P. v. Goodsell
Filed 1/20/09 P. v. Goodsell CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GARY WAYNE GOODSELL, Defendant and Appellant. | C057723 (Super. Ct. No. 07F01981) |
A jury found defendant Gary Wayne Goodsell guilty of possessing methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a). The trial court then sentenced defendant to five years probation under Proposition 36. (Pen. Code, 1210.1.) As a condition of his probation, the trial court ordered defendant to serve 60 days in jail, but stayed the incarceration pending defendants successful completion of probation.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing a 60-day jail term as a condition of probation. He asks this court to strike the 60-day jail term. The People concede the error and agree the 60-day jail term should be stricken as an unauthorized sentence.
Having reviewed the relevant law and the record on appeal, we accept the Peoples concession. Penal Code section 1210.1 precludes the trial court from imposing incarceration as a condition of Proposition 36 probation. (Pen. Code, 1210.1, subd. (a) [A court may not impose incarceration as an additional condition of probation].)
Disposition
The trial court is hereby directed to strike the portion of defendants probation conditions that imposes 60 days of incarceration in the Sacramento County Jail. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.
DAVIS , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
RAYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
