Opinion
H044034
05-25-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL ALBERTO CASAS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (San Benito County Super. Ct. No. CR-16-01182)
Defendant Daniel Alberto Casas appeals an order revoking his postrelease community supervision (PRCS) and requiring him to serve 120 days jail. We shall affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Upon release from prison in June 2014, defendant was placed on PRCS for a period not to exceed three years. In August 2016, while living in a long-term residential treatment program, defendant violated the terms of his PRCS by leaving the program without notifying his probation officer and using marijuana and methamphetamine. The Probation Department filed a revocation petition in which it recommended that defendant serve 120 days in county jail and be ordered to complete a long-term residential treatment program. It further recommended that defendant be released from county jail early if space in such a program became available.
Defendant admitted the violation—his fourth—at a September 1, 2016 PRCS revocation hearing. At the start of that hearing, the court noted that defendant was on "postrelease community supervision or local parole." The court revoked and reinstated defendant's PRCS and ordered him to serve 120 days in county jail and to complete a long-term residential treatment program. The court refused to order that defendant be released early into a treatment program, as the Probation Department had recommended, explaining "it's a parole violation [and, t]ypically[,] the court doesn't release people early on parole violations." When defendant, who appeared in propria persona, protested that he had received early release in the past, the court responded "it's not going to happen this time, especially since it's your fourth violation . . . ."
On appeal, defendant argues the foregoing explanation—particularly the comparison to parole—shows the trial court was unaware of its discretion to grant early release in the PRCS context, such that reversal and remand is required. The People do not dispute that the trial court had the discretion to order early release; instead, they contend nothing in the record shows the court failed to appreciate the scope of its discretion.
II. DISCUSSION
The Postrelease Community Supervision Act of 2011 (Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq.) was adopted as part of the 2011 Realignment Act. (People v. Douglas (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 855, 863 (Douglas).) It created PRCS "as an alternative to parole for non-serious, nonviolent felonies." (People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393, 399.) A felon on PRCS is subject to supervision by a county agency, such as a probation department, rather than by the state's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Ibid.) "The supervised person may be subject to various sanctions for violating the conditions of his or her PRCS, including incarceration in the county jail, but may not be returned to state prison for PRCS violations." (Ibid.)
" 'It is axiomatic that when an issue entrusted to the trial court's discretion is properly presented to the court for decision, the court must exercise its discretion: In such a case a statement or other evidence that the court believes it has no discretion, but must rule in a certain way, indicates an error so fundamental as to be said to amount to a refusal to exercise jurisdiction.' " (People v. Bolian (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1421.) "[W]hen the record indicates the court misunderstood or was unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers, we should remand to allow the court to properly exercise its discretion. [Citation.] We need not remand, however, when the record indicates the court was aware of its discretion or the record is merely silent on whether the court misunderstood its sentencing discretion." (Ibid.)
Defendant contends "the trial court's oral references to parole are sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the court knew the applicable law." We disagree. As noted, the court first referred to PRCS as "local parole." Given that context, the court's comments are fairly read as merely used that phrase, and later simply "parole," as shorthand for PRCS.
Defendant objects to that shorthand because, in his view, PRCS is not comparable to parole. He relies on People v. Espinoza (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 635, 639 in which the Second District Court of Appeal rejected the argument that excess custody credits reduce the period of PRCS as they reduce the period of parole. But courts have analogized PRCS to parole in other contexts. (See Douglas, supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 865 ["As in the case of a parole search, an officer's knowledge that the individual is on PRCS is equivalent to knowledge that he or she is subject to a search condition"]; People v. Jones (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1266-1268 [stating that "PCRS is similar to parole" and deciding that mandatory PRCS search and seizure condition authorized nonconsensual, warrantless blood draw]; People v. Gonzalez (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 370, 381 ["PRCS, though not identical, is similar to parole, the main difference being that PRCS is conducted by a county agency rather than by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation"].) We need not weigh in on the similarities and differences among the parole, probation, and PRCS schemes. Suffice to say, the court did not evince any confusion about PRCS or the scope of its discretion merely by comparing PRCS to parole.
Nothing else in the record indicates the court was unaware of its discretion. To the contrary, the record suggests the court elected to order defendant to serve the entire 120 days in jail because he had violated the terms of his PRCS for the fourth time in just over two years.
III. DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
/s/_________
ELIA, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
RUSHING, P. J. /s/_________
PREMO, J.