People v. Dickens CA3

Filed 5/2/23 P. v. Dickens CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096043

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. P20CRF0342, P20CRF0214, P20CRF0368, v. 21CR0040, & 21CR0122)

LEAF JAMES DICKENS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Leaf James Dickens, while under mandatory community supervision, entered an employee-only bathroom of a grocery store and disregarded the store manager’s request to leave. The trial court found that defendant committed a trespass in violation of his supervision. It reinstated defendant’s mandatory supervision and sentenced him to 60 days in county jail. On appeal, defendant raises three claims: (1) there was insufficient evidence of trespass; (2) he was deprived of due process because he received inadequate notice of his

1

violation; and (3) the trial court erred in admitting testimony about a call log that showed he was told to leave the store before the current offense. We conclude: (1) there was sufficient evidence of trespass; (2) defendant received adequate written notice of his violation from the petition for revocation and pretrial release report; and (3) we need not address the admission of the call log, because the testimony about the call log was unnecessary to support the trial court’s trespass finding. The judgment is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 25, 2022, the trial court imposed a six-year eight-month sentence on defendant, a portion of which was to be served under mandatory community supervision. As a condition of the supervision, defendant was required to obey all laws. While subject to mandatory community supervision, on March 1, 2022, defendant entered and locked a bathroom in an employee-only area of a grocery store. To enter the area, defendant had to pass through a door with an employee-only sign. The store manager asked defendant if he could come out and told him she wanted to make sure that he was all right. Defendant did not respond. After about 30 minutes, the manager called the sheriff’s office for help removing defendant from the store. When the sheriff’s deputy arrived, defendant had already left the store. The deputy found defendant outside the store and arrested him. The People petitioned for revocation of mandatory community supervision, alleging defendant had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of his supervision because he committed a trespass in violation of Penal Code section 602, subdivision (m).1 The petition referenced a sheriff’s office report concerning the incident. The pretrial release report, on the other hand, noted defendant was arrested for violation of