Court Opinion

ID: 9894165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 18:04:04.891932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:50.628107
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/31/23 P. v. Moreno CA1/4

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION FOUR

 THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                         A166156
 v.
 CIPRIANO MORENO,                                                        (Napa County Super. Ct.
                                                                         No. 22CR001017)
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
         In June 2022, Cipriano Moreno pled no contest to two felonies and a
misdemeanor, and he admitted several aggravating factors.1 At a sentencing
hearing held shortly thereafter, the trial court suspended imposition of
sentence and placed him on probation with various conditions—including a
“flash incarceration” condition imposed pursuant to section 1203.35,
subdivision (a)(1) (condition).

         1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud.

Admin., § 8.1.) We do not include an extensive summary of the factual and
procedural background because our opinion is unpublished and the parties
know—or should know—the attendant facts and procedural history. (People
v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) Undesignated statutory references
are to the Penal Code.

                                                               1
      As relevant here, section 1203.35 authorizes a probation department to
employ flash incarceration—a “period of detention in a county jail due to a
violation of an offender’s conditions of probation”—if, “at the time of granting
probation . . . , the [trial] court obtains from the defendant a waiver to a court
hearing prior to the imposition of a period of flash incarceration.” (Id.,
subds. (b), (a)(1).) “[F]lash incarceration is designed to be a swifter, but
milder and less disabling sanction than a return to court with its potential
term of many months. It is also clearly designed to relieve the courts of the
burden of having to adjudicate and punish minor violations.” (People v.
Superior Court (Ward) (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 345, 353 [analyzing similar
statute]; § 1203.35, subd. (b).) “Probation shall not be denied for refusal to
sign the waiver.” (§ 1203.35, subd. (a)(1).)
      On appeal, the parties agree the trial court erred by imposing the
condition without eliciting the waiver required by section 1203.35.2 They are
correct. The Attorney General urges us to remand for the court to elicit the
requisite waiver. In his opening brief, Moreno asked this court to strike the
condition, but he has not filed a reply brief contesting the Attorney General’s
proposed remedy. We deem Moreno’s decision not to file a reply brief as an
implicit concession that the matter should be remanded to allow the court to
obtain the waiver.
                                 DISPOSITION
      Moreno’s sentence is conditionally vacated, and the matter is remanded
for the trial court to conduct a hearing at which it may elicit from Moreno the
waiver of his right to a court hearing required by section 1203.35,

      2 They also agree—as do we—that the issue is preserved for our review

notwithstanding defense counsel’s failure to object to the condition. (See
People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1061 [pure issue of law based on
undisputed facts may be addressed for first time on appeal].)

                                         2
subdivision (a)(1). If the trial court obtains such a waiver, it must reimpose
the sentence, including the condition. If Moreno does not waive his right to a
hearing pursuant to section 1203.35, subdivision (a)(1), the court must
reimpose the sentence without the condition. The trial court is directed to
prepare an amended sentencing minute order. In all other respects, the
judgment is affirmed.

                                           HIRAMOTO, J.

WE CONCUR:

BROWN, P. J.
STREETER, J.
People v. Moreno (A166156)

       
       Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa,
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.

                                       3