P. v. Llanes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 9/19/13  P. v. Llanes 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

(San
Joaquin)

----

 
>

THE PEOPLE,                           Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   CHRISTIAN LLANES,                           Defendant and Appellant.

C069914   (Super. Ct. No. SF112980A)

 

 

            In January
2010, defendant Christian Llanes pleaded guilty to href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">possession of cocaine for the purpose of sale
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and driving a vehicle while having a
blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd.
(b)).  Defendant also admitted to a prior
conviction for driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23540).  Consistent with the href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">plea agreement, the trial court suspended
imposition of sentence, placed defendant on five years of formal probation, and
ordered defendant to serve 12 months in county jail.href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] 

            In November
2010, defendant admitted to violating his probation.  The trial court thus imposed a two-year
prison sentence, suspended execution of sentence, and reinstated probation with
365 days in county jail.  After defendant
admitted another probation violation in December 2011, the trial court
terminated probation on defendant's conviction for possession of cocaine with
the intent to sell and ordered execution of the previously imposed two-year
state prison term.href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"
title="">[2]  Defendant asked the court to order his
sentence be served in county jail pursuant to the Criminal Justice Realignment
Act of 2011 (Realignment Act) (Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess. 2011–2012, ch. 15, §
1).  The trial court refused defendant's
request.  Defendant appealed. 

            Defendant's
sole claim on appeal is that his crimes are subject to the Realignment Act's
county jail provisions.  (Health &
Saf. Code, § 11351; Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b).)  Thus, he argues, because his sentence was not
executed until after the Realignment Act took effect, he is entitled to the
benefit of its county jail provisions. 
We disagree and affirm.

            Defendant
relies on People v. Clytus (2012) 209
Cal.App.4th 1001 to support his claim. 
This court recently published a decision, People v. Wilcox (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 618, wherein we addressed
the same scenario as that presented here and in Clytus:  â€œ[A] defendant whose
state prison sentence was imposed before but executed after the effective date
of the Realignment Act.”  (Wilcox, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p.
622.)  As we explain in Wilcox, we disagree with the decision in Clytus, supra, 209 Cal.App.4th 1001.  (Wilcox,
supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at pp. 623-626.) 
For the reasons stated in Wilcox,
we reject defendant's claim here as well. 




 

DISPOSITION

            The
judgment is affirmed.

 

 

 

                                                                                            NICHOLSON           , J.

 

 

 

We concur:

 

 

 

               BLEASE              , Acting P. J.

 

 

 

               BUTZ                  , J.