Filed 4/21/22 P. v. Hart 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Appellant,

v.

JOEL ROBERT HART,

 Defendant and Respondent.

2d Crim. No. B311264

(Super. Ct. No. 1501773)

(Santa Barbara County)

The People appeal a trial court order finding that the court

lacked jurisdiction to decide alleged probation violations by 

defendant Joel Robert Hart. Hart was convicted of violating 

Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a) and was placed on 

probation for five years.1

We conclude, among other things, that the retroactive 

application of Assembly Bill No. 1950 (Assem. Bill No. 1950) that 

shortened probation terms does not divest the trial court of 

jurisdiction to decide whether Hart committed probation 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

violations occurring during the period when he was on probation.

We reverse.

FACTS

Hart was convicted of violating section 273.5, subdivision

(a) on July 8, 2016. He was placed on five years’ probation. 

On November 9, 2020, the People filed a notice of probation 

violation with a scheduled hearing date of November 12, 2020. 

They alleged, among other things, that Hart did not report to the 

probation department, his whereabouts were “unknown,” and he 

did not attend a court-ordered treatment program.

On November 12, 2020, the trial court summarily revoked 

Hart’s probation and scheduled a probation violation hearing on

November 19, 2020. On November 19, the court continued the 

case to December 3, 2020. On December 3, the court continued 

the case to January 5, 2021. The case was continued again to 

January 7, and then to January 14. 

Hart moved to terminate probation as expired. He claimed 

Assem. Bill No. 1950, which was passed by the Legislature and 

signed by the Governor on September 30, 2020, reduced his 

probation term to four years.

The trial court continued the case to January 19, 2021. At 

that hearing the People argued that Hart’s violations “occurred in 

November of 2020” and his probation “was revoked.” At that 

time Assem. Bill No. 1950 was not the law. 

The trial court ruled that in light of Assem. Bill No. 1950 it 

did not have jurisdiction. Hart’s violation of probation occurred 

“after the expiration of the four years” as the “maximum term of 

his probation” required by Assem. Bill No. 1950.
3

DISCUSSION

The Impact of Assem. Bill No. 1950

The People contend Assem. Bill No. 1950 did not change 

the trial court’s authority to consider Hart’s November 2020 

probation violations because they occurred within his five-year 

period of supervised probation starting on July 8, 2016.

Hart claims that at the January 19, 2021, hearing, Assem. 

Bill No. 1950 was in effect and the trial court applied it 

retroactively to reduce his probation period from five years to 

four years. His probation term expired on July 8, 2020, four 

months before the alleged violations. 

“Assembly Bill No. 1950, signed by the Governor on 

September 30, 2020, and effective on January 1, 2021 (Stats. 

2020, ch. 328, § 2), reduces felony probation terms . . . .” (People 

v. Quinn (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 874, 879.) Hart was convicted of 

violating section 273.5, subdivision (a), and on July 8, 2016, the 

trial court placed him on five years’ probation. Assem. Bill No.

1950 placed a limitation on probation terms for various felonies 

so they would “not exceed[] the maximum possible term of the 

sentence.” (§ 1203.1, subd. (l)(1).) 

The parties note that “[s]ince the maximum sentence for a 

violation of section 273.5(a) is four years, following the 

implementation of [Assem. Bill No.] 1950 the maximum term of 

probation for [Hart] in this case is four years.” (Italics added.)

But the People contend that because Assem. Bill No. 1950

did not take effect until January 1, 2021, the trial court had 

jurisdiction to adjudicate Hart’s November 2020 probation 

violations on January 19, 2021.

Hart claims he was entitled to the retroactive application of 

Assem. Bill No. 1950 because his probation violation case was not 
4

final at the January 19, 2021, hearing. He argues the 

Legislature intended to prohibit courts from applying the former 

longer probation periods after Assem. Bill No. 1950’s effective 

date of January 1, 2021.

“The amendatory act imposing the lighter punishment can 

be applied constitutionally to acts committed before its passage 

provided the judgment convicting the defendant of the act is not 

final.” (In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745.) Where the 

criminal proceeding brought against a defendant is “not complete 

when the ameliorative legislation at issue took effect,” it is not 

final under Estrada. (People v. Esquivel (2021) 11 Cal.5th 671, 

678.) 

“Assembly Bill 1950 applies retroactively to a specific class 

of persons – i.e., defendants whose probation has not been 

revoked and terminated. For such persons, Assembly Bill 1950 

acts in mitigation by shortening their probation terms regardless 

of when those terms were established.” (People v. Faial (2022) 75 

Cal.App.5th 738, 746.)

But “[t]here is no indication that Assembly Bill 1950 was 

intended to extinguish a defendant’s accountability for probation 

violations, or to otherwise invalidate revocation and termination 

orders predating January 1, 2021.” (People v. Faial, supra, 75

Cal.App.5th at p. 746.) “Had the Legislature intended to 

overturn pre-2021 revocation and termination orders that were 

based on violations committed while defendants were validly on 

probation, . . . we may assume the Legislature could have 

demonstrated that intent through statutory language and would 

have at least mentioned the matter in the various legislative 

analyses of the bill. It did not.” (Id. at p. 745.) 
5

The goal of Assem. Bill No. 1950 “would not be served by a 

retroactive interpretation that gives a . . . probationer a free pass 

for a violation that already prompted summary revocation,” as 

here, while the probationer “was properly on probation under 

then-prevailing law.” (Kuhnel v. Appellate Division of Superior 

Court (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 726, 736.) Because Hart “was 

validly on probation when [his] probation was summarily 

revoked, section 1203.2(a) by its terms tolls the running of the 

probationary period until a formal probation hearing occurs.”

(Ibid.) Assem. Bill No. 1950 does not “retroactively . . . divest 

courts of the jurisdiction section 1203.2(a) confers.” (Ibid.) 

Consequently, the trial court had jurisdiction to determine 

whether Hart violated his probation terms.

DISPOSITION

The order is reversed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.
6

Von Deroian, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Joyce E. Dudley, District Attorney, Marguerite Clipper 

Charles, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Olivia Meme, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Respondent.