P. v. Rose CA2/8
Defendant Dallas D. Rose appeals the revocation of his parole based on his failure to charge his GPS monitoring device and failure to report to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Adult Parole Operations (the Department). Defendant asserts that the Department failed to prove with admissible evidence that he had a conviction requiring ankle monitoring. Defendant argues that the Department used inadmissible hearsay to prove the underlying out-of-state rape conviction. We affirm because the Department had discretion to require electronic monitoring, regardless of whether defendant had been previously convicted of rape.
Comments on P. v. Rose CA2/8