Opinion
E070706
10-31-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADRAIN DESHAWN FLOWERS, Defendant and Appellant.
Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. BPR1800617) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Judith M. Fouladi, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Adrain Deshawn Flowers appeals from the trial court's order reinstating him to parole with the condition that he serve 180 days in county jail. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
In 2001, defendant was convicted of lewd acts with a minor under age 14. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) In 2004, he was again convicted of lewd acts with a minor under age 14, along with other sex offenses, and sentenced to 16 years in prison. He was paroled in 2014. Defendant's conditions of parole include that he wear a global positioning system (GPS) tracking device, not tamper with it, and charge it every 12 hours for at least one full hour.
Section references are to the Penal Code except where otherwise indicated.
Since 2014, defendant was found to have violated his parole twice in 2014, once in 2015, twice in 2016, and three times in 2017. Three of these violations involved failing to charge or disabling his GPS tracking device.
On May 1, 2018, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Adult Parole Operations, filed a petition to revoke defendant's parole. The petition alleged defendant violated parole by disabling his GPS tracking device. At the hearing held on June 1, 2018, the Riverside County District Attorney's office amended the petition to include the allegation that defendant also violated parole by failing to recharge his GPS tracking device.
The petition also cited to section 3010.10, subdivision (b), which states that a section 290 registrant who is required to wear a GPS monitoring device as a condition of parole may not "remove, disable, render inoperable, or knowingly circumvent the operation of" the GPS tracking device. --------
Defendant's parole officer testified that on April 25, 2018, she logged into the Veritracks system, which monitors the position and status of GPS devices, and found that defendant's GPS device had entered "low battery status" at 6:45 a.m. The officer called defendant's phone, but there was no answer, so she sent him a text telling him to charge his GPS device. The device ran out of battery power at 12:11 p.m. that day. At 1:13 p.m., defendant called the probation officer, but she was in a meeting and sent him a text message instructing him to text her. Defendant texted the officer that his GPS device had been "buzzing." The officer replied by text, telling defendant that his device was buzzing because he had been on low battery since that morning, the battery was now dead, and defendant needed to report to the parole office immediately. Defendant reported to the parole office at about 3:30 p.m., which meant the parole officer was unable to track defendant for more than three hours. The parole officer described defendant as a high-risk sex offender who had "not been cooperative with remedial sanctions in the past" and whose last parole violation was for disabling his GPS tracking device. Veritracks indicated that defendant did not charge his GPS device at all on April 20 or April 24, 2018.
Defendant testified that he had been homeless since being released on parole because of limits on where he was allowed to live, but that he had worked steadily since 2015, and had purchased a car and a cell phone. Defendant was currently employed at a warehouse from 5:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and at another job from 9:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. Defendant testified that he went to the parole office on April 23, 2018, because the GPS unit indicated it was in "master tamper" mode and his parole officer directed him to do so. The parole officer looked at the monitor, "blew on it" and adjusted it, then put it back on. Defendant asked several times to have a new monitor, but the officer declined and stated there was nothing wrong with it. Regarding the violation, defendant testified that on April 24, 2018, he charged the unit once for an hour and three minutes. He went to work at the warehouse at 5:00 a.m. on April 25, and did not feel the GPS device vibrate to indicate it was on low battery status until his shift was almost over. Defendant is not allowed to plug in his GPS or carry a cell phone while working, but sneaked into the restroom to call the probation officer when he felt the GPS device vibrate. It took him two hours to drive from his job in Perris to the parole office in Riverside because he does not drive on the freeway.
After the close of testimony, the court and the parties engaged in an extended discussion of the requirements for finding that defendant had tampered with or disabled the GPS device. The court was also concerned that the parole officer had not given defendant a new GPS device when he had asked for one on April 23, 2018, after it had deemed to malfunction. The court ultimately determined, based on defendant's own testimony that he had charged the GPS device on April 24 for only one hour, that both of the allegations in the petition were true. The court ordered defendant to serve 180 days in county jail.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that defendant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J. We concur: FIELDS
J. RAPHAEL
J.