People v. Pickett CA3

Filed 12/21/15 P. v. Pickett CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C077422

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 14F135, 13F6732 ) JENELL WIND PICKETT,

Defendant and Appellant. OPINION ON DISMISSAL

Defendant Jenell Wind Pickett claims this court must remand her matter for resentencing or permit her to withdraw her plea because her plea agreement provided for a 10-year split sentence and she was instead sentenced to serve 9 years in county jail. The People argue this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain defendant’s challenge because she did not appeal the order imposing this sentence. As defendant did not appeal from the order granting probation in which the sentence was imposed and execution suspended, but from the subsequent order revoking defendant’s probation and requiring

1

her to serve the previously imposed sentence, we agree with the People and dismiss the appeal. A detailed recitation of the facts is unnecessary to the resolution of this appeal. Defendant pleaded no contest to bringing a controlled substance into a county jail (Pen. Code, § 45731) in case No. 13-06732, transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and three counts of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and admitted an on-bail enhancement (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)) in case No. 14- 00135, in exchange for a stipulated 10-year split sentence pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h),2 referral to the “re-entry court” for supervision, and dismissal of other charges. In the plea agreement, defendant acknowledged the maximum period of incarceration she may have to serve would be 10 years, and her maximum period of probation would be 5 years. On April 7, 2014, the trial court pronounced judgment and sentence in both cases. After considering the report of the probation officer and the stipulation of counsel that the maximum period of confinement was 9 years rather than the previously agreed-upon 10

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 When defendant was sentenced, section 1170, subdivision (h)(5), provided, in relevant part, a defendant sentenced to county jail pursuant to the provisions of section 1170 could be sentenced either: “(A) For a full term in custody as determined in accordance with the applicable sentencing law,” or “(B) (i) For a term as determined in accordance with the applicable sentencing law, but suspend execution of a concluding portion of the term selected in the court’s discretion, during which time the defendant shall be supervised by the county probation officer in accordance with the terms, conditions, and procedures generally applicable to persons placed on probation, for the remaining unserved portion of the sentence imposed by the court. The period of supervision shall be mandatory, and may not be earlier terminated except by court order,” which period is known as “mandatory supervision.” (Stats. 2013, ch. 508, § 5.)