People v. Gillespie CA1/3

Filed 1/21/16 P. v. Gillespie CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A142874 v. RAYMOND JOEL GILLESPIE, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. PRS-100246) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Raymond Joel Gillespie appeals from an order modifying the terms and conditions of his postrelease community supervision (postrelease supervision).1 He contends the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction and in violation of his due process rights when it modified the conditions of his postrelease supervision without notice or a sufficient factual basis. We find no error and therefore shall affirm.

1 Postrelease supervision “was established as an element of the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 (enacted by Stats. 2011, ch. 15, §§ 1, 450, amended by Stats. 2011, ch. 361, § 6.7 and Stats. 2012, ch. 43, § 27). . . . Under [Penal Code] section 3451, low-level offenders serving a prison term who are released from prison ‘shall, upon release from prison and for a period not exceeding three years immediately following release, be subject to community supervision provided by a county agency designated by each county’s board of supervisors which is consistent with evidence-based practices, including, but not limited to, supervision policies, procedures, programs, and practices demonstrated by scientific research to reduce recidivism among individuals under postrelease supervision.’ ” (People v. Jones (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1266.)

1

Background On July 18, 2013, upon his release from the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation after serving time for weapons-related convictions, defendant was placed, with various terms and conditions, on postrelease supervision. Defendant’s postrelease supervision expires in August 2016. On April 15, 2014, the probation department filed a petition to revoke defendant’s postrelease supervision status on the ground he had violated one of his postrelease supervision conditions—“Be of good conduct and obey all laws”—by violating Penal Code2 section 273d, subdivision (a), cruel and inhuman corporal punishment. The petition alleged the following facts: “On 4/12/14, Mr. Gillespie was arrested by the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department (SCSO #140412-022) for violating sections 273d(a)PC and 3452PC. According to the incident report, the sheriff’s department responded to a call indicating that the defendant had hit a small boy and then locked him out of the residence naked. After deputies contacted the defendant at the residence and talked to all involved parties, the defendant was arrested and booked into custody. It should be noted that the report states that the defendant may have forced the boy’s face into fecal matter and the boy had a swollen red mark on his chest.” Defendant’s postrelease supervision was summarily revoked by the court upon the filing of the petition. On the same day, the district attorney filed a new felony complaint based on the same incident charging defendant with inflicting cruel and inhuman corporal punishment on a child (§ 273d, subd. (a)). On May 14, 2014, defendant pled guilty in the new case to one count of misdemeanor child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (b)) and the court placed him on probation for four years. As a condition of probation defendant was ordered to serve six months in county jail. As further conditions defendant was ordered to complete a 52- week parenting/anger management class and to not have any contact with the victim.