People v. Knight CA3

Filed 4/15/22 P. v. Knight CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094453

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19FE006532)

v.

CATELYN ELIZABETH KNIGHT,

Defendant and Appellant.

After pleading guilty to assault likely to produce great bodily injury in 2019, the trial court placed defendant Catelyn Elizabeth Knight on a term of probation. Defendant now appeals, purportedly from orders made at a hearing on a probation violation, and asserts her term of probation must be reduced based on legislative changes in Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2020, ch. 328). We conclude the trial court’s orders at the hearing are not appealable orders and the trial court’s reference to Assembly Bill No. 1950 was not a judgment, and we will dismiss defendant’s appeal accordingly.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On May 6, 2019, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4))1 and one count of misdemeanor petty theft (§ 484). In sentencing defendant, the trial court placed defendant on a five-year term of probation, ordered her to serve 120 days in county jail, and released defendant from custody to allow her to sign up for the balance of the time she owed, on the sheriff’s work project. On March 23, 2021, defendant appeared in court on a petition for violation of probation. Defendant admitted a violation based on weapons possession. The court imposed an additional 90-day sentence in county jail, and again released defendant from custody to allow her to sign up for the sheriff’s work project. On May 18, 2021, defendant appeared in court on a petition for violation of probation for failing to check in and keep in contact with her probation officer. At the hearing, the court noted that defendant had not yet served the previously ordered 120-day and 90-day sentences that had been imposed on May 6, 2019, and March 23, 2021. Defendant explained she had not yet been able to sign up for work project. Defendant offered to extend her probation term, and the court responded that, “it’s not a matter of extending her probation, because her probation is currently set to expire in 2024, notwithstanding [Assembly Bill No.] 1950. It’s not something that -- it’s not automatic.” After a discussion off the record, defendant requested to serve the time she owed in custody, provided she was first released to handle some personal matters. The court agreed with defendant’s request, released her on her own recognizance, and ordered her to report to county jail by July 30, 2021. The court then dismissed the petition for violation of probation.