People v. Smith CA4/1

Filed 10/7/20 P. v. Smith CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D075845 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTORIA SMITH, (Super. Ct. No. PLW45481) Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kathleen M. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. Janice R. Mazur, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and Stephanie H. Chow, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Victoria Smith appeals following the trial court’s order revoking her parole. She argues the court erred in admitting hearsay evidence at the revocation hearing without good cause and as a result she was deprived of her due process right to confront an adverse witness. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 In 1992, a jury convicted Victoria Smith of second degree murder (Pen. Code,2 § 187(a)), and the court sentenced her to life in prison with the possibility of parole. She was paroled on February 7, 2019. In March 2019, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Division of Adult Parole Operations filed a petition to revoke Smith’s parole, alleging she (1) failed to follow her parole agent’s instructions and (2) made criminal threats. At an evidentiary hearing on the petition, R.B., the victim of Smith’s criminal threats, testified she and Smith had maintained an intimate relationship in prison and remained friendly after their release. On March 20, 2019, Smith visited R.B.’s residence uninvited and refused to leave. R.B. reported the incident to the transition house where Smith was staying. Following that incident, Smith’s parole agent barred Smith from having contact with R.B. The transition house program director testified she became concerned that Smith was distressed over losing her relationship with R.B. Accordingly, the director recommended that Smith undergo a psychological evaluation. Smith refused to talk to the clinician. R.B. testified that on March 22, 2019, Smith returned to R.B.’s house and they talked on the porch for about 30 minutes. Smith said she needed to completely turn off her cellphone so “they can’t track her.” R.B. photographed Smith through the screen door and sent the photos to Smith’s parole agent.