People v. Parraorozco CA2/5
Filed 5/18/22 P. v. Parraorozco CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, B313635
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. BA466008)
YESENIA PARRAOROZCO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ray G. Jurado, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Brad J. Poore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Kathy S. Pomerantz, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Yesenia Parraorozco (defendant) entered a negotiated plea and was placed on formal felony probation for three years in 2018. Just over two years later, in 2021, the trial court revoked and reinstated defendant’s probation—rejecting her argument that her probation had already terminated pursuant to recently enacted Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (AB 1950), which limits felony probation to a maximum term of two years. (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2021.) The Attorney General concedes defendant is entitled to retroactive application of AB 1950, but we are asked to decide whether the prosecution must be afforded an opportunity to withdraw from the plea agreement.
I. BACKGROUND An information filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in 2018 charged defendant with one count of robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211.1 At a hearing in December 2018, the prosecution amended the information to add a second charge: assault likely to cause great bodily injury in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(4). Defendant pled no contest to the assault charge and the trial court dismissed the robbery count. The trial court sentenced defendant to three years in prison, suspended execution of the sentence, and placed her on formal probation for three years. As we shall discuss in more detail, the Legislature subsequently enacted AB 1950, which amends section 1203.1 to limit the term of probation for most felonies to a maximum of two
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)