Skip to content
Name: People v. Camp
Case #: D064737
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/21/2015

After execution of split sentence, trial court retains jurisdiction to terminate mandatory supervision and modify custodial term. Camp entered a plea to grand theft, resisting an officer, and admitted a prison prior, with a stipulated sentence of 28 months—half in actual custody, and half on mandatory supervision. Before his release from jail his probation officer notified the court that Camp would be turned over to ICE, and then deported, and would therefore be unavailable for supervision. The court then terminated Camp’s mandatory supervision and modified his sentence to provide for 364 days in jail, with credit for time served. The prosecution appealed. Held: Affirmed. Under the Realignment Act, the court may impose a split sentence on a qualified defendant, ordering him to serve a period of confinement followed by a term of mandatory supervision. Proceedings to revoke/modify mandatory supervision are governed by either Penal Code section 1203.2, subdivisions (a) or (b) or section 1203.3, neither of which require that the trial court execute the suspended portion of the sentence upon termination of supervision or restrict it from modifying a sentence. Section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B)(i), allows the court to terminate mandatory supervision and does not limit its authority to modify a sentence. The common law rule that a court loses jurisdiction upon execution of a sentence does not apply because the court’s authority to impose mandatory supervision is statutory. Further, the holding in People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081, prohibiting a trial court from modifying a previously imposed, but suspended execution sentence when probation is revoked, is inapt because it relied on section 1203.2, subdivision (c), which governs revocation and termination of probation, not subdivisions (a) or (b).