Trial court did not err by adding 550 days of incarceration to the custodial portion of defendant’s “split sentence,” upon his first violation of mandatory supervision. Catalan pled guilty to grand theft and other felonies. The court imposed a four-year split sentence (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)) comprised of a 16-month jail term and 32 months of mandatory supervision on terms and conditions. Catalan acknowledged that the court could send him to county jail for the remainder of his sentence if he violated any term or condition. One of the terms prohibited Catalan from having a checking account without prior permission, which he violated by opening up three checking accounts and writing a check with insufficient funds. The trial court revoked and reinstated supervision, adding 550 days of custody to his sentence. Catalan appealed. Held: Affirmed. The Realignment Act of 2011 allows defendants convicted of nonserious felonies to serve their sentences locally and provides for “split sentences,” in which the concluding portion of a term is served on mandatory supervision. Penal Codes sections 1203.2 and 1203.3 grant the trial court broad authority to modify or revoke mandatory supervision upon a violation of the supervision terms. Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a 550-day term for Catalan’s first violation of mandatory supervision, instead of an intermediate sanction of 90 or 180 days. Penal Code sections 1230, subdivision (b)(3) (which governs probation supervision and recommends an intermediate sanction of up to 90 days) and 3455, subdivision (d) (which applies to persons who have been released from prison after serving their sentences and provides that the maximum custody sanction for defendants subject to postrelease community supervision is 180 days) are inapplicable, as mandatory supervision incident to a split sentence is not governed by these sections.