F iled 8/18/ 16 P. v. Semlinger CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S TEVEN SEMLINGER,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B267967 (Super. Ct. Nos. 2011039893, 2012039755, 2013003 810) (Ventura County)

Mark Steven Semlinger appeals from orders made after his felony

convictions in three cases

- nos. 2011039893, 201 2039755, 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 Backgr ound

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

In September 2015 appellant fil ed 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. 201203975 5 and 2013003810

. In each case the court recalled the felony

sentence , terminated PRCS, and resentenced appellant to a misdemeano r

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

Section 1170.18

S ection 1170.18, subdivisio n (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

., i talics 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, . . . r eleases 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 [Prop osition 47] had [it] been in effect at th e 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 i ndividual on PRCS . . . is not ‘currently serving a sentence’ within t he meaning of section 1170.18, subdivision (a) and cannot be

s ubjected to misdemeanor parole.” We disagree . “ PRC S is similar to parole. [Citations.]

PR CS 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

- 12 67, fn. omitted.) “ [P] arole [or PRCS] is a mandatory co mp onent of any prison sentence. ‘ A sentence resulting in imprisonment i n 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

se ntence.’ [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 postreleas e 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, Senio r Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez, Esther P. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.