People v. Wade CA3

Filed 11/8/21 P. v. Wade CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092710

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19PCS01789)

v.

GUY LOUIS WADE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Guy Louis Wade appeals the trial court’s revocation and reinstatement of his postrelease community supervision (PRCS), arguing the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer to the probation department’s fourth petition for revocation. Defendant bases his claim on the failure of the probation department to follow the

1

requirements of Penal Code section 3455, subdivision (a)1 and California Rules of Court, rule 4.541(e). 2 We agree and reverse the postjudgment order. 3 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The November 2, 2017 criminal complaint charged defendant with carrying a dirk or dagger (§ 21310; count 1), possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 2), and possessing an opium pipe (id., § 11364, subd. (a); count 3). The complaint further alleged as to count 1 that defendant had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and had suffered a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j); 1170.12). On March 8, 2018, defendant pleaded no contest to count 1 in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts and enhancement allegations with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. On April 5, 2018, the trial court denied defendant’s request for probation and imposed the upper term of three years. Defendant was released on PRCS on March 18, 2019, and had three revocations and reinstatements prior to the petition challenged here. The instant petition for revocation was filed on July 22, 2020, and alleged defendant had violated the terms of his release by leaving his recovery program without permission, failing to report after he left, and absconding from supervision in violation of his terms of release. The petition failed to include or attach any summary of defendant’s criminal history and did not discuss whether any intermediate sanctions had been considered and rejected as inappropriate. Defendant demurred on August 14, 2020, arguing the petition was defective because it failed to meet a condition precedent to filing a petition for revocation.