People v. Holston CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 4, 2015C075148California1,324 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

I September 23, 2013, Judgment and Sentence Defendant contends the trial court erred when it sentenced him to serve 180 days in a substance abuse program, because the sentence was not authorized by section 3000.08, subdivision (f). We disagree and conclude the imposition of 180 days in the program was a modification of defendant’s parole conditions pursuant to section 3000.08, subdivision (f)(1). Section 3000.08, subdivision (f), provides that when a local agency supervising a parolee finds the sanctions within its authority are insufficient to punish the violation, the agency may request that parole be revoked. In that instance, upon finding the parolee has violated the conditions of parole, the court may: “(1) Return the person to parole supervision with modification of conditions, if appropriate, including a period of incarceration in county jail. [¶] (2) Revoke parole and order the person to confinement in the county jail. [Or] [¶] (3) Refer the person to a reentry court pursuant to Section 3015 or other evidence-based program in the court’s discretion.” (§ 3000.08, subd. (f).) Any confinement in county jail under options (1) or (2) may not exceed 180 days. (§…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.