People v. Petty CA1/2

California Court of Appeal Mar 10, 2022 No. A163677Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of a motion to reduce a probation term, holding that a trial court may impose a single probation term for a case based on the longest authorized period for any individual conviction, even if other counts would otherwise be subject to shorter limits under Assembly Bill No. 1950.

Issues

Whether a trial court may reduce a felony probation term to two years while maintaining a three-year term for a misdemeanor count in the same case.
Whether a defendant is entitled to a reduction of a negotiated probation term under AB 1950 when the plea agreement was entered into after the law's effective date.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Statutory law indicates that if a court places a defendant on probation, it will be under a single grant for the entire case, regardless of the number of counts.”

“a court is “permitted to select a term of probation for the entire case up to the longest authorized for any single conviction, whether the longest term is for a felony or a misdemeanor.””

Filed 3/10/22 P. v. Petty CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A163677 v. JAMES LAKIE PETTY IV, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 21CR000462) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant James Lakie Petty IV appeals from a postconviction order denying his request for a reduction of his probation period. Petty’s appellate counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel informed Petty of his right to file a supplemental brief, and he has not filed one. Upon our Wende review, we conclude there are no arguable appellate issues requiring further briefing and affirm. BACKGROUND On March 12, 2021, the Napa County District Attorney filed a criminal complaint charging Petty with being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) (count 1); possessing a loaded firearm not

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

registered to the person (§ 25850, subd. (c)(6)) (count 2); possessing a concealed firearm in a vehicle (§ 25400, subd. (a)(1)) (count 3); possessing a loaded firearm in a public place (§ 25850, subd. (a)) (count 4); being a felon in possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)) (count 5); driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)) (count 6); and driving without a license (id., § 12500, subd. (a)) (count 7). On March 24, pursuant to a plea agreement, Petty pleaded no contest to the charges in counts 1 and 6, in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts and his placement on probation for three years, subject to certain terms and conditions. The court found Petty knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights and accepted the plea. On April 22, the court granted Petty three years’ probation, conditioned on him serving 120 days in county jail, with 85 days of credit for time served, among other probation conditions. The court also imposed various fines, assessments, and fees. On July 30, the Probation Department filed a petition to revoke Petty’s probation, alleging he violated several terms of probation. On August 10, the court revoked and reinstated probation and modified its conditions to include requirements that he complete an alcohol and drug treatment assessment and an outpatient or residential treatment program, and serve ten days in a community work program. On August 16, the Probation Department filed a motion to transfer Petty’s case to Solano County. A hearing on that motion was held on October 7, which began with defense counsel orally requesting “that the court reduce Petty’s probation term as to the felony conviction in count 1 to two years,” pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1950 (AB 1950). AB 1950 took effect on January 1, 2021 and amended sections 1203a and 1203.1 to limit the

People v. Petty CA1/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief