People v. Sine CA3

California Court of Appeal Mar 3, 2023 No. C096352Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was entitled to conduct credit for time spent in a state hospital for competency restoration because she could not have knowingly waived a right to credit that did not exist at the time of her waiver, and the relevant statute applied at the time of her sentencing.

Issues

Whether a defendant can knowingly waive conduct credit for state hospital competency treatment if the law did not provide for such credit at the time of the waiver.
Whether Senate Bill 317, which authorizes conduct credit for state hospital treatment, applies to a defendant sentenced after the law's effective date.

Disposition. affirmed as modified

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendant did not knowingly and intelligently waive conduct credit in July 2021 because she was not entitled to such credit at the time.”

“Because defendant had not waived conduct credit, she was entitled to the prospective application of Senate Bill 317.”

Filed 3/3/23 P. v. Sine CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C096352

v. (Super. Ct. No. 19CR002060)

KASSANDRA LYNN SINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Kassandra Lynn Sine pleaded guilty to child endangerment. The trial court imposed but suspended a six-year prison term and placed defendant on probation for five years with 240 days in county jail. Defendant now contends she is entitled to presentence credit for the time she spent in a state hospital receiving treatment to restore her competence. Agreeing with her contention, we will modify the judgment and affirm the judgment as modified.

BACKGROUND In December 2019, defendant pleaded guilty to child endangerment. (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a).)1 Consistent with the plea agreement, the trial court dismissed a prior strike allegation, imposed but suspended a six-year prison term, and placed defendant on probation for five years with 240 days in county jail. In December 2020, a doubt was declared regarding defendant’s competence, proceedings were suspended pursuant to section 1368 et seq., and the trial court ordered an evaluation. In January 2021, the trial court found defendant incompetent to stand trial and referred the matter for review and a report. In February 2021, the trial court ordered defendant committed to the Department of State Hospitals for restoration to competency. In May 2021, a certificate of restoration to mental competence was filed. In June 2021, the trial court found defendant competent to stand trial and reinstated criminal proceedings. Among other things, defendant admitted violating probation 14 times between June and December 2020. In July 2021, the trial court reinstated probation and extended the probation term by two years. In exchange, defendant agreed to waive her custody credit pursuant to People v. Johnson (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 183 (Johnson). Defense counsel informed the trial court he had discussed the waiver with defendant. The trial court committed defendant to the behavioral health court program and ordered her to serve 30 days in jail without credit for time served. In February 2022, defendant admitted she violated probation in November 2021. In May 2022, the trial court executed on the previously imposed but suspended six-year prison sentence. Defendant acknowledged that, because of her July 2021 Johnson waiver, she was not entitled to credit for the 114 actual days of her hospital stay.

People v. Sine CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE,

KASSANDRA LYNN SINE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief