People v. Cummings CA4/2
E076942
| Cal. Ct. App. | Feb 18, 2022Background
- Cummings was on parole after a conviction for sexual battery and was required to wear a GPS monitor, charge it twice daily for one hour each time, and immediately notify his parole agent of device alerts.
- He also was required to attend an approved sex-offender treatment program that was being held remotely due to COVID-19.
- VeriTracks (the GPS monitoring system) alerted the agent that Cummings’s GPS battery was dead; system records showed brief/intermittent charging on March 10–11, 2021. The agent received an email from Open Door reporting Cummings missed the March 10 session.
- The agent tried to contact Cummings; Cummings did not contact his agent and was arrested near the parole office the next morning.
- At the formal parole revocation hearing, the agent testified to the VeriTracks records and the Open Door email; the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Cummings willfully disabled his GPS and failed to attend treatment and revoked/reinstated parole with 180 days in county jail.
- Cummings appealed, arguing improper admission of hearsay and insufficient evidence of willfulness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of VeriTracks/GPS records | Records are computer-generated outputs (not hearsay) and reliable for revocation proceedings | Admission of VeriTracks data was inadmissible hearsay and violated due process | Court: VeriTracks outputs are computer-generated data, not hearsay; admission proper. |
| Admissibility of Open Door email / agent testimony | Email and agent’s testimony are reliable documentary evidence admissible at parole revocation | Admission of the email (via agent) was hearsay and denied confrontation rights | Court: email bore indicia of reliability; agent’s testimony admissible; no due process violation. |
| Sufficiency / willfulness of violation | Agency records and agent testimony establish intentional failure to maintain charge and to seek assistance for treatment | Actions were non‑willful (power outages, lack of phone/access); insufficient evidence of intent | Court: substantial evidence supports willfulness as to both GPS charging and failure to attend treatment; revocation affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (parole/probation revocation due-process framework)
- People v. Arreola, 7 Cal.4th 1144 (limits on hearsay and need for confrontation in revocation hearings)
- People v. Rodriguez, 16 Cal.App.5th 355 (computer-generated GPS records are not hearsay)
- People v. Goldsmith, 59 Cal.4th 258 (review standard for discretionary evidentiary rulings)
- People v. Abrams, 158 Cal.App.4th 396 (routine documentary records admissible in revocation proceedings)
- People v. Gomez, 181 Cal.App.4th 1028 (probation/parole officer testimony about records and reliability)
- People v. O’Connell, 107 Cal.App.4th 1062 (documentary evidence of program nonattendance admissible)
- In re Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 (appellate deference to credibility findings in criminal matters)
- People v. Schaffer, 53 Cal.App.5th 500 (statutory penalty/requirements for GPS monitoring violations)