People v. Norasingh CA3

DISCUSSION

Even assuming arguendo that defendant is correct that the trial court’s grant of DEJ for a five-year term for felony unlawful cultivating, harvesting, drying, or processing of marijuana was an unauthorized sentence without a statutory basis,2 (see, e.g., People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [“a sentence is generally ‘unauthorized’ where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstances in the particular case”]), this does not entitle defendant to relief.

The trial court’s sentence has her DEJ term set to expire in October 2024. Defendant argues neither her crime, nor the length of her DEJ, complied with the requirements of Penal Code sections 1000 and 1000.2. The People respond that the trial court did not purport to impose defendant’s DEJ under that provision. Rather, the record reflects that the court imposed the term pursuant to a “long[-]standing tradition” in Siskiyou County “where the [District Attorney] offers diversion even though it’s not technically pursuant to any statutory authority.” However, we need not affirmatively determine whether the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in order to determine the merits of…