THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARINA ELIZALDE, Defendant and Appellant, 6 Cal. App. 5th 1062

Opinion GILBERT, P. J. At a postconviction hearing, the trial court considered two issues: whether defendant Marina Elizalde violated the terms of her postre-lease community supervision (PRCS) (Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq.) and whether she was entitled to relief pursuant to Proposition 47. The trial court found defendant violated the terms of her PRCS and ordered her to serve 120 days in custody. It then immediately granted her pehtion for Proposition 47 relief under sechon 1170.18. The effect of the court’s inconsistent rulings was to give and take away at the same time.

This rendered the court’s order that defendant serve time in custody a nullity. Defendant served her time in custody rendering this appeal moot. Because this is a matter of interest to defendants, practitioners of criminal law, and the public, we discuss the issue. We dismiss the appeal as moot. FACTS In 2011, Marina Elizalde was convicted of forgery (§ 475, subd. (b)) and possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). She was sentenced to 16 months in prison. In 2012, she was released on PRCS. In 2015, the Ventura County Probation Agency filed a petition to revoke Elizalde’s PRCS.

On the same date, Elizalde filed a petition to have her convictions declared misdemeanors pursuant to Proposition 47. The trial court held a hearing on both petitions. At the hearing, Elizalde requested that the trial court consider her Proposition 47 petition before the petition to revoke her PRCS. The court denied the request. Elizalde submitted the matter of her PRCS revocation on the facts alleged in the petition. The trial court found her in violation and ordered her to serve 120 days in county jail with 46 days’ total credit.

Immediately thereafter at the same hearing, the trial court granted Elizalde’s Proposition 47 petition, redesignated her convictions as misdemeanors and ordered her to be on misdemeanor parole for one year. DISCUSSION Elizalde contends the trial court erred in refusing to consider her Proposition 47 petition prior to revoking her PRCS. She argues that had the trial court first reduced her convictions to misdemeanors, it would have terminated her PRCS and she could not have been held in violation. Proposition 47 reduced certain nonserious and nonviolent felonies to misdemeanors and added

section 1170.18. Subdivision (

a) of

section 1170.18 provides that a person who is currently serving a sentence for a felony conviction that was reduced to a misdemeanor may petition for a recall of the sentence.

Section 1170.18, subdivision (

b) provides in part: “Upon receiving a petition under subdivision (a), the court shall determine whether the petitioner satisfies the criteria in subdivision (a). If the petitioner satisfies the criteria in subdivision (a), the petitioner’s felony sentence shall be recalled and the petitioner resentenced to a misdemeanor . . . unless the court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.”

Section 1170.18 contains no language that requires the trial court to consider Elizalde’s petition prior to considering the People’s petition to find her in violation of PRCS. Nevertheless,

section 1170.18, subdivision (

k) provides, “Any felony conviction that is recalled and resentenced under subdivision (b) . . . shall be considered a misdemeanor for all purposes PRCS applies only to felony convictions. (§§ 3450, subd. (b)(5), 3451, subd. (a).) There is no PRCS for misdemeanors. Thus, once Elizalde’s Proposition 47 petition is granted, PRCS terminates by operation of law, and any punishment attendant to its violation ends. Therefore it makes no difference in what order the petitions were decided.

Here, because the trial court granted Elizalde’s Proposition 47 petition, the court’s prior finding that she violated PRCS and the attendant sentence of 120 days in jail were rendered moot. What other sentencing options may have been available to the court are not before us. In response to the concurring opinion, we concur. DISPOSITION We dismiss the appeal as moot. Tangeman, J., concurred. All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.