People v. Rogers CA4/1

Filed 3/20/25 P. v. Rogers CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083905

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS323318)

KEITH LAMAR ROGERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Enrique Camarena, Judge. Affirmed. Jared G. Coleman for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier and Joy Utomi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I INTRODUCTION Keith Lamar Rogers pleaded guilty to one count of failure to register as a sex offender and was placed on formal probation for two years subject to a condition that he submit to polygraph testing at the direction of his probation officer. Upon Rogers’ release from custody, he went into a polygraph service provider’s office at the instruction of his probation officer. However, he refused to sign a standard release form necessary to receive polygraph testing, told the office manager he neither wanted nor needed to submit to polygraph testing, and was asked to leave the office due to his aggressive and disruptive demeanor. The trial court found Rogers violated his polygraph testing probation condition, revoked probation, declined to reinstate probation, and sentenced him to state prison for two years. On appeal from the judgment of conviction, Rogers contends the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked and declined to reinstate his probation. He claims: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that he violated his polygraph testing probation condition; and (2) assuming a violation of the probation condition, the court nonetheless abused its discretion because the violation was de minimis. We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment. II BACKGROUND A. Probation Sentence Rogers is subject to a mandatory lifetime sex offender registration requirement. He is required to reregister as a sex offender within five working days upon his release after spending more than 30 days in custody.