People v. Norasingh CA3

Filed 8/5/22 P. v. Norasingh CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Siskiyou) ----

THE PEOPLE, C095021

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCCRCRF20182413)

v.

ALLISON NORASINGH,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Allison Norasingh resolved the criminal matter pending against her by pleading no contest to felony unlawful cultivating, harvesting, drying, or processing of more than six cannabis plants (count 1) and misdemeanor cultivating, harvesting, drying, or processing of more than six cannabis plants (count 2). In exchange, she received a stipulated sentence of three years’ probation for count 2 and five years’ deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) for count 1. Thereafter, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), which generally sets the maximum misdemeanor probation term at one year.

1

(Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 1; People v. Butler (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 216, 220.) In light of this change, defendant petitioned the trial court, seeking dismissal of both counts asserting she successfully completed probation and DEJ. The People opposed defendant’s request only as to the DEJ count. The trial court agreed, finding Assembly Bill No. 1950 applied to count 2 and granting defendant’s petition as to that count, but denied her petition as to the DEJ count.1 Defendant timely appealed and received a certificate of probable cause. She now argues the trial court erred in refusing to grant her relief as to count 1 because the trial court’s grant of DEJ had no statutory basis and contravenes California public policy as embodied in Assembly Bill No. 1950. We disagree, and accordingly, we affirm. DISCUSSION Even assuming arguendo that defendant is correct that the trial court’s grant of DEJ for a five-year term for felony unlawful cultivating, harvesting, drying, or processing of marijuana was an unauthorized sentence without a statutory basis,2 (see, e.g., People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [“a sentence is generally ‘unauthorized’ where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstances in the particular case”]), this does not entitle defendant to relief.