People v. Phillips CA4/3

Filed 8/20/15 P. v. Phillips CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G051192

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12WF3550)

RON BRADLEY PHILLIPS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Vickie Hix, Commissioner. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. Robert Booher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson, Lynne G. McGinnis and Kristine A. Gutierrez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Introduction Ron Bradley Phillips appeals from a postjudgment order granting in part and denying in part his application under Penal Code section 1170.18 for a recall of sentence on his felony conviction and to reduce that conviction to a misdemeanor. Although the trial court reduced the conviction to a misdemeanor, Phillips argues the court erred by imposing a one-year parole term under section 1170.18, subdivision (d) (section 1170.18(d)) because he was not still serving a sentence when he was on postrelease community supervision (PRCS). Alternatively, Phillips argues his excess custody credits should reduce his parole term and fines. We conclude Phillips is subject to a parole term under section 1170.18(d), but the length of parole cannot be longer than the remainder of his PRCS and his excess custody credits must be applied against the parole term and/or restitution and parole revocation fines. In addition, we conclude the trial court erred by imposing an unauthorized jail term, which must be corrected on remand, Phillips forfeited any challenge to the restitution fine and parole revocation fine, and the order requiring him to register under Health and Safety Code section 11590 must be stricken. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions. Facts A single-count information, filed on January 17, 2013, charged Phillips with felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and alleged a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (d) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)(1)). On January 24, 2013, Phillips pleaded guilty and admitted the prior felony conviction. As the factual basis for the plea, Phillips stated that on December 27, 2012, he “knowingly possessed a useable amount of methamphetamine, a controlled substance.” The trial court sentenced Phillips to a term of 16 months in prison, struck the prior conviction for purposes of sentencing, imposed various fines (including a