People v. Pierce CA1/5

Filed 9/22/20 P. v. Pierce CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A157464 v. RANDALL BLAINE PIERCE, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. Defendant and Appellant. 19SF003185A)

Appellant Randall Blaine Pierce (Appellant) appeals from revocation of his parole. We affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant was released on parole in July 2017. On March 1, 2019, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Adult Parole Operations, filed a petition to revoke Appellant’s parole, alleging he violated conditions of parole by disabling his GPS monitor, by absconding from parole supervision, and by failing to register as required by law. On March 22, the trial court sustained the petition following a contested hearing. The court imposed a 160-day jail term and reinstated parole on the same terms and conditions. At the revocation hearing, Parole Agent Jocelyn Harden testified she supervised Appellant at the time of the alleged parole violations. On July 24,

1

2017, Appellant acknowledged his conditions of parole in writing. On February 3, 2019, Harden was alerted Appellant’s GPS device was in “dead battery mode.” On February 5, she sought Appellant at his two recent reported places of residence. The Home First Shelter in San Jose reported Appellant had last been there on February 3. On February 25, 2019, Appellant was arrested. Harden asserted Appellant was in violation of his parole conditions for failing to report a change of residence and to register as a transient. Appellant testified he was admitted to the Veteran’s Administration hospital on February 3, 2019. He was on a three-day Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150 hold, “followed by a 21-day hold.” He had no ability to charge his GPS tracking device and he expected to return to the Home First Shelter after his release from the hospital. He was still at the hospital when he was arrested on February 25. The trial court found Appellant violated parole by absconding from parole supervision and by failing to register as required by law. The court did not sustain the allegation that Appellant disabled his GPS tracking device. The court reinstated parole on the same terms and conditions, and ordered Appellant to serve 160 days in custody. DISCUSSION Appellant contends insufficient evidence supports the trial court’s finding he violated a parole condition. We reject the claim. Penal Code section 1203.21 authorizes a court to revoke parole “if the interests of justice so require and the court, in its judgment, has reason to believe from the report of the . . . parole officer or otherwise that the person has violated any of the conditions of his or her supervision . . . .” (§ 1203.2,