Torres

People v. Torres

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 13, 2022B318399California834 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

Torres argues that the trial court did not exercise its informed discretion when imposing the 180 days of confinement

3 as a probation condition because it misunderstood Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a).1 Penal Code section 1203, subdivisions (b) and (d) permit the trial court to suspend imposition or execution of sentence and grant probation. As a condition of granting probation, the court may order the defendant imprisoned “in a county jail for a period not exceeding the maximum time fixed by law in the case.” (Pen. Code, § 1203.1, subd. (a).) Confinement is not mandated by Penal Code section 1203.1, however; instead, the court may “impose either imprisonment in a county jail or a fine, both, or neither.” (Id., subd. (a)(2), italics added.) Certain penal statutes do require a jail sentence as a condition of probation. For example, Vehicle Code section 14601.2, driving under the influence with a suspended license, requires 10 days confinement as a condition of probation. (Id., subd. (e).) Penal Code section 290.018, failing to register as a sex offender, requires 90 days confinement as a condition of probation. (Id., subd. (c).) Penal Code section 273.5,…

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.