Under Penal Code section 1203, subdivision (I)(1), which governs exceptions to Assembly Bill No. 1950’s two-year limitation on felony probation terms, the maximum probation term is determined by the maximum aggregate prison sentence the court could impose. Defendant was convicted, inter alia, of driving under the influence. (Veh. Code, § 23153.) He appealed, arguing the trial court violated section 1203.1 by imposing five years of probation. Held: Affirmed as modified. Penal Code section 1203.1 was amended by Assembly Bill No. 1950 to limit felony probation to two years, but contains exceptions for violent felonies and felonies that include a specific probation length within its provisions. Defendant’s conviction for violating Vehicle Code section 23153, falls within this second category as probation for this offense must be “not less than three nor more than five years.” (Veh. Code, § 23600, subd. (b)(1).) For offenses in this category, the maximum length of probation is “the maximum possible term of the sentence.” The Court of Appeal held this statutory phrase refers to the maximum term of imprisonment that could have been imposed, rather than the maximum probationary period allowable under another law specifying a specific probation length, e.g., Vehicle Code section 23153’s requirement that probation shall be no less than three years nor more than five years. This other applicable law specifying the length of probation remains in effect, except that the length of probation may not exceed the maximum possible term of imprisonment. The maximum possible term of imprisonment must be calculated by reference to the aggregate prison term that could have been imposed for all counts. Here, the maximum aggregate sentence the trial court could have imposed on all counts was three years, eight months, and therefore defendant’s probation must be limited to this amount.
Case Summaries
