People v. Silva

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN ARMANDO SILVA, Defendant and Appellant.

H050782

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

May 8, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

(Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. 23CR00126)

Wilson, J.

In 2018, defendant Juan Armando Silva was sentenced to seven years and eight months in state prison. Silva was subsequently released on parole in 2021. In 2023, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) filed a petition to revoke Silva's parole on the basis that he had violated certain special conditions of his release. Following a contested hearing, the trial court found Silva to be in violation of his parole conditions and sentenced him to 135 days in county jail.

On appeal, Silva claims that the trial court abused its discretion by erroneously admitting the prosecution's exhibit of his parole terms, which constituted inadmissible hearsay, under the business records exception. He also claims that the trial court abused its discretion by erroneously admitting the hearsay exhibit in violation of his due process rights to cross-examination and confrontation. Lastly, as this exhibit was the only evidence of his violations, Silva claims that there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that he violated his parole terms, and the decision should therefore be reversed.

For the reasons stated below, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A Silva's Parole Violations

In 2018, Silva was convicted of being an accessory to a felony (Pen. Code, § 32)^[1] with an accompanying street gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) Silva was sentenced to a total term of seven years and eight months in prison. In 2021, Silva was released on parole for a period of approximately three years.

On January 4, 2023, Silva was arrested on an outstanding parole warrant for the following violations of his parole conditions: (1) absconding parole supervision; (2) failure to comply with the no-contact order between him and victim D.E.^[2]; (3) assault on a spouse and/or child; and (4) child endangerment. On January 11, 2023, the CDCR filed a petition in Santa Cruz County Superior Court to revoke Silva's parole and return him to custody for a period of 135 days. At his arraignment on January 17, 2023, Silva denied the alleged violations, and the matter was set for a contested evidentiary hearing.

B. Parole Revocation Hearing 1. Prosecution's Case

At the parole revocation hearing on February 6, 2023, the prosecution presented testimony from two witnesses D.E.^[3] and parole agent Omar Garcia. D.E. testified that as of 2022, she and Silva had been in a "complicated" relationship for approximately two years. D.E. stated that on December 20, 2022, as she, Silva, and D.E.'s three sons were driving to breakfast, she was yelling and talking loudly at Silva to get his attention, and her phone also began to ring. Silva then pulled over and told D.E. to step out of the car until she calmed down. D.E. told her children to step out of the car as well. D.E. subsequently spoke to police officers, who arrived approximately twenty minutes later, and explained what had happened; however, D.E. denied making certain statements documented by the police in their report, including that Silva started the argument by accusing her of cheating and calling her names, and ordered her and the children out of the car. D.E. also testified that she had never been informed by Silva's parole officer or anyone else that Silva could not have contact with her.

Garcia testified that he was the parole agent currently in charge of Silva and confirmed that Silva was subject to specific terms as part of his parole conditions. Garcia indicated that Silva's special parole conditions document, which he believed to have been signed on September 16, 2022^[4], stated he could not have contact with D.E. Silva's parole conditions document also required Silva to report to Garcia and keep in contact with him, which Garcia indicated to be a standard condition.

Garcia did not personally witness Silva signing this document as Silva had been paroled out of Contra Costa County and was being supervised in Santa Cruz County "as a favor." Garcia further acknowledged that he was not familiar with Silva's signature and could not verify his signature in the document. Garcia also did not personally review the conditions with Silva. However, Garcia confirmed that the document was in Silva's physical parole file, which he had received from Contra Costa County. Garcia also indicated that the usual practice was to have a parolee sign at the very end of each condition to acknowledge each one, which was the case in Silva's parole condition document.

In December 2022, Garcia attempted to contact Silva by phone, but was told by Silva's family that they were unaware of his whereabouts. Shortly thereafter, Garcia became aware of the December 20, 2022 incident involving Silva and D.E., and prepared an arrest warrant for Silva based on his violation of two probation conditions.

2. Admission of Parole Conditions Document and Trial Court's Ruling

Following the prosecution's testimony, defense counsel objected to the admission of the parole conditions document into evidence for lack of foundation and hearsay. Counsel argued that the prosecution failed to demonstrate the document fell within the hearsay exception for government records as they did not provide any testimony from a custodian of records regarding the creation, transmission, or storage of such a document. Counsel further claimed that because the document was testimonial in nature, its admission needed to be weighed against Silva's due process rights to confrontation. As no testimony was presented on how and when the document was generated, whose signature was on it, and whether the conditions even applied to Silva, counsel argued that the document lacked foundation and should not be considered by the court.

In response, the prosecution argued that it was not required to produce "literally the witness" who was present when Silva signed the document. The prosecution claimed that Garcia constituted a custodian of records for purposes of establishing the document was a government record because he was the agent in charge of Silva and had spoken with him; he had also relied on the document in understanding Silva's obligations and preparing the arrest warrant.

The trial court ultimately ruled that the parole conditions document was admissible under the hearsay exception for business records, noting that the document "[spoke] for itself" and bore Silva's name, signature, and "JS initials." The trial court accordingly found that Silva was aware of his parole conditions and knew he: (1) did not report in as required; and (2) was not allowed to contact D.E.^[5] The trial court ruled that Silva had violated his parole, sentenced him to serve 135 days in custody, and reinstated parole under the original terms and conditions.

Silva timely appealed.

II. Discussion

A. Mootness of Appeal

Following oral argument, this court requested supplemental briefing addressing whether Silva was still on active parole or serving the additional time imposed for the parole violation and, if not, whether the appeal was moot. Both parties have confirmed in supplemental briefing that Silva completed his prison term, and his parole supervision ended on February 9, 2024.

"' "[W]hen, pending an appeal from the judgment of a lower court, and without any fault of the [opposing party], an event occurs which renders it impossible for this...