People v. Cardiff CA2/2

Filed 7/27/23 P. v. Cardiff CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B322391

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA112033) v.

DANIELLE LYNN CARDIFF,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:

Danielle Lynn Cardiff (defendant) appeals from a postconviction order denying her request for a reduction of her probation period under Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2) (Assem. Bill No. 1950), which amended Penal Code1 section 1203.1 effective January 1, 2021 to limit the maximum probation term for most felonies to two years.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

BACKGROUND On May 30, 2019, defendant struck her grandmother in the face and upper torso multiple times in the presence of defendant’s toddler. On July 30, 2019, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of felony elder abuse likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 368, subd. (b)(1)), and one count of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). On the elder abuse count, the trial court imposed a two-year prison sentence, but suspended its execution; on the assault count, the court suspended imposition of sentence. As to both counts, defendant was placed on three years’ probation. The court also entered a protective order pursuant to section 1203.097 on behalf of defendant’s grandparents. Defendant did not appeal her conviction or sentence. In February 2021, the court preliminarily found defendant had violated the terms of her probation, and issued a bench warrant for her arrest. On July 7, 2021, defendant admitted the probation violation. The court revoked and then reinstated defendant’s probation under the original terms, i.e., three years to run to July 2022. In April 2022, following another violation of the terms of probation, the court summarily revoked defendant’s probation. On July 13, 2022, defendant filed a motion to terminate probation pursuant to Assem. Bill No. 1950, arguing there was insufficient evidence to show it was a domestic violence case exempted from the default two-year cap for probation. Defendant argued that a trial court assessing whether a case qualified as a domestic violence case “must be limited to what was actually