People v. Wilburn CA3

Filed 8/13/25 P. v. Wilburn CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101025

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 24PA000539)

v.

TERRENCE LAMAR WILBURN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Terrence Lamar Wilburn appeals from an order revoking his parole and sentencing him to 180 days in jail. He contends 1) there is insufficient evidence to support the finding that he willfully refused to comply with the condition that he participate in Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring, and 2) the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his parole because any violation was de minimis. We affirm the order. BACKGROUND Defendant was released from jail and placed on parole on a Sunday. Agent Maurrio Deloney was assigned as his parole officer. The parole office provided

1

defendant with notice of his parole conditions. These conditions included requirements that defendant report to parole by 5:00 p.m. on the first business day following his release and comply with all instructions from his parole officer. In addition, because of his prior conviction for a sex offense, defendant was subject to special conditions of parole that required him to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code,1 § 290) and participate in GPS monitoring (§ 3010.10). His GPS monitoring condition specifically stated: “I acknowledge and understand that I shall participate in continuous electronic monitoring; e.g., GPS technology, including any approved GPS modification. The GPS device records my location and provides data. The data is retained indefinitely and may be shared with other law enforcement agencies.” The parole agent read the conditions aloud to defendant. While being advised of his parole conditions, defendant was agitated and refused to sign the form acknowledging the special conditions of his parole, but provided “appropriate, substantive responses.” The morning after his release from custody, defendant went to the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department to register as a section 290 sex offender. Defendant refused to complete his registration until his property was returned by law enforcement. Eventually, defendant went outside and Agent Deloney arrived at the sheriff’s department. Although not a condition of defendant’s parole, parole officers are required to place the GPS on the parolee during their first interaction. Accordingly, Agent Deloney discussed placing the GPS device on defendant. Defendant refused. Defendant understood he was required to have the GPS device placed on his ankle. Despite this understanding, he refused to comply with Agent Deloney’s instructions three or four times. Defendant continued to demand his property be returned and said that he wanted