Filed 12/6/18 P. v. Williams CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

Indugo Asifa Williams appeals from an order revoking, reinstating, and modifying his parole by ordering him to serve 240 days in county jail based on two parole revocation petitions. Appellant and respondent agree that the order must be reversed as to the second petition. To that extent, we will reverse the order.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A parole revocation petition was filed on April 26, 2018, alleging that Williams violated his parole by possessing drug paraphernalia and testing positive for a controlled substance. On April 30, 2018, the court revoked his parole.

On May 3, 2018, a second petition alleged that Williams violated his parole, this time by committing a battery on a correctional officer (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (b)) while in Marin County jail pending his revocation hearing. The court ordered that his parole remain revoked.

On May 23, 2018, Williams admitted the drug-related allegations in the April 26 petition, and after a hearing the court found true the battery allegations in the May 3 petition. The court ordered that Williams’s parole was revoked and reinstated on modified terms. Over Williams’s objection, the court imposed a total sanction of 240 days in county jail, comprised of 60 days for the drug test under the April 26 petition and 180 days for the battery under the May 3 petition, and further ordered Williams to report to his parole officer within 48 hours of his release. This appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

Penal Code section 3000.08, subdivision (f) authorizes the trial court to return a parole violator to parole supervision with a period of incarceration in county jail. However, subdivision (g) of that statute limits the incarceration period to 180 days. Williams contends the 240-day sentence to county jail violated the 180-day maximum, and his jail service should be capped at 180 days.

Respondent contends we need not reach the issue presented by Williams, because he is entitled to relief on a different basis: the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the second (May 3) revocation petition, since Williams was no longer subject to parole supervision when he allegedly committed battery on the correctional officer while in jail pending his hearing on the first revocation petition. (See Pen. Code, § 3056, subd. (a) [“When housed in county facilities, parolees shall be under the sole legal custody and jurisdiction of local county facilities,” and “[w]hen a parolee is under the legal custody and jurisdiction of a county facility awaiting parole revocation proceedings . . . , he or she shall not be under the parole supervision or jurisdiction of the department”].) Therefore, respondent asserts, the court’s revocation and modification of Williams’s parole and imposition of a 180-day period of incarceration based on the second petition is void. Respondent concludes that the order as to the second petition should be reversed and the order as to the first petition should be affirmed.

In his reply brief, Williams agrees with respondent’s jurisdictional argument.

Based on the stipulation of the parties, we will reverse the order of May 23, 2018 to the extent it is premised on the second (May 3) revocation petition, and affirm the order in all other respects.

III. DISPOSITION

The order of May 23, 2018, is reversed to the extent it finds a parole violation, revokes parole, and orders appellant to serve 180 days in county jail based on the revocation petition of May 3, 2018. The order is affirmed in all other respects, including the finding of a parole violation, revocation of parole, and reinstatement of parole with the modification that appellant serve 60 days in county jail based on the revocation petition of April 26, 2018.

NEEDHAM, J.

We concur.

JONES, P.J.

SIMONS, J.

(A154571)