People v. Piedad CA1/1

Filed 10/17/14 P. v. Piedad CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A139130 v. ANASTACIO PIEDAD, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. VCR207333) Defendant and Appellant.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Anastacio Piedad appeals the trial court’s order extending his probationary period by two years, contending the trial court’s order is invalid for lack of jurisdiction. We agree with defendant and therefore vacate the trial court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In a felony complaint filed on May 3, 2010, defendant was charged with failure to register annually as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290.012.1 The complaint also alleged defendant had suffered a prior conviction with a prison term within the meaning of section 667.5. On May 21, 2010, defendant pleaded no contest to the charge of failure to register. Upon the People’s motion, the allegation of a prior conviction with a prison term was dismissed and the matter referred to probation for a sentencing report. At a sentencing hearing on June 21, 2010, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for a period of three years under specified

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 1

conditions. As pertinent here, the court ordered defendant to pay administrative fees in the amount of $200 under section 1202.4 and $200 under section 1202.44, with the latter stayed pending successful completion of probation. The court also ordered defendant to pay a $30 security surcharge and a $30 criminal conviction assessment. Further the court ordered that defendant “shall attend counseling and therapy as may be directed by his probation officer, specifically, sex offender counseling” and that he “continue to register pursuant to Section 290 of the Penal Code.” On October 15, 2010, defendant was arrested based on the allegation he violated probation by failing to charge the GPS tracker device that allows the probation department to monitor his whereabouts.2 At a hearing on October 29, 2010, defendant admitted he violated probation by failing to charge the transponder for the tracking device. The court revoked and then reinstated probation, imposing a 30-day jail term and ordering all probation conditions remain in full force and effect. Subsequently, the probation officer noticed a hearing for June 28, 2013 regarding a modification of probation orders. Probation filed a supplemental report (report) on the date of the hearing seeking an “[e]xtension of Probation since the defendant has not completed sex offender counseling, and fines/fees are not paid in full.” The report states: “defendant has a prior record of sex offenses, and it is concerning to note that he has never participated in any form of sex offender counseling . . . . [¶] The defendant has a current balance of $240 on his probation fines/fees, and . . . he has only made one payment of $20 on 6-1-12.” Also, the report states: “Mr. Piedad was notified of today’s court date in writing, as a ‘Notice of Court Hearing’ was mailed to the above-noted mailing address on 6-20-13, and a copy is attached for the Court’s review.[3] In addition,