People v. Pallett CA1/3

Filed 5/15/24 P. v. Pallett CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, A167669 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Napa County v. Super. Ct. No. 22CR001059) CHAD LEE PALLETT, Defendant and Appellant.

The trial court summarily revoked Chad Lee Pallett’s probation and issued a bench warrant for his arrest based on his failure to report to the probation department. After Pallett was arrested and found to have violated the terms of his probation, the trial court extended the end date of his probation to account for the time period his probation had been in revoked status. Pallett appeals on the basis that the trial court lacked the authority to extend his probation. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 16, 2022, Pallett was placed on two years of formal probation for interfering with another person’s civil rights (Pen. Code, § 422.6, subd. (a))1, resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), and vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1)). The terms of his probation required him to report to the

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

probation department at least once a month, report immediately upon release from jail or prison, and report any change of address or phone number. In December 2022, Pallett was released from jail after serving a sentence in a separate case but failed to report to probation. On February 8, 2023, the trial court summarily revoked Pallett’s probation and issued a bench warrant for his arrest based on a probation report indicating he had failed to contact probation. On March 18, 2023, Pallett was arrested on the warrant and placed in custody. On April 7, 2023, the trial court held a probation violation hearing. The court found Pallett violated the terms of his probation by failing to report to probation monthly and upon release from jail. The court revoked and reinstated Pallett’s probation and extended its end date to August 12, 2024 to account for the 58 days it had been summarily revoked. The court also sentenced him to 120 days in jail, awarding 21 days of actual presentence custody credit and 20 days of conduct credit. It is undisputed that Pallett had been on probation for 237 days, from June 16, 2022 to February 8, 2023, before the court summarily revoked his probation. The reinstatement of probation from April 7, 2023 to August 12, 2024 added 493 days, for a total of 730 days, or exactly 2 years. DISCUSSION The sole issue Pallett raises on appeal is whether the trial court had the authority to extend the end date of his probation upon reinstatement to August 12, 2024. He contends the extended end date improperly resulted in the period of probation exceeding the two-year statutory maximum term that applies under section 1203.1, subdivision (a). Reviewing de novo (People v. Ornelas (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1305, 1311 (Ornelas)), we disagree and affirm.