Filed 6/24/26 P. v. Johnson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
(Placer)
THE PEOPLE, C104466
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. 62-203069A)
v.
TYNEZ DASHIEK SHARON JOHNSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Tynez Dashiek Sharon Johnson pled no contest to felony possession of
a drug with two or more drug-related prior convictions and was granted four years formal
probation. Defendant contends, and the People agree, that the trial court erred because
his conviction was subject to the two-year probation term limit under Penal Code section
1203.1, subdivision (a).1 We agree and shall modify the judgment to reduce the term and
otherwise affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
In January 2025, defendant and a woman were arrested after they were found with
drugs and drug paraphernalia during a probation search. As a result, defendant was
charged with felony possession of a hard drug with two or more drug related prior
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
convictions (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (b)(1), count one) and misdemeanor
possession of drug paraphernalia (id., § 11364, subd. (a), count three).2 The People also
alleged that (1) defendant had drug convictions in 2009 and 2011 and (2) defendant was
on bail at the time of the instant offense.
Defendant pled no contest to possession of a hard drug with two or more drug
related prior convictions (count one) and admitted his prior convictions, and the court
dismissed the remaining count upon the People’s motion. The court later suspended
imposition of the sentence and granted defendant four years’ formal probation, with
defendant agreeing to all the terms of probation, including its length.
Defendant timely appealed and was granted a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Defendant claims, and the People concede, that the four-year probationary term
was unauthorized under Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Session) (Assembly
Bill No. 1950).
Effective January 1, 2021, Assembly Bill No. 1950 amended Penal Code section
1203.1 to limit the maximum probation period for felony offenses. (People v. Kite
(2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 986, 992.) Under prior law, “the length of felony probation could
not exceed five years or the maximum possible sentence of imprisonment, whichever was
longer.” (Ibid.) Now, the statute provides that, with certain exceptions not applicable
here, felony probation “may continue for a period of time not exceeding two years.”
(§ 1203.1, subd. (a); see also People v. Shelly (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 181, 185.) Because
the trial court imposed a term of probation in excess of section 1203.1’s normal two-year
limit, we will reduce the term to comply with that limit. (See People v. Prudholme
2 Count two was alleged against the woman who was with defendant at the time of the
arrest.
2
(2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 979 [reducing probationary term to two years to comply with
Assembly Bill No. 1950, without remand to trial court].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to reduce the length of the probation term to two years.
As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the order
granting probation to reflect this modification and provide the probation department with
a copy.
/s/
WISEMAN, J.
We concur:
/s/
EARL, P. J.
/s/
RENNER, J.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
3