## Facts

- Andras Peter Schaffer was convicted in 2015 of failing to register as a sex offender and sentenced to three years in state prison.
- He was released on parole in August 2016 and, as a parole condition, was required to wear a GPS monitoring device continuously and charge it at least twice daily.
- Between 2016 and 2019, parole authorities recorded repeated parole violations, including multiple failures to keep the GPS device charged.
- In June 2019, parole authorities petitioned to revoke parole based on violations including failure to keep the GPS device charged.
- At the revocation hearing, Schaffer requested a jury trial and a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, relying on United States v. Haymond.
- The trial court denied the request, found a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, and imposed a mandatory 180-day county jail term under Penal Code § 3010.10(e).

## Issues

1. Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a jury to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether a parolee violated a GPS-monitoring parole condition when the finding triggers a mandatory 180-day county jail term under Penal Code § 3010.10(e).
2. Whether United States v. Haymond extends Apprendi/Alleyne jury-factfinding requirements to California parole revocation proceedings imposing the § 3010.10(e) sanction.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the parole revocation order.
- Schaffer had no constitutional right to a jury trial in the parole revocation proceeding.
- The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard was constitutionally permissible for finding the parole violation.
- Haymond did not apply because the 180-day sanction did not increase punishment beyond the maximum exposure authorized by the original conviction and parole term.

## Legal Principles

- Parole revocation is part of administering and enforcing the original criminal judgment, not a new criminal prosecution requiring the full set of trial rights.
- A judge may determine parole violations by a preponderance of the evidence without a jury, consistent with due process limits applicable to revocation proceedings.
- Apprendi/Alleyne-type jury findings are implicated when judge-found facts increase the legally authorized maximum punishment (or establish a higher mandatory minimum beyond what the original conviction authorizes); they are not triggered when postconviction confinement remains within the sentencing and parole exposure set by the original conviction.
- A mandatory custody consequence attached to a parole condition (here, § 3010.10(e)) does not, by itself, convert a revocation proceeding into a jury-trial sentencing proceeding if the sanction operates within the punishment range authorized by the underlying conviction.

## Conclusion

The court held that a parolee who violates a GPS-monitoring parole condition may have the violation found by a judge under a preponderance standard, and the mandatory 180-day county jail term under Penal Code § 3010.10(e) may be imposed without a jury determination beyond a reasonable doubt because it does not increase punishment beyond the original conviction’s authorized exposure.


People v. Schaffer, 53 Cal. App. 5th 500 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)