People v. Mugica CA4/3

Filed 5/20/16 P. v. Mugica 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051237

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13WF0540)

VINCENT MUGICA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Vickie L. Hix, Temporary Judge. Reversed and remanded. Steven J. Carroll, 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 Swenson and Barry Carlton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendant Vincent Mugica appeals from the order granting his Proposition 47 resentencing petition. He contends the trial court erred in imposing parole under Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (d) (all further undesignated statutory references are to this code) because he had already served his sentence. We are not persuaded. Alternatively, defendant argues his excess days spent in custody and time spent on post-release community supervision (PRCS) should be credited first against the year of parole and then to his outstanding fines and fees. The Attorney General responds that the price of a Proposition 47 sentence reduction is “a full one-year parole period.” We disagree and conclude the trial court was required to ensure the parole period did not exceed his original sentence. As to applying defendant’s excess custody credits to the parole period and any eligible fines, the issue is moot because defendant has no excess custody credits to apply. Defendant also asserts the court should have reduced his restitution fine to the amount applicable to misdemeanor convictions, and stricken his controlled substance offender registration requirement. He has waived the issue with respect to the amount of the restitution fine ordered by the court. As to the controlled substance offender registration requirement, the order has been vacated and is thus moot.