People v. Honaker CA2/8

Filed 6/15/16 P. v. Honaker CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B266246

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 5PH03586) v.

DAVID HONAKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert M. Kawahara, Judge. Affirmed.

Leonard J. Klaif, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Defendant David Honaker appeals from a postjudgment order revoking his parole and sentencing him to 100 days in jail.1 Based on our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 442, we affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEURAL BACKGROUND Viewed in accordance with the usual rules of appeal (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357) the evidence established defendant was sentenced to 6 years, 8 months in prison following his conviction for burglary in March 2010.2 He was released on parole on May 8, 2014. Defendant was still on parole when he tested positive for methamphetamine on October 27, 2014. Subsequently, defendant failed to report to his parole officer and the parole officer was unable to locate defendant. Defendant was arrested for being a parolee-at-large on May 6, 2015. On May 14, 2015, the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) filed a Petition for Revocation of Parole (the Petition), which alleged parole violations for: (1) absconding parole supervision and (2) methamphetamine use. The Petition referenced an attached Parole Violation Report (the Report). The Report includes a section captioned “Evaluation” and another captioned “Recommendation From Supervising Agency.” In the evaluation section, the Report states: “Intermediate sanctions have been considered. However, they have been deemed not appropriate at this time. Parolee continues to use drugs and participated in criminal activity. [Defendant] has demonstrated that he is unwilling to be supervised by DAPO. Agent recommends a referral for revocation.” The recommendation section states the tool used for the recommendation is the “Parole Violation Decision Making Instrument Tool” (PVDMI). It includes two subsections: (1) “Instrument Recommended Response