People v. Allen

Filed 11/28/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079143

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 12F3775, 12F4776, 13F0299, 13F0555, v. 13F4134, 14F0854, 14F2329)

JAMES DAVID ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Shasta County, James Ruggiero, Judge. (Retired judge of the Super. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Steven S. Lubliner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri and Paton Bowers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1

A jury found defendant James David Allen guilty of escape for leaving his mother’s house, which was his assigned place of confinement under an alternative custody agreement. In challenging his escape conviction, defendant contends there was no substantial evidence that his failure to return to his mother’s house was willful. Defendant’s contention lacks merit. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND As part of a previous felony conviction, defendant agreed to comply with a GPS monitoring inmate agreement. Defendant’s assigned place of confinement was his mother’s house. To comply with his curfew under the agreement, defendant had to be at his mother’s house between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The Shasta County Sheriff’s Department monitored him through an ankle monitor with a global positioning system that he had the responsibility to wear and recharge every day. Defendant was advised that if he had any problems returning to his place of confinement, he should notify alternative custody staff by phone or in person as soon as possible. Defendant was last at his place of confinement on April 6, 2014 at 2:36 a.m. At some point before that, defendant got into an argument with his mother. They argued over defendant not cleaning after himself, leaving dishes in the sink, and leaving paperwork lying around. Defendant’s mother told him that if he did not like her rules, he should leave. In response, defendant left. Defendant’s mother locked him out after he left. He never returned to the property or contacted alternative custody staff about his situation. He was later arrested for borrowing a car and failing to return it. The jury found defendant guilty of escape. Defendant timely appealed. DISCUSSION Defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence to support his escape conviction. Specifically, defendant contends the evidence of his absence from his place of confinement was insufficient to show that he willfully failed to return to his home confinement. We disagree and affirm.