Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. David George Taylor

December 30, 2010

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
DAVID GEORGE TAYLOR, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. 091769)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Cantil-sakauye, J.

P. v. Taylor

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant was convicted of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496) in Yolo County; imposition of sentence was suspended and he was granted probation.*fn1 Subsequently, he was convicted of vehicle theft in Sacramento County and sentenced to prison. From prison, defendant wrote several times to both the Yolo County District Attorney and the Yolo County Probation Department, informing them of his incarceration, recognizing its effect on his probation, and demanding a hearing and trial pursuant to section 1381. The Yolo County Superior Court issued a removal order to transfer defendant to Yolo County, but the matter was delayed while defendant was transferred to Placer County for sentencing on a matter there for which he had been granted probation. Eventually, defendant appeared with counsel and the trial court terminated his probation and sentenced him to a consecutive term of eight months on each count consecutive to his two-year eight-month sentence on the Placer County charges.

On appeal defendant contends his sentence on the Yolo County charges must be vacated because the court lost jurisdiction. He contends the provisions of section 1203.2a apply and the court lost jurisdiction when the probation officer failed to notify the court of defendant's imprisonment within 30 days after defendant gave the probation department notice. We find the jurisdictional time limits of section 1203.2a do not apply where the defendant has already chosen the alternative speedy sentencing procedure of section 1381 by making a section 1381 demand. We further conclude defendant is entitled to an additional day of presentence credit under recent amendments. We modify the judgment to add the additional day credit and, as modified, affirm.

BACKGROUND

On April 10, 2009, defendant was found in West Sacramento driving a stolen Ford F-150; he was also in possession of stolen credit cards. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to vehicle theft and receiving stolen property in exchange for the promise of no state prison at the outset. Three other charges were dismissed. The court granted defendant probation and suspended imposition of sentence.

On December 15, 2009, defendant executed a form that was sent to the Yolo County District Attorney. In it, defendant gave notice that he had been convicted of vehicle theft in Sacramento County and had been sentenced to two years in state prison on October 7, 2009. Thereafter, Yolo County filed a "hold" or notice of pending criminal action against him with the warden of High Desert State Prison. Defendant demanded a hearing and trial of that criminal action pursuant to section 1381.

In response, the district attorney sought to have defendant removed from prison to the Yolo County Superior court for a hearing on February 8, 2010. In early January of 2010, an order for removal of defendant was issued.

Perhaps unaware of these actions, defendant continued to provide Yolo County with notice of his incarceration and to demand resolution of his pending probation matter pursuant to section 1381. He sent a letter to the probation department, which was received January 14, 2010. He sent another letter to the probation department, which was received January 26, 2010. This letter indicated it was defendant's third attempt to notify the Probation Department of his incarceration. Having received no response, defendant said he would now file a request for dismissal.

The district attorney received defendant's motion to dismiss and noted on the motion that there was an order to transfer defendant to the court on February 8, 2010. That transfer did not occur because Placer County had picked up defendant on January 21, 2010, pursuant to an intervening removal order.

In March of 2010, the Yolo County Superior Court issued a second order to remove defendant to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.