People v. Racimo CA3

DISCUSSION

Petitioner contends his excess custody credits eliminated the trial court’s authority to impose a term of parole. He acknowledges other appellate courts have concluded a trial court may impose parole after resentencing a petitioner under section 1170.95 to time served, even if that petitioner has sufficient excess custody credits to offset the imposed parole term. (See People v. Wilson (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 42, 46; see also People v. Lamoureux (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 136, 145 [agreeing with and adopting the Wilson court’s reasoning].) He contends those cases were wrongly decided.

Petitioner’s request for judicial notice is granted.

2 After filing his opening brief, petitioner was discharged from parole, rendering this issue moot. “ ‘[A] case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief.’ ” (People v. Rish (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1380.) In light of petitioner’s discharge from parole, any determination regarding the trial court’s authority to impose parole would have no practical effect and would not provide any effective relief. (See People v. Lamoureux, supra, 57 Cal.App.5th at p. 154,…