People v. Holston CA3

Filed 2/4/15 P. v. Holston CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C075148

v. (Super. Ct. No. CRPV1308)

THERON KENNETH HOLSTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Theron Kenneth Holston violated parole by tampering with his global positioning system (GPS) tracking device. On the petition of the local supervising parole agency and by the admission and agreement of defendant, the trial court found defendant in violation of his parole, revoked his parole, ordered him to a substance abuse program for 180 days, awarded him 69 days’ credit, and reinstated parole. When defendant failed to complete the court-ordered program, the court found a second parole violation, revoked defendant’s parole, sentenced him to serve 180 days in county jail, awarded him 36 days’ credit (18 custody and 18 conduct), and reinstated his parole.

1

Defendant appeals both judgments.1 First, he contends the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction on September 23, 2013, by sentencing him to serve 180 days in a substance abuse program as punishment for a parole violation because that punishment was not authorized by section 3000.08, subdivision (f). Defendant next contends that because the court’s judgment on the first parole violation exceeded the court’s jurisdiction, the court erred when it revoked parole based on its finding defendant violated parole a second time by failing to complete the program. Finally, defendant contends the court erred in calculating defendant’s custody credits when it sentenced him to serve 180 days in county jail on October 28, 2013. We conclude the trial court’s judgment and sentence on September 23, 2013, complies with the strictures of section 3000.08, subdivision (f)(1), by reinstating defendant on parole and modifying the conditions of that parole to include a period of 180 days at a specified substance abuse program. We also conclude defendant’s failure to complete the substance abuse program was a new violation of a condition of his parole, and the trial court properly calculated defendant’s custody credits when it sentenced him to county jail following the second parole violation. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments.