People v. Harris CA1/5

California Court of Appeal Sep 12, 2024 No. A169703Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that the defendant violated his probation by failing to report employment, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying probation to include GPS monitoring.

Issues

Whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that the defendant violated a probation condition requiring notice of employment changes.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing GPS monitoring as a modified condition of probation.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The condition required appellant to advise probation of ‘any’ employment change in writing ‘within’ 48 hours. There is no indication in the condition’s language or the record that employment lasting less than 48 hours is exempt”

“Given the totality of the circumstances, including appellant’s lack of transparency in his dealings with probation and the change from appellant having a fixed address to having no address, the trial court could reasonably conclude GPS monitoring”

Filed 9/12/24 P. v. Harris CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169703 v. AYUKO MEDICO HARRIS, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR330003) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant and appellant Ayuko Medico Harris (appellant) appeals following the trial court’s finding of a probation violation and imposition of global positioning system (GPS) monitoring as an additional condition of probation. We affirm. BACKGROUND In November 2017, the Solano County District Attorney filed an information charging appellant with sexual penetration of a child under the age of 10 (Pen. Code,1 § 288.7, subd. (b); counts 1 and 2); lewd act on a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a); count 3); lewd act on a child of 14 or 15 years by a person at least 10 years older (§ 288, subd. (c)(1); counts 4 and 5);

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

attempted oral copulation on a person under the age of 18 (§§ former 288a,2 664; count 6); annoying or molesting a child (§ 647.6, subd. (a); count 7); and disobeying a court order (§ 273.6, subd. (a); count 8).3 In February 2022, pursuant to a plea bargain, the information was amended to charge appellant with sexual penetration of a person under the age of 18 (§ 289, subd. (h); count 9). Appellant pled no contest to that count and the remaining charges were dismissed. In July 2022, the trial court placed appellant on three years’ probation, with terms including 333 days in jail and sex offender registration. In April 2023, the probation department filed a report of a probation violation.4 The report recommended imposition of GPS monitoring as an additional term of probation. In August, appellant filed an objection to the alleged probation violation and GPS monitoring. In August 2023, the trial court held a hearing and found appellant in violation of probation for failing to notify the probation officer of changes to his employment within 48 hours. In January 2024, the trial court modified the probation conditions by requiring GPS monitoring and forbidding

People v. Harris CA1/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

SIMONS, J.

JACKSON, P. J. CHOU, J.

AI Brief