Filed 9/9/26 P. v. Mooney CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
F089704
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. Nos. CRF61987,
v. CRF67375)
TORI LYNN MOONEY,
OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Kevin M.
Seibert, Judge.
Michele A. Douglass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Charlotte Woodfork and
Jeffrey A. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
* Before Meehan, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and Harrell, J.
Two cases are at issue, both involving defendant Tori Lynn Mooney. Mooney
was on probation in Tuolumne County Superior Court case No. CRF61987 (“Case 1”)
and Tuolumne County Superior Court case No. CRF67375 (“Case 2”). She violated
probation multiple times, and after the trial court found she violated probation in August
of 2024, it sentenced her to two years in county jail.
On appeal, Mooney argues that the court erred in finding she violated probation
based on conduct that occurred in August of 2024 because her term of probation expired
in April of 2024. The People disagree. We reverse.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
In Case 1, on April 14, 2021, the District Attorney of Tuolumne County filed an
information charging Mooney with failing to appear while released on her own
recognizance (Pen. Code,1 § 1320, subd. (b); count 1).
In Case 2, on September 24, 2021, the District Attorney filed an information
charging Mooney with bringing contraband into a jail (§ 4573, subd. (a); count 1); sale or
transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); count 2);
possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378;
count 3); possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364; count 4); and
resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 5).
On November 18, 2021, Mooney pled guilty to count 1 in Case 1 and to counts 1
and 5 in Case 2, and the remaining counts and allegations were dismissed.
On April 15, 2022, imposition of the sentence was suspended and Mooney was
placed on formal probation for a period of two years in each case. As a condition of
probation, she was required to serve an aggregate term of four months in county jail.
On August 21, 2023, Mooney was arraigned on a probation violation in both cases.
On September 18, 2023, she admitted the violation. Probation was revoked and
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2.
reinstated in both cases, with the requirement that she serve a total of 90 days in county
jail and complete a residential drug treatment program.
On October 23, 2023, the trial court revoked Mooney’s probation, pending
resolution of alleged violations, after the Tuolumne County Probation Department filed
an affidavit asserting that she failed to enroll in a residential drug treatment program and
tested positive for methamphetamine. On February 5, 2024, the court held a contested
probation violation hearing, and it found that Mooney violated probation in both cases. It
ordered and suspended a term totaling 150 days in county jail, and it ordered Mooney to
enroll in a treatment program within 30 days or to serve the suspended sentence. It also
set a review hearing in 30 days to ensure that Mooney enrolled in a treatment program.
After the prosecutor asserted that the probation termination date needed to be recalculated
because probation had been revoked, the court ultimately responded: “But what I think
what I’ll do is, I’ll keep probation in revoked status until that review date to see if she’s in
the [treatment program]. So that way we can keep that month and put it on the end of the
time.” The court then asked the probation officer what the new termination date would
be if probation remained revoked until the review hearing, and he responded, “That
would be August 23, I believe, if my math is correct.” The court then ordered that
probation be kept “in revoked status … until that date.”
On March 4, 2024, the trial court held the review hearing. It found Mooney failed
to enroll in a residential drug treatment program and remanded her to serve an aggregate
term of 120 days in county jail.
On August 9, 2024, the trial court held a hearing after the Probation Department
filed an affidavit in both cases asserting that Mooney committed two felonies and twice
refused to submit to a drug test.2 The court continued the hearing. The minute orders do
2 The affidavit was later amended to assert that Mooney refused to take a drug test
on two occasions and tested positive for methamphetamine on one occasion.
3.
not state that Mooney’s probation was revoked.3 On October 14, 2024, the court held
another hearing, and at this hearing, the court revoked Mooney’s probation. On
January 30, 2025, the court held a contested probation violation hearing, and it found that
Mooney violated probation in both cases.
On February 20, 2025, the trial court sentenced Mooney to an aggregate term of
three years eight months, consisting of: three years on count 1 in Case 2 (the middle
term); and eight months on count 1 in Case 1 (one-third the middle term). Mooney was
ordered to spend the first two years of the term in county jail, and then one year eight
months on mandatory supervision.
On April 22, 2025, Mooney filed a notice of appeal in both cases.
DISCUSSION4
I. Applicable Law
A trial court, “in the order granting probation, may suspend the imposing or the
execution of the sentence and may direct that the suspension may continue for a period of
time not exceeding two years[.]” (§ 1203.1, subd. (a).) During the period of supervision,
the court may revoke probation. “Revocation is a two-step process. First, when
presented with probable cause of a violation, a court may summarily revoke supervision
and issue a bench warrant for the defendant’s arrest. [Citation.] Second, the defendant is
entitled to a formal hearing at which the prosecution must prove the violation and a
disposition may be made. [Citations.] If the violation is found true, the [court] may,
among other options, terminate supervision and order incarceration in jail, or … it may
3 The reporter’s transcript from this hearing is not part of the record on appeal.
Based on the minute order entered in each case, neither of which lists a court reporter, it
appears that no such transcript exists.
4 Because the facts underlying the offense are not relevant to the issue on appeal,
we omit a summary of those facts. The relevant facts are included in the Procedural
History and Background section, ante.
4.
reinstate supervision and modify the conditions, such as by imposing a period of jail
incarceration.” (People v. Braud (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 962, 966 (Braud).)
“The revocation, summary or otherwise, shall serve to toll the running of the
period of supervision.” (§ 1203.2, subd. (a).) However, while the trial court has “the
power to extend the probationary term” (People v. Leiva (2013) 56 Cal.4th 498, 504),
“tolling at the summary revocation stage does not automatically extend the probationary
period but rather preserves the court’s jurisdiction to proceed to the second step, a formal
hearing to decide whether there has been a violation during the probation period, after the
probation period has expired” (Braud, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at p. 968).
II. Analysis
According to Mooney, her term of probation was set to expire on April 14, 2024.
And while her probation was revoked more than once, the trial court never issued an
order extending the probationary period. Accordingly, her term of probation expired in
April of 2024, and the court “had no authority to find [her] in violation of probation for
conduct occurring after it expired[.]”
The People disagree. According to the People, probation was revoked on
October 23, 2023, and it was never reinstated. Additionally, the trial court extended the
expiration of probation until August 23, 2024. Accordingly, the court had jurisdiction to
decide whether she violated probation based on conduct that occurred prior to August 23,
2024.
Even assuming that the trial court extended the expiration date until August 23,
2024, it lacked jurisdiction to decide that Mooney violated probation based on her
conduct that occurred in early August.
Both parties assert that the court revoked Mooney’s probation on August 9, 2024.
And, it is true that, at the hearing on October 14, 2024, the trial court correctly noted that
a minute order dated August 26, 2024, stated that “probation was revoked on August 9th
and remained revoked.” However, at the hearing on August 26, 2024, the court never
5.
stated that probation was revoked, was previously revoked, or that it remained revoked.
A trial court’s oral pronouncements control over a subsequently entered minute order.
(See, e.g., People v. Sanchez (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 907, 918–919). Moreover, the
minute orders from the August 9 hearing do not state that probation was revoked, and
there is no reporter’s transcript from that proceeding. Thus, the record does not support
the assertion that probation was revoked on August 9, 2024.
Instead, probation was ostensibly revoked on October 14, 2024. However, as the
August 23, 2024 expiration date had already passed, the court no longer had jurisdiction
to decide whether Mooney had violated probation. (See Braud, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at
p. 968.)
As to the People’s argument that probation was never reinstated after it was
revoked on October 23, 2023, the argument lacks merit. The trial court ordered that
probation be kept in revoked status only until the review hearing, which occurred on
March 4, 2024. Based on this order, as well the fact that the court modified the terms of
probation by imposing a period of incarceration in the county jail, the court clearly chose
to reinstate supervision as of March 4, 2024.
DISPOSITION
The orders revoking and terminating probation in Case 1 (Tuolumne County
Superior Court case No. CRF61987) and Case 2 (Tuolumne County Superior Court case
No. CRF67375) are reversed, and the sentences imposed based on the August 2024
violation of probation are vacated. The superior court clerk is directed to notify all
necessary entities that these orders have been reversed and the sentences have been
vacated.
6.
