People v. Watkins CA2/7

California Court of Appeal Nov 18, 2020 No. B299603Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the order revoking and reinstating the defendant's parole, holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by not requesting a continuance after the parole revocation petition was amended. The record did not affirmatively show that counsel lacked a rational tactical purpose for proceeding, nor did it demonstrate that the defendant suffered prejudice.

Issues

Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to request a continuance after the parole revocation petition was amended.
Whether the record on appeal provides sufficient evidence to establish that counsel's decision to proceed with the hearing lacked a rational tactical purpose.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Watkins has not demonstrated his counsel’s performance at the hearing was legally deficient.”

“nothing in this record remotely suggests the decision to go forward with the hearing was prejudicial.”

Filed 11/18/20 P. v. Watkins CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B299603

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 9PH03913) v.

EDWARD GENE WATKINS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Keith Borjon, Judge. Affirmed. Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Heidi Salerno, Deputy Attorney General for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Edward Gene Watkins appeals from an order revoking and reinstating his parole upon completion of a 180-day jail sentence after the court found at a combined probable cause/parole revocation hearing that Watkins had violated a condition of his parole by failing to wear a GPS (Global Positioning System) monitoring device. Watkins contends his appointed counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a continuance after the People successfully amended the petition to revoke at the start of the hearing to add the allegation regarding the monitoring device. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Watkins’s Parole On May 31, 2019 Watkins reported to his parole officer following his release from county jail the previous day. He signed a set of parole conditions, including numbers 4, “You shall not engage in conduct prohibited by law”; 68, “You shall participate in continuous electronic monitoring, GPS technology”; and 74, “You shall not tamper with the device or cover the device with any material that you know or reasonably should know, will interfere with the GPS system.” Watkins was advised in writing that a violation of any of the conditions of parole “may result in 1 parole revocation with or without a criminal conviction.”

People v. Watkins CA2/7

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B299603

EDWARD GENE WATKINS,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

PERLUSS, P. J

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.

AI Brief