People v. Springs CA6

Filed 1/13/15 P. v. Springs CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H040345 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. SS041402, SS131327)

v.

TYROL SPRINGS,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2011, the Legislature enacted the Criminal Justice Realignment Act (Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess. 2011-2012, ch. 12, § 1; Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h))1 (the Realignment Act or the Act). Under the Act, certain low-level felony offenders are no longer required to serve their sentences in state prison; instead, they must serve their sentences either entirely in county jail or partly in county jail and partly under the mandatory supervision of the county probation officer. (People v. Scott (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1415, 1418-1419 (Scott); § 1170, subd. (h)(2), (3), (5).) This appeal concerns the applicability of the Realignment Act to those defendants whose state prison sentences were imposed and suspended before the Realignment Act’s October 1, 2011 effective date and executed after that date. In 2004, defendant Tyrol Springs pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and admitted being armed with a firearm at the time of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (c)). The trial court placed him on probation with a 1 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

suspended eight-year prison sentence. In 2013, Springs admitted to violating his probation. The trial court ordered him to serve the eight-year sentence in county jail, reasoning that the Realignment Act governed where defendant served his sentence (i.e., in county jail), but that the 2004 plea agreement prevented the court from imposing a so- called “split” sentence in which a part of the sentence is served in county jail and a part of the sentence is served under the supervision of the county probation officer. On appeal, both Springs and the People maintain the trial court misapplied the Realignment Act. Springs contends the Act applied to him in full, such that the court had the authority to impose a split sentence. The People argue the Act has no application to Springs because his original sentence was imposed and suspended before the Realignment Act’s effective date. During the briefing of this appeal, our Supreme Court held in Scott “that the Realignment Act is not applicable to defendants whose state prison sentences were imposed and suspended prior to October 1, 2011” (Scott, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1419) and that “[u]pon revocation and termination of such a defendant’s probation, the trial court ordering execution of the previously imposed sentence must order the sentence to be served in state prison according to the terms of the original sentence.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 On May 24, 2004, Springs pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and also admitted he was personally armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (c)). The trial court sentenced Springs to an eight-year term but stayed execution of the sentence and placed Springs on four years probation. Springs’s probation was revoked, reinstated, and