People v. Henderson CA1/3

Filed 4/27/16 P. v. Henderson CA1/3 Received for posting 4/28/16 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A136659, A137648, A138616 v. MAUREEN MICHELLE HENDERSON, (Humboldt County Super. Ct. Nos. CR1202121S, CR1204898, Defendant and Appellant. CR1301063)

In these consolidated appeals, defendant Maureen Michelle Henderson challenges three separate orders in which the trial court determined she violated the terms of her postrelease community supervision (PRCS) as a result of failing to report to the probation department. Defendant does not dispute that she failed to report but claims she never should have been placed on PRCS, which is a form of postrelease supervision for certain low-level felons that is administered by the county instead of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (See Pen. Code,1 § 3451, subd. (a).) Defendant’s claim that she should not have been placed on PRCS turns in part on the fact that she did not actually serve time in prison but instead was deemed to have served a prison term as a result of her civil commitment as a drug addict in the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). She argues that section 3451—which requires certain low- level felons to serve a term of PRCS upon release—only applies to persons who have actually served time in prison. She also argues that the probation department failed to

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

1

acquire jurisdiction over her because she was not notified of any PRCS obligation and did not sign an agreement to participate in PRCS at the time she was released. Finally, she contends that, upon her release from CRC, she should have been sentenced under section 1170, subdivision (h), which was enacted as part of the 2011 Realignment Legislation addressing public safety (the Realignment Act).2 The consequence of being sentenced under the Realignment Act is that defendant would have fully served her sentence free of further supervision, including being subject to PRCS. The Attorney General contends the appeal is moot because the court terminated PRCS and ordered defendant released. Because we agree with the Attorney General that a reversal would have no practical effect, we shall dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3 In 2004, defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of petty theft with three or more prior petty theft convictions (§ 666) and one count of marijuana possession (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (a)). The court placed defendant on probation and sentenced her to a stipulated term of five years, with execution of the sentence suspended. After defendant admitted violating terms of her probation, the court terminated probation in February 2006 and ordered the five-year prison term executed. In late February 2006, the court vacated its order executing the sentence after receiving a stipulation that defendant fit the description of a person who is a narcotics addict or in danger of becoming one. The court again imposed but stayed execution of the five-year sentence, levied statutory fines, awarded custody credits, and committed defendant to CRC for treatment as an addict pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051. In December 2011, after serving almost 1,300 days at CRC, defendant moved to vacate her civil commitment and fix a determinate term. In March 2012, the court