Opinion
E071773
10-02-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHRISTINA ALEXIS SEXTON, Defendant and Respondent.
Michael A. Hestrin, District Attorney, Robert A. Hightower, Deputy District Attorney for Plaintiff and Appellant. Lillian Hamrick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1770277) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. David A. Gunn, Judge. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part. Michael A. Hestrin, District Attorney, Robert A. Hightower, Deputy District Attorney for Plaintiff and Appellant. Lillian Hamrick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 6, 2017, a felony complaint charged defendant and respondent Christina Sexton with felony driving under the influence under Vehicle Code sections 23152, subdivisions (a) and (b) (counts 1 and 2). The complaint also alleged that defendant had three or more prior driving under the influence (DUI) offenses within the meaning of Vehicle Code section 23103.5.
On the same day, the trial court announced that its indicated sentence, following a guilty plea to counts 1 and 2, would be to continue the sentencing, during which time defendant would be required to comply with certain conditions—that defendant complete a court-approved inpatient or outpatient program, maintain sobriety, and other required conditions; if defendant complied, the court would reduce the offenses to misdemeanors. The court also noted "the People's opposition to the Court's indicated."
The People objected to the trial court's indicated sentence on the ground the People had been told that the program would be inpatient, but now learned that an inpatient program might not be possible. The People stated, "It is the People's hope that [defendant] is successful. However, we're requesting the Court order AA meetings until she is in some sort of either outpatient or inpatient program as a condition of the O.R." The court agreed to the proposed condition.
Thereafter, defendant pled guilty to counts 1 and 2, with three prior DUIs. She then executed a felony plea form that was filed on the same date, November 7, 2017. The People did not sign the form.
After taking the plea, the trial court stated:
"I am going to release you now, [defendant], but with the condition, again, I am going to direct that you attend four AA meetings per week. Do not consume any alcoholic beverages. You attend SB-38, and you attend the outpatient program as directed, or an inpatient one, if you wind up finding one, but you're to report back to this Court on— . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . I think two months. . . . After that it could be three months."
On November 6, 2018, defendant appeared for sentencing. Prior to the sentencing, the trial court stated: "This was a Court indicated, that if [defendant] pled to the felony DUI, but if she completed a treatment program and completed other requirements that the Court had set, that I would reduce it to a misdemeanor at this stage." The court noted the People's previous opposition to the court's indicated sentence. Thereafter, the People further objected based on defendant's "high BAC." The trial court also acknowledged that defendant had submitted a proof of completion of 12 weeks of recovery services through Riverside University Health System. The certificate of completion verified that defendant had met her treatment goals.
Thereafter, the trial court reduced the charges on counts 1 and 2 to misdemeanors and granted summary probation for a period of 48 months. The court ordered that the count 1 and count 2 enhancements be stricken. As a condition of her probation, defendant was ordered to complete the Impaired Driver Program (SB38) in which she was currently enrolled, and to file proof of completion by July 8, 2018.
On December 6, 2018, the People filed a notice of appeal. In the notice, the People stated that they were appealing from the court's orders "entered in the minutes on November 6, 2017 and November 6, 2018, granting the defendant a court-created diversion program with specified terms and conditions."
DISCUSSION
A. NOVEMBER 6, 2017, ORDER: THE PEOPLE'S APPEAL IS UNTIMELY
The People appeal from the trial court's "imposition of information diversion" on November 6, 2017. Defendant contends that this order "is not an appealable order." We need not discuss the appealability of the order because, even if the order were appealable, the People's notice of appeal on this order is untimely.
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.308, states that a notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days after rendition of the judgment or final order. In this case, there is no dispute that the notice of appeal of the November 6, 2017, order was filed almost a year later, on December 8, 2018. The California Supreme Court has "steadfastly adhered to the fundamental precept that the timely filing of an appropriate notice of appeal or its legal equivalent is an absolute prerequisite to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction." (Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico (1975) 15 Cal.3d 660, 670.)
Therefore, the People's appeal from the November 6, 2017, order is dismissed.
B. NOVEMBER 6, 2018, ORDER: THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REDUCING THE TWO FELONY CHARGES TO MISDEMEANORS
The People argue "the trial court abused its discretion and violated the separation of powers doctrine when it created its own diversion program over the objection of the district attorney and thereafter reduced the offense to a misdemeanor."
Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, the trial court's decision "must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice." (People v. Jordan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 308, 316.) Moreover, " '[t]he appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.' " (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319, quoting Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 272.)
In this case, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in reducing defendant's charges to misdemeanors. Here, the facts showed that defendant successfully completed her treatment plan as ordered by the court on November 6, 2017. As noted ante, the court ordered defendant to attend AA meetings, not to consume alcohol, and to complete a recovery program. If defendant successfully complied with the court's order, the court indicated that it would reduce defendant's felony convictions to misdemeanors. Although the People objected to the terms outlined by the trial court, the People neither appealed from the order nor filed a writ to challenge the order. Thereafter, one year later, at the hearing on November 6, 2018, the trial court reduced the charges on counts 1 and 2 to misdemeanors after noting that defendant had provided proof of completing 12 weeks of recovery services and attended AA meetings, as ordered. Moreover, the court ordered defendant to complete the Impaired Driver Program in which she was currently enrolled, and to file proof of completion by July of 2019.
Based on the above, we cannot say that the trial court's decision was arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd resulting in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Instead, the trial court did exactly what it told the parties it would do at the hearing on November 6, 2017, if defendant were successful in complying with the court's order. Here, defendant successfully completed the requirements set forth in the November 6, 2017, order. Therefore, we find that the trial court properly reduced counts 1 and 2 to misdemeanors.
DISPOSITION
The People's appeal of the November 6, 2017, order is dismissed. The Order of November 6, 2018, is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. FIELDS
J.