Filed 8/18/16 P. v. Semlinger CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARK STEVEN SEMLINGER,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B267967

(Super. Ct. Nos. 2011039893, 

2012039755, 2013003810)

(Ventura County)

Mark Steven Semlinger appeals from orders made after his felony 

convictions in three cases - nos. 2011039893, 2012039755, and 2013003810 - had been 

reduced to misdemeanors pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, enacted by 

Proposition 47.1 Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously placed him on 

misdemeanor parole for one year. We affirm.

Procedural Background

In the three cases appellant was sentenced to prison for an aggregate term 

of two years, eight months. In July 2014 he was released to postrelease community 

supervision (PRCS) for a period not exceeding three years. 

In September 2015 appellant filed a petition requesting that his felony 

conviction in case no. 2011039893 be reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 

1170.18. At a hearing on the petition, appellant moved for the same relief in the other 

 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
2

two cases, nos. 2012039755 and 2013003810. In each case the court recalled the felony 

sentence, terminated PRCS, and resentenced appellant to a misdemeanor. Pursuant to 

section 1170.18, subdivision (d), it placed him on misdemeanor parole for one year. 

Section 1170.18

Section 1170.18, subdivision (a) applies to “[a] person currently serving a 

sentence for a conviction . . . of a felony or felonies who would have been guilty of a 

misdemeanor under [Proposition 47] had [it] been in effect at the time of the 

offense . . . .” (Ibid., italics added.) Such a person may petition to recall his felony 

sentence and be resentenced to a misdemeanor. (Ibid.) The person “shall be subject to 

parole for one year following completion of his or her [misdemeanor] sentence, unless 

the court, in its discretion, . . . releases the person from parole.” (Id., subd. (d).)

Section 1170.18, subdivisions (f) applies to “[a] person who has completed

his or her sentence for a conviction . . . of a felony or felonies who would have been 

guilty of a misdemeanor under [Proposition 47] had [it] been in effect at the time of the 

offense . . . .” (Ibid., italics added.) Such a person is entitled to have his felony 

conviction designated a misdemeanor without serving a period of misdemeanor parole. 

(Id., subd. (g).)

Discussion

Appellant contends “that an individual on PRCS . . . is not ‘currently 

serving a sentence’ within the meaning of section 1170.18, subdivision (a) and cannot be 

subjected to misdemeanor parole.” We disagree. “PRCS is similar to parole. [Citations.] 

PRCS does not change any terms of a defendant’s sentence, but merely modifies the 

agency that will supervise the defendant after release from prison.” (People v. Jones

(2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1266-1267, fn. omitted.) “[P]arole [or PRCS] is a 

mandatory component of any prison sentence. ‘A sentence resulting in imprisonment in 

the state prison . . . shall include a period of parole supervision or postrelease community

supervision, unless waived . . . .’ (§ 3000, subd. (a)(1).) Thus, a prison sentence 

‘contemplates a period of parole [or PRCS], which in that respect is related to the 

sentence.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Nuckles (2013) 56 Cal.4th 601, 609.) Section 1170, 
3

subdivision (c) provides: “The court shall . . . inform the defendant that as part of the 

sentence after expiration of the term he or she may be on parole . . . or postrelease 

community supervision . . . .” (Italics added.) Because appellant was on PRCS when the 

trial court reduced his felony convictions to misdemeanors, he was still “currently 

serving” his felony sentence within the meaning of section 1170.18, subdivision (a). 

Accordingly, he was subject to a one-year period of misdemeanor parole pursuant to 

subdivision (d). 

Appellant argues that the one-year period of misdemeanor parole must be 

reduced by his excess custody credits and prior period on PRCS. After appellant had 

filed his opening brief, our Supreme Court held that excess custody credits cannot reduce 

the one-year parole period. (People v. Morales (2016) 63 Cal.4th. 399.) It follows that 

time spent on PRCS also cannot reduce the parole period.

Disposition

The orders appealed from are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

PERREN, J.
Bruce A. Young, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez, 

Esther P. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.