People v. Anaya CA4/3

Filed 8/25/15 P. v. Anaya 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051297

v. (Super. Ct. No. 09WF2422)

ALLEN ALEX ANAYA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Christopher Evans, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Request to augment record on appeal. Appeal dismissed. Request granted. John F. Schuck, 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, Barry Carlton and James H. Flaherty III, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Allen Alex Anaya appeals from a postjudgment order granting his application to redesignate his felony drug conviction as a misdemeanor under the “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act” (Proposition 47). Defendant claims the trial court should not have imposed parole because he was not currently serving a sentence as required by Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (a) (all further statutory references are to this code). The appellate record is inadequate for us to determine whether defendant was currently serving or had already completed his felony sentence. Even so, in light of subsequent developments in the trial court which were taken based largely upon our recent decision in People v. Morales (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 42, 48 (Morales), we conclude the appeal is now moot and should be dismissed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In January 2010, defendant pleaded guilty to simple possession of methamphetamine, and admitted five “strike” priors. The trial court sentenced him to a prison term of five years, advised him that upon release he would be on parole for up to three years, and awarded him 75 days presentence custody credits. Some time later defendant was released from prison, but the record does not reveal whether he was actually placed on parole as earlier advised, or on postrelease community supervision (PRCS) pursuant to section 3451, subdivision (a). In 2014, the voters passed Proposition 47, which reclassified certain offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, and also enacted section 1170.18. Under subdivision (a), if the defendant is still serving a felony sentence, the defendant can have that sentence recalled and be given a misdemeanor sentence instead. Defendants who are resentenced are subject to one year of parole unless the trial court, in its discretion, waives the parole requirement. Under subdivision (f), if the defendant has completed his