People v. Caceres CA6

Filed 7/7/16 P. v. Caceres CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H042320 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. SS111917A, SS112093A) v.

RAMON VICENTE CACERES,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Ramon Vicente Caceres pleaded no contest to felony possession of a controlled substance (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) in case No. SS111917A and in case No. SS112093A. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence in each case and placed defendant on probation. While defendant was on probation, Penal Code section 1170.181 was enacted by the voters as part of Proposition 47, which reclassified certain offenses as misdemeanors. Defendant filed a petition in each case for recall of sentence and resentencing to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18. The trial court denied the petitions after determining that defendant, as a probationer, was not serving a sentence within the meaning of the statute.

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

On appeal defendant contends, among other arguments, that he is “currently serving a sentence” within the meaning of section 1170.18, subdivision (a), and therefore the trial court erred in denying his petitions. The Attorney General concedes that the trial court erred. We agree and reverse the orders denying defendant’s petitions. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2011, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of a controlled substance (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) in case No. SS111917A and in case No. SS112093A. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence in each case and placed defendant on Proposition 36 probation. (See § 1210.1.) In July 2014, the trial court terminated defendant’s Proposition 36 probation in each case, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed him on formal probation for three years. In early 2015, after Proposition 47 had passed, defendant filed a petition requesting that his felony convictions automatically be designated misdemeanors pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivisions (f) and (g). Defendant contended that he had “completed” his sentence in each case. The prosecution filed written responses arguing that defendant was not eligible for the requested relief because he was not a “sentenced prisoner.” The record does not reflect whether the trial court ruled on this petition. In March 2015, defendant filed a second petition in each case for recall of sentence and resentencing to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivisions (b) and (d). In the petitions, defendant contended that he was “sentenced to” felony probation and was “currently serving [that] sentence.” The prosecution apparently continued to object on the grounds that defendant was not eligible for relief because he was not currently serving a sentence within the meaning of section 1170.18. The parties filed memoranda of points and authorities on the issue. Defendant contended that, as a probationer, he was “currently serving a sentence” within the