Opinion
H024671.
7-9-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALBERT LLANOS, Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Albert Llanos appeals from the judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to three counts of lewd acts on a child under age 14. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) Defendant had originally been charged with the three counts and with an enhancement alleging that he was ineligible for probation, under Penal Code section 1203.066, subdivision (a)(7). Pursuant to a plea bargain that he would be sentenced to 20 years in prison, defendant pleaded guilty to all counts. After the trial court denied his motion to withdraw his plea, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison with various conditions and fines. The trial court also imposed a lifetime period of parole.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing a lifetime period of parole. The Attorney General agrees that this period of parole was unauthorized and that the period of parole should be reduced to five years.
The court sentenced defendant for violations of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), committing lewd acts on a child under age 14. The plea agreement did not include any provision relating to the length of defendants parole. The crime for which defendant was sentenced is specified as a "violent felony" under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (c)(6). Penal Code section 3000, subdivision (b)(1) provides that any inmate sentenced for an offense specified in Penal Code section 667.5 , subdivision (c)(6), shall be released on parole for a period not exceeding five years. Thus, defendants proper period of parole is five years, and the imposition of a lifetime period of parole is unauthorized.
DISPOSITION
The clerk of the superior court is directed to modify the abstract of judgment to provide that defendant will be subject to parole for a total period of five years after completion of his sentence. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Premo, Acting P.J. and Bamattre-Manoukian, J. --------------- Notes: A sentence in excess of the courts jurisdiction may be challenged on appeal in the absence of an objection below. (People v. Mustafaa (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1311.)