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 reduce the number of Californians on probation or 

mandatory supervision. Among those 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 restricting 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 offenses are exempt.

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 the 

exempt misdemeanor. But consistent with A.B. 1950’s purpose, a
2

probation violation can carry felony punishment consequences 

only during the first two years of the probationary term. Any 

violation that occurs after that two-year period can have only 

misdemeanor 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 willfully evading a police 

officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), a felony. The trial court 

suspended imposition of sentence and ordered her to serve three 

years of formal probation. It specified that any probation 

violation that occurs during those three years can carry felony 

punishment consequences. Saxton contends A.B. 1950 limits the 

felony consequences of any probation violation to the first two 

years of her probationary term. We agree, modify the order 

granting probation, and otherwise affirm.

DISCUSSION

A.B. 1950 amended Penal Code1 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 years 

(§ 1203.1, subd. (a)). Exempt from these limits are offenses 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 issue 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, harmonizing them whenever 

possible.” (Ibid.) “We presume the Legislature ‘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 23600, 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 probation 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 convicted of willfully evading 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 determine 
4

. . . the suitability of probation in the particular case” (italics 

added)]; see also Couzens et al., Sentencing California Crimes 

(The Rutter Group 2020) ¶ 23:9 [if case involves both 

misdemeanor and felony convictions, court should impose “a

single term of punishment and probation for all charges”].) And

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 cases. (§ 1203, subd. (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 Cal.App.5th 887, 892

(Schulz) [specific probation term set forth in Veh. Code, § 23600, 

rather than general term set forth in Pen. Code, § 1203.1, applied 

where defendant convicted of violating Veh. Code, § 23153].)

But the court did err when it said that Saxton 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 offenses 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 terms within their

provisions, and “‘“white collar crimes”’” involving property valued 

in excess of $25,000. (Schulz, supra, 66 Cal.App.5th at p. 898.) 

Saxton committed none of these offenses. It would thus be 

counter to the Legislature’s purpose in enacting A.B. 1950 if 

Saxton were to face felony consequences for any probation 

violation that occurs after she successfully completes two years of 

probation. (Cf. Quinn, supra, 59 Cal.App.5th at p. 880 [purpose 
5

of A.B. 1950 is to “‘“reduc[e] the number of people on probation 

returning to incarceration”’”].) The order granting probation 

must 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 punishment 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 William 

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.