In Re Mancillas (6th Dist) Summary Revocation of Probation Does Not Toll the 60 Day Limit Of PC 1203.2a

July 2012, Mr. Mancillas was sentenced to three years in prison.  Execution of the sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for three years.  Mancillas subsequently absconded from his probation officer and in January of 2013, his probation was summarily revoked and a bench warrant for his arrest issued.

While on the lam from his California case, Mancillas picked up a case in Nevada and on August 6, 2013, was sentenced to prison in Nevada.  While in the Nevada prison, he asked the warden for the proper forms to notify the California court of his incarceration in Nevada and request disposition of his California case.  The warden's staff provided the forms, attested to Mancillas' incarceration, and sent the forms to the California court which received them on December 23, 2013.  

For reasons unstated, the California court took no action.  Eventually in the summer of 2014, the California probation department asked the court to sentence Mancillas.  August 26, 2014, the California court ordered the three year sentence be executed and ordered it to be served consecutive to the Nevada case.  Mancillas petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus.

The Sixth District grants the petition and vacates the three year sentence.

The operative statute is PC 1203.2a, which states,

If any defendant who has been released on probation is committed to a prison in . . . another state for another offense . . . the court shall issue its commitment if sentence has previously been imposed. . . . the court shall be deprived of jurisdiction over defendant if it does not issue its commitment or make other final order terminating its jurisdiction over defendant in the case within 60 days after being notified of the confinement. . . . 

December 23, 2013 to August 26, 2014 is more than 60 days.  While the State makes a series of other specious argument disposed of briefly by the panel, the real issue is the effect, if any, of the summary probation revocation in January 2014.  The issue is two-fold.  First was Mancillas still "released on probation" after his probation had been summarily revoked?  The panel answers "yes", as Mancillas was still subject to the terms and conditions of his probation.  The second prong is whether the summary revocation tolled the 60 day jurisdictional limit?  The panel says "no".  Summary revocation is a vehicle to preserve the ability of a court to adjudicate an alleged probation violation, while 1203.2a's purpose is to establish the jurisdictional window within which sentence may be executed in the absence of any violation.  There is no reason to graft onto 1203.2a a tolling provision borne out of statute with a wholly different purpose.  

Whether due to the trial court's sloth, administrative error, or a legal misunderstandings, Mancillas will never have to serve this California sentence.