After defendant’s postrelease community supervision (PRCS) was revoked and reinstated, the tolling provision of Penal Code section 1203.2, subdivision (a) did not authorize the automatic extension of defendant’s PRCS period. In June 2014, Johnson was released from prison and placed on PRCS. His supervision was scheduled to end on June 16, 2017. Johnson’s PRCS was revoked twice and reinstated. The probation department filed a third petition for revocation in February 2017 and the petition stated the expiration of supervision as “7/11/2017 (time tolled).” The 25-day difference from the previous expiration date was based on the 25 days Johnson spent in custody in 2016 while PRCS was revoked. The trial court revoked and reinstated PRCS. At a sentencing hearing in June 2017, the trial court stated that it did not know if the PRCS expiration date was accurate and “[s]o, in any event, it will be July 11 or thereafter potentially.” Johnson objected to the tolling of the expiration date. On appeal, Johnson argued the extension of his supervision period was not authorized by law. Held: Remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion in this case. Section 1203.2, subdivision (a), provides that “revocation, summary or otherwise, shall serve to toll the running of the period of supervision.” In People v. Leiva (2013) 56 Cal.4th 498, the Supreme Court held that section 1203.2 tolling does not subject a defendant to revocation of probation for conduct that occurred after the expiration of the court-imposed probation period but instead preserves the court’s jurisdiction to conduct a hearing after expiration of that period for a violation that occurred during the original period of supervision. After analyzing Leiva, the statutes governing PCRS, and section 1203.2, the court here concluded the length of PRCS “is not automatically extended when PRCS is reinstated after revocation, although a trial court may extend the original expiration date for PRCS within the maximum [three-year] statutory period.” [Editor’s Note: Although Johnson’s appeal was technically moot, the court exercised its discretion to decide the issue because it is likely to recur, might otherwise evade appellate review, and is of continuing public interest.]

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A151559.PDF