People v. Rogers CA1/4

Filed 6/19/15 P. v. Rogers CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, A142269 v. MARIO ROGERS, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 1405885) Defendant and Respondent.

While on parole Mario Rogers, a registered sex offender, removed his GPS monitor, attempted to use it as a communication device to call his parole agent for assistance, and then sat down on a nearby curb for over an hour waiting for help to come. What came was not help, but a petition to revoke his parole for violation of Penal Code section 3010.101. The evidence at Rogers’s parole revocation hearing suggested that his bizarre behavior was a product of mental illness, not an attempt to flee. The trial court nevertheless revoked parole and ordered him incarcerated for 130 days in the county jail, “deviat[ing]” downward from the 180 days specified in the statute because of the unusual circumstances surrounding the violation. The People appeal, contending that section 3010.10, by its express terms, requires that Rogers serve 180 days and gives the trial court no discretion to impose a shorter period of imprisonment. We are asked to reverse and remand with directions that Rogers

1 “A person who is required to register as a sex offender...shall not remove, disable, render inoperable, or knowingly circumvent the operation of...an electronic, GPS, or other monitoring device affixed to his or her person as a condition of parole....” All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 1

be sent to jail for another 50 days. Instead, we conclude the appeal is moot. Because Rogers recently completed his full term of parole, he is no longer subject to the supervisory authority of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) or the jurisdiction of the superior court, and as a result, there is no longer any possibility of our rendering effective relief on appeal. The People urge us to exercise our discretion to decide the appeal notwithstanding its mootness. They contend this is a matter of “continuing public importance,” given the dearth of case law authority under section 3010.10. We do not see it that way. The circumstances surrounding Rogers’ parole violation appear to be idiosyncratic and situational. There is no basis to expect that, by dint of some policy or other circumstance pointing to likely recurrence, this case presents an inherently transient controversy that is bound to repeat itself and yet evade review. Aside from the importance that attaches to proper and just disposition of all criminal matters in accordance with law, we also see nothing here that is a matter of particularly weighty public importance. Accordingly, without endorsing or intimating any view on what the proper length of Rogers’s term of imprisonment for violating parole should have been under section 3010.10, we dismiss the appeal as moot on our own motion. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mario Rogers was placed on parole in May 2011 with a condition requiring him to wear a Global Positioning System (GPS) ankle monitor. On March 13, 2014, the CDCR and the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a petition to revoke Rogers’s parole pursuant to section 3000.08, subdivision (f). The petition alleged that on March 5, 2014, Rogers removed his GPS monitor in violation of section 3010.10. An evidentiary hearing on parole revocation occurred on April 15, 2014. At the hearing, the evidence showed that Rogers had mental health issues and had recently stopped taking his medication. Just prior to removing his GPS monitor, he had gotten into a fight with his mother, who told him he had to find somewhere else to live. Rogers made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact his parole officer for advice and assistance in finding housing, including repeatedly pressing a button on the GPS monitor