People v. Dobshinsky CA1/3

Filed 7/21/14 P. v. Dobshinsky CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A140127, A141617 v. ALLEN M. DOBSHINSKY, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. Nos. PRL200277, Defendant and Appellant. PRL200450)

Allen M. Dobshinsky (appellant) appeals from two final judgments entered following contested parole revocation hearings. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and shall affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Case No. A140127 On August 27, 2013, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDC) filed a petition for revocation of appellant’s parole in Sonoma County Superior Court. The petition alleged that appellant had absconded parole supervision from July to August of 2013. John Thompson testified at the revocation hearing that he had been employed by the CDC as a parole agent for approximately five years. Beginning in January 2013,

1

appellant was among the parolees Thompson was supervising, and on July 18, 2013, they met in the Santa Rosa parole office for an interview, as required by the conditions of appellant’s parole. Appellant advised Thompson that he was going to be homeless, and Thompson instructed appellant to report to him in person at the Santa Rosa office every Thursday morning between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. beginning July 24, 2013, so that they could maintain contact, which was also a condition of appellant’s parole. Appellant was also required to obey the orders of his supervising parole agent. If Thompson was not present at the office, appellant was supposed to signin on the sign-in log in the parole office lobby. On July 20, 2013, Thompson happened to see appellant sitting on a sidewalk. Appellant said he was still homeless, and Thompson reminded him of the meeting on July 24. Thompson was in his office from 8:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. on July 24, but appellant did not report on that date. Thompson subsequently checked the sign-in logs for July 23, 24 and 25, 2013, but appellant had not signed in on any of those dates. In an effort to find appellant, Thompson met with appellant’s uncle on July 29. On August 13 and 14, 2013, he checked the areas in town that appellant was known to frequent. Thompson was unable to find appellant. From July 20 to August 16, 2013, Thompson’s only contact with appellant was the one on July 20. Appellant testified that he did not believe the weekly visits were mandatory, and thought he only had to report every month to do a chemical test. He did not recall having a conversation with Thompson on July 18, 2013 about having to come in to the parole office beginning July 24. Appellant further testified that he went to the parole office and signed the sign-in log during the week of July 24, or the week after. He advised the officer of the day that he was there to see Thompson, as he had previously done when reporting. After going outside to smoke a cigarette, appellant returned to the office, but left because it was very crowded. Appellant had anticipated going in to the parole office around August 18, before his 30 days were up, to share the good news that he had several jobs and was signing up for junior college classes. Appellant believed he would be in compliance by