Filed 8 / 31 / 21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

VICTORIA MAE SAXTON,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B310336 (Super. Ct. No. 2020034073) (Ventura County)

In recent years, the Legislature has enacted various
laws to reduc e the number of Californians on probation or mandatory supervision . Among th ose enactments is Assembly
Bill No. 1950 (2019

- 2020 Reg. Sess.) ( A.B. 1950) , which limits the “pipeline for re

- entry into the carceral system” by restric t ing the length of most probation terms. ( People v. Quinn (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 874, 880 ( Quinn ) .) But A.B. 1950’s term limits are not universal; several criminal off enses are exe mpt. Here, we conclude that a defendant who is convicted of both a misdemeanor exempt from A.B. 1950’s probation term limits and a nonexempt felony can be ordered to serve a term of formal probation equal to the length of time specified by th e exempt misdemeanor. But consistent with A.B. 1950’s purpose, a2

probation violation can carry felony punishment consequences only during the first two years of the probation ary term. Any
violation that occurs after th at two

- year period can have only
mis demeanor punishment consequences

.

Victoria Mae Saxton appeals from the judgment after pleading no contest to driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (f)) , a misdemeanor, and willful ly eva ding a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a) ) , a felony . The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and ordered her to serve t hree years of formal probation. I t specified that any probation
violation that occurs during those three years can carry felony punishment consequences. Saxton conte nds A.B. 1950 limits the felony consequences of a ny probation violation to the first two years of her probation ary term. We agree, modify the order granting probation, and otherwise affirm

. DISCUSSION
A.B. 1950 amended Penal Code 1 sections 1203a and

1203 .1 to restrict the length of most probation terms. (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § § 1 & 2 .) Effective January 1, 2021, misdemeanor probation terms are generally limited to one year (§ 1203a, subd. (a)) , and felony probation terms are generally limited to two ye ars ( § 1203.1, subd. (a)). Exempt from these limits are offense s that

“ include [] specific probation lengths within [their] provisions .” (§§ 1203a, subd. (b), 1203.1, subd. (m)(1).) Whether Saxton’s case falls within one of these exemptions presents an i ssue of
statutory interpretation for our independent review. ( In re R.G. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 141, 146 .)

As with any issue of statutory interpretation, “[o] ur fundamental task is to ascertain the Legislature ’ s intent when it

1 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Penal Code.3

enacted ” A.B. 1950

. ( In re R.G.

, supra , 35 Cal.App.5th at p. 146. )

“ We begin with [A.B. 1950’s] words, giving them their plain, commonsense meanings. ” ( Ibid. ) “ We construe the words in context of related statutes, harm onizing them whenever possible.” ( Ibid .) “ We presume the Leg islature ‘ was aware of existing related laws ’ when it enacted [A.B. 1950] , and that it

‘ intended to maintain a consistent body of rules. ’ [Citation.]” ( Ibid. ) “ We will follow [A.B. 1950’s] plain meaning [] unless doing
so would lead to absurd results the Legislature did not intend. ” ( Presbyterian Camp & Conference Centers, Inc. v. Superior
Court (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 148, 154 , review granted Jan. 22, 2020, S259850.)

The plain meaning of A.B. 1950 is clear, and permits
a trial court to order a defendant to serve three years of formal probation where, as here, the judgment includes a misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence

. One of the exemptions from the probation term limits codified in section 1203a is set
forth in Vehicle Code section 23 600, subdivision (b)(1). That subdivision provides that a person who is granted probation after a misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence must serve a probation term of at least three years. (Veh. Code, § 23600, subd. (b)(1).) The probati on can be either “formal” (i.e., under the supervision of the probation department) or “informal” (i.e., without supervision by the probation department). (§ 1203, subd. (a); see also People v. Glee (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 99, 104 .)

Saxton was also convict ed of willful ly eva ding a police officer, a felony for which A.B. 1950 imposes a two

- year limit on probation

. But a trial court must make a probation suitability determination based on the case as a whole, not discrete convictions. (§ 1203, subd. (b)(3) [court “ shall hear and determine4

. . . the suitability of probation in the particular case ” ( i talics added) ]; see also Couzens et al., Sentencing Californ ia Crimes (The Rutter Group 2020 ) ¶ 23:9 [if case involves both misdemeanor and felony convictions, co urt should i mpose “ a single term of punishment and probation for all charges ”].) A nd
Saxton’s case is a “felony case” since it involves both a felony and
a misdemeanor. ( § 691, subd

. (f).) Informal probation is not allowed in felony case s . (§ 1203, sub d. (a); see also People v. Kaufman (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 370, 396 .) The trial court thus
did not err when it ordered Saxton to serve a term of formal probation for the three years required by Vehicle Code section

23600. (Cf. People v. Schulz (2021) 66 Ca l.App.5th 887

, 892 ( Schulz ) [specific pro bation term set forth in Veh. Code , § 23600,
rather than general term set forth in Pen. Code

, § 1203.1, applied
where defendan t convicted of violating Veh. Code

, § 23153].)

But t he court did err when it s ai d that S axton could
suffer felony punishment consequences if she successfully completes the first two years of probation and violates probation during the third year of her probationary term . As our colleagues
in the Fifth District have explained , the only offens es exempt from the two

- year felony probation term limit set forth in section

1203.1 are felonies listed in subdivision (c) of section 667.5,
felonies that include specific probation term s within their provisions , and “‘“white collar crimes”’” involving pro perty valued in excess of $25,000 . ( Schulz

, supra , 66 Cal.App.5th at p. 898.)
Saxton committed none of these offense s . It would thus be counter to the Legislature’s purpose in enacting A.B. 1950 if Saxton were to face felony consequences for any probati on violation that occur s after she successfully completes two years of probatio n . (Cf. Quinn

, supra , 59 Cal.App.5th at p. 880 [purpose5

of A.B. 1950 is to “‘“ reduc[e] the number of people on probation returning to incarceration ”’” ].) The order granting pr obation

mu s t accordingly be modified

. DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order suspending imposition of sentence and ordering Saxton to serve three years of formal probation, entered February 2, 2021, is modified to specify that: (1) Saxton can face felony pu nishment consequences for a probation violation only during the first two years of her probationary term , and (2) any probation violation that occurs during the third year of Saxton’s probationary term can carry only misdemeanor consequences. As modified, the judgment is
affirmed.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

.

TANGEMAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.Bruce A. Young, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Claudia Y. Bautista, Public Defender, and W illiam Quest

, Sr., Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.