Filed 7/28/26 P. v. Montgomery CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H053813
(Monterey County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 23CR001662)

v.

RYAN VINCENT MONTGOMERY,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of
Judicial Administration, Title 8, Standard 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002)
97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853–855.)
Defendant Ryan Vincent Montgomery was arrested during a traffic stop after he
displayed road rage and threatened other drivers with a firearm.1 An unregistered pistol
was located in the car during the arrest, and illegally possessed firearms were also found
at defendant’s residence. While on bail, defendant attempted to regain custody of the
firearms, and a gun violence restraining order was issued against him. Defendant then
entered the Monterey County District Attorney’s Office and threatened to shoot any law
enforcement officer who came to his house.

1
We grant defendant’s request for judicial notice of the record filed in
defendant’s previous appeal of an order denying mental health diversion (case
No. H051993).
 After the trial court denied defendant’s request for mental health diversion, he pled
no contest to possession of an assault weapon, carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle
while on a public street, and resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, §§ 69, 25850,
subd. (a), 30605, subd. (a)) in exchange for a grant of felony probation (which the court
in its plea colloquy explained could include up to one year in jail). Defendant also signed
an appeal waiver. The trial court stated it would reduce all three counts to misdemeanors
if defendant successfully completed felony probation with no violations and complied
with mental health terms.
The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal
probation for two years. The court ordered defendant to serve 308 days in jail, deemed
served with presentence custody credits of 154 actual days and 154 days of conduct
credits. A different panel of this court affirmed the denial of defendant’s request for
mental health diversion. (People v. Montgomery (May 7, 2025, H051993) [nonpub.
opn.].)
Defense counsel moved over a year later to correct defendant’s presentence
credits, and the trial court awarded defendant 469 days of credit (based on 235 days of
actual custody and 234 days of conduct credits). Defense counsel then asked that
defendant’s probation be terminated early and his felonies reduced to misdemeanors.
According to defendant’s opening brief on appeal, defense counsel argued that the
additional 161 days of presentence credit should be applied against defendant’s probation
term so that it could be terminated early. (In re Strick (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 906, 910,
fn. 1 (Strick).) Counsel also asked that the convictions be reduced to misdemeanors,
noting that defendant had been diligent in his mental health treatment.
The trial court denied defendant’s request. The court explained it did not believe
Strick alone gave it authority to make the requested modification, but it also commended
defendant for his probation compliance. It emphasized that the mental health assistance
defendant had sought and received while on probation was helpful for him, and (with no

2
apparent disagreement from defense counsel) that the full two-year probationary period
was important. The court reiterated it would favorably consider a motion to reduce the
felony convictions to misdemeanors and dismiss the case under Penal Code
section 1203.4 if defendant kept up the good work and successfully completed probation.
Defendant now challenges the denial of his request to terminate probation early
and reduce his felonies to misdemeanors. Following a timely appeal of that order,
appointed counsel filed an opening brief summarizing the case but raising no issues. We
notified defendant that he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf and that
failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal as abandoned. (People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231–232 (Delgadillo).) Defendant has filed a
supplemental brief, in which he argues the custody credits exceeding one year should be
applied toward his probation term; he also raises substantive and procedural issues
concerning his conviction. (We note that according to a minute order defendant attached
to his supplemental brief, the trial court has granted his request to reduce his convictions
to misdemeanors and probation has terminated during the pendency of this appeal.)
Citing Strick, defendant asserts that the 161 days of additional custody credit
should have been applied against his probation period. In Strick, the court determined the
prospective application of new legislation applying work credits against prison sentences
did not raise equal protection concerns. (Strick, supra, 148 Cal.App.3d at pp. 909, 913.)
The court observed in a footnote that the issue was not moot on appeal despite appellant’s
release from prison, because any additional work credits that appellant should have been
awarded could be applied against his supervision period. (Id. at p. 910, fn. 1.) Strick
does not require the application of additional credits against the duration of probation.
Defendant also asks us to vacate his conviction for carrying a loaded firearm in a
vehicle while on a public street and to find the associated 10-year firearm ban
unconstitutional based on the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion striking down California’s
open carry ban. (See Baird v. Bonta (9th Cir. 2026) 163 F.4th 723, rehg. en banc granted,

3
172 F.4th 1105.) He further argues two temporary gun violence restraining orders were
issued without a hearing within 21 days, violating his due process rights as a gun owner
and depriving the trial court of jurisdiction to issue a permanent order. Finally, he states
he did not waive his right to a preliminary hearing within 60 days of arraignment.
We do not have jurisdiction to consider defendant’s arguments concerning his
original conviction in this appeal of a postconviction order. (People v. Jordan (2018)
21 Cal.App.5th 1136, 1143.) As defendant raises no arguable appellate issue relating to
that order, we will affirm the denial of his request to apply custody credits to shorten his
(since expired) probation term. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232; People v.
Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 503.)
DISPOSITION
The October 14, 2025 order is affirmed.

4
 ____________________________________
Grover, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________
Lie, J.

____________________________
Wilson, J.

H053813
The People v. Montgomery