1

Filed 5/6/21 P. v. Mangrum CA 1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or
or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
CHRISTOPHER T ODD MANGRUM

, Defendant and Appellant. A1 61064

( Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK

- CRCR

- 1895937 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

In 2019, Christopher Todd Mangrum pled no contest to possessing a
firearm while under the influence (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (e) )

and misdemeanor driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 1460 1 .1,
subd. (a) ) . Mangrum also admitted a prior conviction for driving with a

suspended license withi n the previous five years (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd.
( b)(2) )

. The trial court suspended execution of sentence and placed Mangrum
on probation for three year s

. In July 2020, the court determined Mangrum

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to the California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

violated probation

. It revoked and reinstated the three

- year term of

probation

. Mangrum appealed

. When Mangrum was placed on probation

, section 1203.1

, subdivision
(a) authorized the c ourt to impose felony probation for up to five years. (Former § 1203.1, subd. (a).) W hile this appeal was pending, A ssembly Bill

No. 1950 (2019

- 2020 Reg. Sess

. ) took effect

. (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2 .) It

amended section 1203.1 and reduc ed the maximum probationary term for
most felony offenses to two years. (§ 1203.1, subds. (a) & (m) ; People v. Quinn
(2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 874, 8 79 .) Mangrum contends

— and the Attorney
General agrees

—

Assembly Bill No. 1950 “ should be applied retroactively to

reduce [ his ] period of probation from three years to two

. ” ( Quinn

, at p. 881 ; People v. Stewart (

Apr. 7, 2021 , A157857 ) __ Cal.App.5 th

__ [ 2021 Cal.App.

Lexis 301

. ) We accept the Attorney General’s concession and reduce
Mangrum’s probationary term to two years

. We reject the Attorney General’s request to remand the case for

“ the trial court to address the probatio n term

. ” (Cf. People v. Sims (2021)

59 Cal.App.5th 943, 947 , 964 [remanding].) Doing so would waste scarce
judicial resources. Nothing in our opinion precludes either party from
moving to modify the length or terms of probation in the trial cour t. (See
People v. Quinn, supra, 59 Cal.App.5t h at p. 885 , fn. 6.)

DISPOSITION

The trial court is directed to modify the July 30 , 2020 minute order to
reflect the imposition of a two

- year term of formal probation and to notify the

Mendocino County Probation Department of the modification

. In all other
respects, the judgment is affirmed

.3 _________________________ Rodriguez, J. *

WE CONCUR:

_________________________ Simons, Acting P. J.

_________________________ Needham, J.

A161064

* Judge of the Superior Court of Alameda County , assigned by the Chief Justice pursuan t to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution

.