People v. Baltazar CA4/3

Filed 12/28/15 P. v. Baltazar 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051161

v. (Super. Ct. No. 14WF0043)

JESSE MAURICE BALTAZAR, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Vickie Hix, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Reversed and remanded. Theresa Osterman Stevenson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Christen Somerville, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Jesse Baltazar pleaded guilty in January 2014 to a complaint that month for felony possession of methamphetamine (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and he admitted allegations he suffered a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(2)(A); 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(1); all further statutory references are to this code) and recently served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). At sentencing, the trial court struck the strike and prison prior allegations, and sentenced defendant to the low term of 16 months in prison. The court also imposed various fines and fees, and ordered defendant to register as a controlled substance offender (Health & Saf. Code, § 11590). In December 2014, while on postrelease community supervision (PRCS), defendant petitioned the court to reduce under Proposition 47 his felony conviction to a misdemeanor, which the court granted (§ 1170.18, subd. (a)) upon recalling defendant’s sentence. The court resentenced defendant to 365 days in jail, with credit for fully serving that term, and imposed a one-year parole term. Defendant argues the court erred in imposing parole because in his view despite his ongoing PRCS term he had “completed his . . . sentence” (id., subd. (f)), and therefore qualified for simple redesignation of his conviction as a misdemeanor without a parole term (ibid.), instead of recall and resentencing for those “currently serving a sentence” for a felony conviction (id., subd. (a)). In the alternative, defendant asserts the trial court abused its discretion by imposing parole, or erred in failing to apply as “excess credit” against his parole term the unspecified days over a year he had served under his sentence before it was recalled. He also argues the trial court sua sponte should have reduced his restitution and supervision revocation fines to the minimum amounts for a misdemeanor, instead of the felony minimums the court originally imposed. Finally, he contends, and the Attorney General concedes, the trial court on remand should strike his obligation to register as a drug offender because the requirement does not apply to a misdemeanor conviction.