People v. Durham CA2/1

Filed 5/20/22 P. v. Durham CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B317085

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 1PH06516) v.

ANDRE DISHAUN DURHAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert M. Kawahara, Temporary Judge. Dismissed. Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

Defendant Andre Dishaun Durham appeals from an order revoking his parole. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano) and defendant filed no supplemental brief. We dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND On October 6, 2015, the trial court sentenced defendant to prison for two years for assault with intent to commit rape. On May 16, 2017, he was placed on parole. Conditions of parole included that defendant not travel more than 50 miles from his residence without prior approval, not leave the state of California without prior approval, and participate in continuous electronic monitoring with a GPS (global positioning system) device. On October 29, 2021, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Division of Adult Parole Operations (the Division) filed a petition to revoke defendant’s parole. According to the petition, defendant absconded from parole, traveled outside the 50-mile permissible radius, and disabled his GPS tracking device. The Division recommended that the court return defendant to custody for 180 days. At a hearing to assess probable cause for parole revocation, defendant stipulated that there was probable cause to believe he violated the terms and conditions of parole. At the formal revocation hearing, the parties stipulated to the allegations in the parole violation report as evidence. That report included the following: On September 29, 2021, the agent monitoring defendant received an alert indicating he traveled outside of California. The agent located defendant in Arizona. Defendant’s GPS device subsequently died, and the agent was no longer able