Hronchak

People v. Hronchak

Good Law
2 Cal. App. 5th 884·2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 711·206 Cal. Rptr. 3d 483
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 23, 2016B262866California4,076 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perluss, J.

While serving a 16-month sentence for a felony drug conviction, Christopher Hronchak was resentenced pursuant to Proposition 47 to a misdemeanor, ordered released from prison with 360 days of custody credit and placed on parole for one year. After Hronchak failed to report to his supervising parole agent—a violation of parole supervision conditions that Hronchak admitted—the court revoked and reinstated parole on condition that Hronchak serve an additional 60 days in custody. On appeal Hronchak contends the parole revocation petition should have been denied because adequate consideration was not given to intermediate sanctions as required by Penal Code section 3000.08, subdivision (f). He also argues, even if the revocation petition was properly granted, the court lacked authority to order Hronchak to serve more than four additional days in custody because the maximum confinement time for a misdemeanor drug offense is 364 days and, pursuant to the terms of Proposition 47, his underlying drug conviction must now be “considered a misdemeanor for all purposes” other than limitations on ownership or possession of firearms. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The…

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.