People v. Payton CA3

Filed 7/24/23 P. v. Payton CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096723

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STK-CR- FER-2019-0000022, STK-CR- v. FE-2020-0004786)

LAJUANE RICHARD PAYTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Lajuane Richard Payton appeals from orders issued on July 21, 2022, in San Joaquin County Superior Court case numbers STK-CR-FER-2019-0000022 (case No. 0000022) and STK-CR-FE-2020-0004786 (case No. 0004786) denying his motion to eliminate a GPS monitoring probation condition imposed due to his registered sex offender status. On appeal, defendant argues that an earlier order issued on January 10, 2022, that reinstated probation in case No. 0000022, erroneously extended probation beyond the two-year maximum allowed under Penal Code section 1203.1, subdivision (a), as amended by Assembly Bill No. 1950 (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2,

1

effective Jan. 1, 2021) (Assembly Bill 1950). (All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.)1 We conclude that because defendant failed to file a timely appeal from that order, he has forfeited this claim on appeal. We dismiss his appeal as untimely. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 5, 2019, in case No. 0000022, defendant pled no contest to failure to file a change of address as a registered sex offender. The trial court imposed a sentence of five years of formal probation plus six months in county jail. On May 15, 2020, the trial court revoked defendant’s probation based on an affidavit from a deputy district attorney that defendant failed to annually update his sex offender registry, committed battery on a peace officer, and resisted a peace officer. On June 12, 2020, the court suspended proceedings to assess defendant’s competence to stand trial. On July 14, 2020, the trial court found defendant to be competent, and on August 20, 2020, found defendant in violation of probation. On October 1, 2020, during a sentencing hearing on the probation violation, the court again suspended proceedings, and, on December 1, 2020, again found defendant competent to stand trial. On March 12, 2021, at another probation sentencing hearing, the court suspended proceedings. On April 13, 2021, the court found defendant not competent to stand trial. In the meantime, on August 25, 2020, defendant was charged in case No. 0004786 with failure to annually update his sex offender registration, battery on a peace officer, and resisting a peace officer. On May 4, 2021, defendant was committed to the Department of State Hospitals in both cases, and, on May 6, 2021, the trial court found defendant not competent.