People v. Walters CA3

Filed 1/7/22 P. v. Walters CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C093507

v. (Super. Ct. No. 17CR000015)

EVAN HARVEY WALTERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Evan Harvey Walters was in his third year of a five-year term of probation when the trial court revoked his probation and imposed the previously imposed sentence with suspended execution. Defendant claims Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019- 2020 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1950) retroactively shortened his probation term such

1

that it ended before the violative conduct occurred, divesting the trial court of jurisdiction to formally revoke his probation and commit him to prison. We affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND The prosecution charged defendant with failing to update his address within the statutory requirements, a felony in violation of Penal Code section 290.013, subdivision (a).1 On June 12, 2017, defendant entered into a stipulated agreement wherein he agreed to plead guilty in exchange for an agreed-upon sentence of three years in prison, suspended in favor of five years of probation with a 90-day jail sentence and community service. The parties also stipulated to the existence of a factual basis for the plea. The prosecutor subsequently filed two petitions for violations of probation. Defendant admitted violating probation each time and probation was twice reinstated. On August 28, 2020, the prosecutor filed a third petition for violation of probation, and the trial court summarily revoked defendant’s probation on September 21, 2020. On November 6, 2020, a hearing was held on the third petition. The trial court accepted defendant’s admission of the violation and the matter was continued to obtain an updated probation report. On January 5, 2021, the trial court told defendant he would not place him back on probation. Instead, the trial court formally terminated probation and committed defendant to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation on the three- year sentence that was previously imposed. DISCUSSION Defendant contends the trial court never had jurisdiction to revoke his probation because Assembly Bill 1950, as a matter of law, retroactively changed the term of his probation to two years. As a result, defendant argues, his probation terminated after