People v. Mendoza CA1/4

Filed 2/5/25 P. v. Mendoza CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A168233 v. RAMIRO OCHOA MENDOZA, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 23CR000803) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Ramiro Ochoa Mendoza was convicted of a single count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245(a)(4).)2 Mendoza entered postrelease community supervision (PRCS) on February 12, 2022, for a term set to end on February 11, 2025. On April 14, 2023, the trial court found probable cause to believe that Mendoza had violated the terms of his PRCS. It summarily revoked his supervision and issued a bench warrant for his arrest. After absconding for 40 days, Mendoza was arrested on May 24, 2023, and remained in custody for 20 days pending his formal revocation hearing.

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California

Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853–855.) 2 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

During that hearing, the court found that Mendoza violated the terms of his PRCS, revoked and reinstated him to supervision, and ordered him to serve 150 days in jail, with credit for the days he spent in custody prior to the hearing. When the court proposed to extend Mendoza’s PRCS by 60 days, representing the time during which it had been revoked, Mendoza objected, arguing that the court could extend it only by the 40 days during which he had absconded and not by the time he had spent in custody awaiting the hearing. The court allowed the parties to submit briefing on that issue, and after a hearing two weeks later, extended the termination date by the full 60 days, to April 13, 2025. On appeal, Mendoza renews his argument that any extension beyond the 40-day period of his abscondment exceeded the court’s authority. We are unpersuaded. Individuals who have served prison sentences for non-serious and non- violent felonies are placed on PRCS. (§§ 3451, subds. (a), (b), 3455, subd. (e), 3456, subd. (a)(1).) Generally, the maximum period for PRCS is three years. (§ 3455, subd. (e).) If there is probable cause to believe that the person has violated the terms of PRCS the supervising agency may order “immediate, structured, and intermediate sanctions.” (§ 3454, subd. (b).) If intermediate sanctions are not appropriate, the supervising agency is to petition the court to revoke, terminate, or modify the individual’s supervision. (§ 3455, subd. (a).) Revocation involves two steps. First, the court may summarily revoke supervision and issue a bench warrant for the individual’s arrest. (§ 1203.2, subd. (a).) Second, the prosecution must prove at a required formal revocation hearing that there was a violation. (§ 3455, subd. (c).) If the court finds a violation, it may (1) reinstate PRCS with modifications, (2) revoke and terminate supervision, or (3) refer the person to a reentry court. (§ 3455, subds. (a), (d).)