People v. Sharp CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Aug 22, 2022 No. G060442Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court retains jurisdiction to conduct a formal probation revocation hearing and impose a sentence if it summarily revoked probation during the probationary period, even if the term expires before the formal hearing. Furthermore, the court found that Assembly Bill No. 1950 did not apply because the defendant had not completed two years of probation due to tolling from prior revocations.

Issues

Did the trial court lose jurisdiction to conduct a formal probation revocation hearing after the probation term was terminated by a separate court order?
Did Assembly Bill No. 1950 retroactively deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to revoke probation and sentence the defendant?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“‘[S]ummary revocation [of probation] gives the court jurisdiction over and physical custody of the defendant and is proper if the defendant is accorded a subsequent formal hearing in conformance with due process.’”

“the trial court’s earlier summary revocation of probation gave the trial court continuing jurisdiction over the defendant to conduct a formal revocation hearing on acts that occurred during the probationary period.”

Filed 8/22/22 P. v. Sharp CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G060442

v. (Super. Ct. No. 17HF1371)

MERRITT LLEWELLYN SHARP IV, OPI NION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John R. Zitny, Judge. Affirmed. Richard L. Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and James H. Flaherty III, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

While on probation, defendant Merritt Llewellyn Sharp was arrested for possession of methamphetamine. Defendant’s probation was summarily revoked and defendant was held without bail pending a formal revocation hearing. However, while defendant awaited a formal probation hearing, the probation department filed an uncontested petition to terminate defendant’s probation based on a change in the law limiting the duration of felony probation. This petition was heard and granted by a different department of the superior court. When the time for defendant’s formal revocation hearing arrived, defendant argued his probation had been terminated and the court lacked jurisdiction over him. The trial court rejected this argument and sentenced defendant to prison. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to perform the formal revocation of his probation and sentence him because of the earlier termination of his probation. Based on People v. Leiva (2013) 56 Cal.4th 498, 505 (Leiva), we disagree and affirm.

People v. Sharp CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

MERRITT LLEWELLYN SHARP IV, OPI NION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

SANCHEZ, J.

MOORE, ACTING P. J.

AI Brief