People v. Rood - Parole Violation Appeal

CA Court of Appeal Opinions

Filed March 20th, 2026

Detected March 21st, 2026

Summary

The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, issued an opinion in the case of People v. Rood. The court reviewed an appeal from a parole violation finding, where the defendant was found to have violated parole by failing to participate in a sex offender treatment program and possessing a knife with a blade over two inches. The court dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

This document is a California Court of Appeal opinion concerning the case of People v. Rood (Docket Number C103478). The appeal stems from a trial court's order finding Colton James Rood in violation of his parole. The alleged violations included failing to participate in a sex offender treatment program and possessing a knife with a blade exceeding two inches. The appellate court reviewed the record and, finding no arguable issues for appeal, dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

For compliance officers, this case highlights the importance of adhering to parole conditions, particularly those related to treatment programs and prohibited items. While this is a specific criminal justice matter, the underlying principle of compliance with court-ordered conditions and the consequences of violation (revocation of parole, jail time) are relevant. No immediate action is required for regulated entities, but it serves as a reminder of the strict enforcement of parole terms.

Penalties

180 days in jail with 72 days of custody credit

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Rood CA3

California Court of Appeal

Citations: None known
Docket Number: C103478
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Opinion
Authorities (6)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (3.9K)
PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/20/26 P. v. Rood CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Shasta)

THE PEOPLE, C103478

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 25CP0755)

COLTON JAMES ROOD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Colton James Rood appeals from the trial court’s order finding him in
violation of his parole. His appointed counsel has asked this court for an independent
review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Rood was informed of his right to file a
supplemental brief and did not do so. We conclude he is not entitled to Wende review
and dismiss the appeal as abandoned.

1
BACKGROUND
In January 2025, Rood was served with, but refused to sign, his conditions of
parole, which required him to participate in a sex offender treatment program, sign all
necessary documents to do so, and prohibited him from possessing a knife with a blade
over two inches. In February 2025, Rood refused to sign the paperwork required to enter
a sex offender treatment program. Thereafter, Rood was arrested for violating parole and
a search of his vehicle located a tote bag containing a knife with a blade of approximately
five inches.
A petition for revocation of parole filed in March 2025 alleged Rood violated
parole by failing to participate in a sex offender treatment program and possessing a knife
with a blade over two inches. In April 2025, the trial court conducted a parole revocation
hearing and found the allegations proven by a preponderance of the evidence.1 The court
revoked parole and sentenced Rood to 180 days in jail with 72 days of custody credit.
Rood timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and seeking our independent
review of the record under People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. The brief includes
counsel’s declaration stating that he informed Rood of counsel’s intent to file a Wende
brief, that counsel offered to provide a copy of the record on appeal to Rood, and advised
Rood of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date the brief was
filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and Rood has not filed a supplemental brief.
An order revoking parole is appealable as a postjudgment order affecting a
defendant’s substantial rights. (People v. Osorio (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1412,
disapproved on other grounds in People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 646;

1 Prior to the parole revocation hearing, the trial court heard and denied Rood’s motion
to substitute counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.

2
Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. (b).) The right to review under Wende, however, applies only
to a defendant’s direct appeal as of right from a judgment of conviction. (People v.
Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 500-501; People v. Freeman (2021)
61 Cal.App.5th 126, 133.)
If the defendant personally files a supplemental brief, the appellate court must
evaluate any arguments presented in the brief and prepare a written opinion that describes
those contentions and why they fail. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.)
Here, Rood did not file a supplemental brief. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as
abandoned.
And even exercising our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record
under Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable
to Rood. (Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544, fn. 7 [appellate court
may retain an appeal seeking Wende review].)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.