1

Filed 5/6/21 P. v. Mangrum CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered 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 TODD 

MANGRUM,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A161064

 (Mendocino County

 Super. Ct. No. SCUK-

 CRCR-1895937)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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, § 14601.1, 

subd. (a)). Mangrum also admitted a prior conviction for driving with a 

suspended license within 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 years. 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 court to impose felony probation for up to five years. 

(Former § 1203.1, subd. (a).) While this appeal was pending, Assembly Bill 

No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) took effect. (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2.) It 

amended section 1203.1 and reduced 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, 879.) 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.5th __ [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 probation 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 court. (See 

People v. Quinn, supra, 59 Cal.App.5th 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 pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.