People v. Ingram CA5

── People v. Ingram CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/3/26 P. v. Ingram CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F090353 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. PV003395A) v. JACK DENNIS INGRAM, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Andrew Kendall, Judge. Lindsey M. Ball, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Levy, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Harrell, J.  INTRODUCTION In 2025, appellant and defendant Jack Dennis Ingram, Jr., (appellant) was on parole when a petition for revocation of his parole was filed. After conducting a hearing on the petition, the trial court revoked parole and sentenced him to 180 days in custody. On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Appellant did not file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 3, 2023, appellant was convicted in the Superior Court of Kern County of criminal threats (Pen. Code,1 § 422) and sentenced to two years eight months in prison. Parole Terms and Conditions On January 27, 2024, appellant was released from prison on parole. On April 4, 2025, appellant signed a document entitled “Special Condition[s] of Parole,” which included the following condition identified as No. 14: “You shall not contact or attempt to contact your crime victim(s) [K.S., J.M., R.M., and R.J.] or their immediate family(ies) without [your parole officer’s] approval. ‘No Contact’ means no contact in any form (e.g., direct or indirect, personally, by telephone, in writing, electronic media, email, computer, or through another person, etc.), and includes unnecessarily traveling past, or loitering near where you know or should reasonably know your victim(s) frequents, resides, is employed, or attends classes.” Parole Violation On April 13, 2025, an officer from the Bakersfield Police Department responded to R.J.’s residence. R.J. reported that she received mail from appellant addressed to her post office box, she had not provided appellant with that address, and she felt harassed. The letters to R.J. were postmarked April 10, 2025, and contained appellant’s return 1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2. address. The police contacted appellant, he was taken into custody, a parole hold was placed on him, and he was booked into jail. On April 14, 2025, appellant’s parole agent met with R.J., reviewed the letters and envelopes sent by appellant, and confirmed they were postmarked April 10, 2025. R.J. stated she did not provide appellant with her address and did not want him to contact her.