and was trying to gather his belongings in

Menifee. The agent then instructed him to report to the parole office, so defendant went

there and was placed in custody.

       The court heard closing arguments. The prosecutor stated there was a discrepancy

over whether defendant was released on October 6 or October 7, 2022, but asserted that

the court took judicial notice that defendant was ordered to be released on October 6.

The prosecutor stated the agent testified that he saw October 6 listed on the JIMS

website, and also that defendant told the agent he was released on October 6. The only

evidence that defendant was released on October 7 was his own testimony and defense

counsel’s printout, which was never placed into evidence or properly authenticated. The

prosecutor argued that, even if defendant was released on October 7, he was required to

report on October 10, and the only evidence on why he did not do so was his own

testimony that he thought, from his childhood, that Columbus Day was a holiday. The

prosecutor pointed out that defendant was never told he did not have to report on October

10. Further, while defendant might have reported an hour late or 20 minutes or 15

minutes that day, it was still a violation, which warranted a 180-day jail term.

       Defense counsel argued that defendant was not released on October 6, but early in

the morning on October 7; as such, he did not have to report until Monday,

October 10, 2022. Defense counsel acknowledged defendant said it was his childhood

belief that Columbus Day was a holiday; but as soon as he heard he had to report that

day, he hopped on a bus to try and make it to the parole office. Defense counsel admitted

defendant was late. He stated defendant “acknowledges that he was 15 minutes late and

                                             8
it is a violation.” Defense counsel then argued he did not believe that “180 days in

custody fits the crime for being 15 minutes late.” Counsel contended the Penal Code did

not mandate a sanction of 180 days; rather, the court had discretionary authority to take

intermediate sanctions. Defense counsel reiterated he did not believe defendant deserved

180 days in custody, even if he was 15 minutes late and failed to report in a timely

manner or comply with the GPS monitoring requirement. He concluded that defendant

allowed the GPS to be placed on him on October 10, which was the deadline, and noted

the parole officer who affixed the GPS elected not to arrest him at that time. Thus,

defense counsel requested the court give defendant credit for time served and place him

in a drug program.

       The court asked defense counsel for a copy of the JIMS printout, which had not

been submitted earlier to the court. The prosecutor said he reviewed the printout when

defense counsel gave him a copy while he was questioning the witness. The prosecutor

felt that the printout was incorrect, just because it was not properly authenticated. He

further noted that the agent said in his report he had a JIMS printout that reflected a

different date, “[s]o no one can probably authenticate this specific date and JIMS

printout.” The prosecutor said the agent handed him a copy of that JIMS printout, but it

was never disclosed to the defense, which is why the prosecutor decided not to introduce

it. The prosecutor further argued that, since defendant had violated his probation several

times, intermediate sanctions were not appropriate.

       The court found defendant in violation of his probation. It noted that, on

October 6, 2022, he had a parole violation hearing and was given credit for time served,

                                              9
“and instead of that getting his attention, he [did not] register.” The court acknowledged

defense counsel’s argument that defendant checked in, albeit late, and the person did not

take him into custody at that time; however, the court remarked that that person was not

defendant’s parole officer and was not familiar with his file. The court then sentenced

defendant to 150 days. It stated that defendant had 42 actual days in custody and would

get 84 credits for time served, so he would have a release date of December 25. The

court ordered him to report to parole one day from his release, and defendant agreed.

                                       DISCUSSION

 Substantial Evidence Supports the Court’s Finding That Defendant Violated His Parole

       Defendant contends he was denied due process because the evidence did not

support a finding that he violated his parole. He claims there was no substantial evidence

of the actual date he was released from custody. He then argues that he complied with

his parole terms by reporting to the parole office on October 10, 2022, as nothing in his

parole conditions or section 3010 “provides any more specific delineation of the phrase

‘one working day’ ” or says 5:00 p.m. is “a drop-dead cutoff” time for reporting. We

conclude there was substantial evidence to support the court’s finding that defendant

violated his parole.

       Before we address the merits of defendant’s claim, we address the People’s

request that we dismiss the appeal as moot. “An appeal may be dismissed as moot when,

pending the appeal and through no fault of the appellant, an event occurs that renders it

impossible for the reviewing court to grant the appellant any effective relief for the

claims raised on appeal. [Citation.] But a reviewing court has discretion to consider a

                                             10
moot claim if it is of continuing public interest, is likely to recur, and might otherwise

evade appellate review.” (People v. Schaffer (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 500, 506 (Schaffer).)

Citing People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640 (DeLeon), the People contend defendant’s

challenge to the parole revocation is moot, and we are unable to grant any effective relief

because he has already completed the 150-day county jail term for his October 2022

parole violation.

       Defendant had 84 days of custody credits on November 18, 2022, the day he was

ordered to serve the 150-day term. As a parolee confined to county jail (§ 4019, subd.

(a)(5)), he was eligible to earn two days of custody credits for every four days he served

in jail after November 18, 2022. (§ 4019, subds. (b), (c).) We note the court informed

him his release date would be December 25. As the People concede, the record does not

show he was released from custody. However, since well over 150 days have passed

since the November 18 hearing, it is reasonable to assume he has served the 150-day jail

term for his parole violation. Thus, it appears we are unable to grant any effective relief

that would ameliorate that punishment. (See Schaffer, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at p. 506.)

       However, defendant asserts that, in DeLeon, the record showed the defendant in

that case not only served his parole revocation term, but also that his parole had been

terminated. (See DeLeon, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 645.) Defendant argues the People here

have not shown that his parole has been terminated, and he points out that the Riverside

County Sheriff’s website “shows that as of September 14, 2023, [he] is in custody at the

Robert Presley Detention Center.” Because of defendant’s extensive criminal history

reflected in the record, it is unclear if his parole period in the instant case has been

                                              11
terminated and/or why he is currently in custody. Even if his parole period has not been

terminated and his appeal is not moot, defendant’s claim that the evidence did not support

a finding that he violated his parole has no merit.

       A. Relevant Law

       Upon a finding that a person has violated the conditions of his parole, a court has

the authority to “[r]evoke parole and order the person to confinement in a county jail.”

(§ 3000.08, subd. (f)(2).) Confinement shall not exceed a period of 180 days.

(§ 3000.08, subd. (g).) “Parole revocation determinations shall be based upon a

preponderance of evidence admitted at hearings including documentary evidence, direct

testimony, or hearsay evidence offered by parole agents, peace officers, or a victim.”

(§ 3044, subd. (a)(5).) We review an order revoking parole for abuse of discretion and

review the court’s factual findings for substantial evidence.2 (People v. Butcher (2016)

247 Cal.App.4th 310, 318 (Butcher); People v. Urke (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 766, 772.)

“Under that standard, our review is limited to the determination of whether, upon review

of the entire record, there is substantial evidence of solid value, contradicted or

uncontradicted, which will support the trial court’s decision. In that regard, we give great

deference to the trial court and resolve all inferences and intendments in favor of the

       2 “In 2012 the Legislature amended section 1203.2 to incorporate parole into the
statutes governing revocation of probation, mandatory supervision, and postrelease
community supervision.” (DeLeon, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 647.) “Together, sections
1203.2 and 3000.08 establish a statutory framework for parole revocation.” (Ibid.;
see People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 441 [“Parole and probation revocation
hearings are equivalent in terms of the requirements of due process.”].)

                                             12
judgment. Similarly, all conflicting evidence will be resolved in favor of the decision.”

(People v. Kurey (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 840, 848-849 (Kurey).)

       B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Court’s Finding That Defendant Violated

His Parole

       At the outset, we note that, during closing arguments, defense counsel stated

defendant “acknowledges that he was 15 minutes late, and it is a violation.” Thus,

defendant apparently admitted he was in violation of his parole, and defense counsel

argued that defendant still had the GPS affixed to him on the day he was required to.

However, defendant now claims there was an “absence of evidence that a parole violation

occurred.” Assuming arguendo defendant has not waived his argument, we conclude

there was substantial evidence to support the court’s finding of a violation.

       The prosecution only had to prove that defendant violated his probation by a

preponderance of the evidence. (See § 3044, subd. (a)(5).) The agent testified that when

he reviewed the JIMS website on October 11, 2022, it reflected that defendant was

released from custody on October 6.3 Defendant claims the JIMS report on the website

was hearsay and therefore could not be considered substantial evidence. However,

hearsay evidence offered by parole agents is admissible at parole revocation hearings.

       3 In his reply brief, defendant argues that the agent did not provide documentation
for this assertion and that the prosecutor did not comply with the Evidence Code
requirements for the admission of business records and records by public employees.
However, defendant failed to make this argument in his opening brief. “Withholding a
point until the reply brief deprives the respondent of an opportunity to answer it,
however. Hence, a point raised for the first time therein is deemed waived and will not
be considered, unless good reason is shown for failure to present it before.” (People v.
Baniqued (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 13, 29.) No good cause is shown here.

                                             13
(Ibid.) In any event, the agent also testified that, when he made the field contact with

defendant, defendant said he was released from jail on October 6. Furthermore, the court

took judicial notice that defendant was in court for a revocation hearing on a different

case on October 6, was found to be in violation of his parole supervision, and was

released from custody the same day. At that point, defense counsel even agreed that

defendant was released on October 6. Accordingly, defendant was required to report to

the parole office on the next working day. It is undisputed that he did not report on

Friday, October 7. Thus, there was substantial evidence that defendant was in violation

of the parole condition requiring him to report to his parole agent “ ‘on the first working

day following [his] release’ ” from custody.

       Defendant points out that the parties disputed whether he was released from

custody on October 6 or October 7, 2022, and he asserts that neither party presented any

substantial evidence as to the actual date of his release. However, he then goes on to

argue that he was released “sometime during the morning hours of October 7,” and he

complied with his obligation since he reported to the parole office and had a GPS device

placed on him on October 10. Assuming defendant was released from custody on the

morning of October 7, he was still in violation of his parole condition. With an October

7, release date, he would have been required to report on “the first working day”

thereafter, which was Monday, October 10. Section 3010.10, subdivision (a), also

required him to report to his parole agent “within one working day following release from

custody” to have a GPS device affixed to him. (§ 3010.10, subd. (a).) The agent testified

that the parole office’s hours of operation were 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Defendant did not

                                             14
report to the parole office until after business hours on October 10. The agent testified he

reported at 6:00 p.m. Defendant testified he arrived there at 5:15 p.m. or 5:20 p.m., and

the front door was locked. Whichever time it was, the working day was over. Defense

counsel acknowledged at the revocation hearing that defendant “was 15 minutes late, and

it [was] a violation.”

       Defendant next argues that nothing in his parole conditions or section 3010.10

“provide for a witching hour of 5:00 p.m. as a drop-dead cutoff” for reporting to the

parole office. He contends that “[c]ommon sense tells us that if a parolee reported at 5:15

and there was a Parole Officer available to handle the installation of the GPS device, the

parolee would be in compliance.” As the court noted, the person who gave defendant a

GPS device after hours on October 10, 2022 was not his parole officer and not familiar

with his file. Furthermore, assuming defendant was released on the morning of October

7, he had a full working day to report to his parole agent that day, and, after having an

entire weekend out of custody, another full working day to report on October 10.

Nonetheless, as the trial court commented, defendant did not ensure compliance with the

reporting condition, even though he had just been granted credit for time served on

another revocation. We also note the agent’s testimony that the circumstances of

defendant’s previous parole violation were similar to this violation, where his GPS

battery died and he waited until after hours to go to the office. The agent observed that

defendant seemed to be developing a pattern where he would wait until the office was

closed before he reported. The agent testified that defendant knew when the office

closed, which was 5:00 p.m.

                                             15
       As with so many other government deadlines, including court appearances,

appearing after business hours is not compliance with an action which must be completed

by a specified date. For example, no one could reasonably suggest that appearing for

court, after the court has closed for the day, constitutes an appearance that day. Thus, the

more reasonable interpretation of compliance within a working day means prior to the

close of that business day.

       Viewing the evidence in a light favorable to the judgment, as we must, we

conclude there was substantial evidence to support the court’s finding that defendant

violated his parole. (See Butcher, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 318; Kurey, supra,

88 Cal.App.4th at pp. 848-849.) Thus, the court properly revoked his parole and

sentenced him to 150 days in jail.4

       4 As respondent points out, the court could have imposed a maximum of 180 days
in jail, but chose to give defendant 150 days. (§ 3000.08, subds. (f)(2), (g).)

                                             16
                                 DISPOSITION

     The judgment is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                               FIELDS
                                                        J.
We concur:

MILLER
             Acting P. J.

CODRINGTON
                       J.

                                   17