People v. Dickens CA3

DISCUSSION

I Sufficiency of the Evidence Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support a trespass in violation of section 602, subdivisions (m), (o), or (t)(1). The People agree, as do we, that there was insufficient evidence of a violation of subdivisions (m) or (t)(1) because defendant did not occupy the bathroom and had not committed any crimes in the store. But we conclude substantial evidence supports a trespass under subdivision (o). A. Standard of Review A trial court may revoke mandatory supervision if it finds the person under supervision has committed another offense or otherwise violated the terms and conditions of supervision. (§ 1203.2, subd. (a).) The prosecution bears the burden to prove the

3 grounds for revocation by a preponderance of evidence. (People v. Buell (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 682, 687.) On appeal, we review the trial court’s revocation order for abuse of discretion and the factual findings in support of the order for substantial evidence. (People v. Butcher (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 310, 318.) In a substantial evidence review, we consider only “whether, upon review of the entire record, there is substantial evidence of solid value,…