P. v. Harding CA1/4

Filed 6/27/13 P. v. Harding CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A136150 v. CHARLES GARRETT HARDING, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. PRS100109) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Charles Garrett Harding challenges the trial court’s order finding that he violated the terms of his postrelease community supervision (PRCS) and sentencing him to serve 180 days in jail. We affirm this order and reject Harding’s argument that the court was required to state on the record the number of days it added to his PRCS expiration date because of tolling. We agree, however, that the court’s revised expiration date was wrong. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2011, Harding was sentenced to four years, eight months in prison after violating his felony probation, and received 1,080 days credit for time served. The facts of the underlying crimes and the probation violation are set forth in two prior appeals, and are not at issue. (People v. Harding (Oct. 28, 2011, A131334) [nonpub. opn.]; People v. Harding (July 29, 2011, A129243) [nonpub. opn.].)

1

Harding was released from prison on January 3, 2012, despite his refusal to sign an agreement that he would comply with his PRCS conditions. Two days later, an arrest warrant was issued after he failed to report to his probation officer, and he was arrested on January 10. The probation officer filed with the court a petition for revocation of community supervision, requesting “that action be taken . . . for a violation of [PRCS]” based on Harding’s refusal to sign the PRCS agreement and failure to report. On January 12, Harding’s PRCS was preliminarily revoked pending a hearing, and he remained in jail. On February 8, the court found that Harding had not violated his PRCS conditions because he never agreed to them, but that he had been “released inappropriately” from prison. The court stated that Harding was “subject to post-release supervision, and that’s starting as far as I’m concerned from today’s date,” and ordered that he not be released from jail until he signed the agreement. On March 2, the court found that because Harding still had not signed the agreement, he “was never effectively placed in [PRCS]” and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) retained jurisdiction over him. The court ordered Harding back to prison, to be released only if he signed the agreement. Harding returned to prison on March 6. The same day, he signed his PRCS agreement and was released. On March 8, he again failed to report, and an arrest warrant was issued the next day. On March 29—21 days after he failed to report and 20 days after the warrant was issued—Harding was arrested and taken to jail. His probation officer then filed a petition for revocation asking that Harding’s PRCS be revoked and that Harding be ordered to serve 180 days in jail. The petition also requested “that the Court toll the time [Harding] was in warrant status (21 days) . . . and that his maximum discharge date be extended to March 27, 2015.” On May 24, after a contested hearing, the court found that Harding had violated his PRCS conditions. The court did not revoke his PRCS, but ordered him to serve 180 days in jail. It also extended his PRCS expiration date to March 27, 2015, based on