People v. Mitchell CA3

Filed 9/27/21 P. v. Mitchell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092151

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STK-CR- FER-2019-0013074 , MAN- v. CR-FDUI-2018-0006719)

ZANTONIO SHUNTEL MITCHELL, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The trial court sentenced defendant Zantonio Shuntel Mitchell, Jr., to a five-year term of probation following his conviction for possession of a loaded firearm. Defendant argues on appeal that he is entitled to a reduced two-year term of probation under the recently enacted Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill No. 1950); he also points out that the trial court erroneously calculated his presentence credits. The People concede both points and we agree with the parties. We direct

1

modification of the probation order and otherwise affirm the two judgments from which defendant appeals. BACKGROUND In 2018, defendant pleaded no contest to driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or more and admitted a prior conviction in 2016. The trial court placed him on formal probation for five years, with service of 240 days in jail as a condition of probation. In 2020, defendant pleaded no contest to being a felon in possession of a loaded firearm. The trial court suspended imposition of defendant’s sentence and placed him on informal probation for five years with conditions including 240 days in the county jail, with “7 days credit for time served.” The court told defendant that “[t]he sheriff will calculate any additional good time work time credits you might become entitled to.” The court also reinstated defendant’s probation in the 2018 case. Defendant timely appealed the judgments. DISCUSSION I Assembly Bill No. 1950 Defendant’s claims concern only the 2020 case. He first argues his (most recent) five-year term of probation must be reduced to two years under Assembly Bill No. 1950, which he contends applies retroactively because his judgment is not yet final. The People agree, as do we. Assembly Bill No. 1950 was signed into law on September 30, 2020, with an effective date of January 1, 2021. (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2.) As relevant to this case, the bill modified Penal Code section 1203.11 to limit felony probation terms to no more than