People v. Petty CA1/2, A163677

Petty was charged with multiple offenses, pleaded no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm (count 1) and driving under the influence (count 6), and received a negotiated three-year term of probation for the case.
The court imposed 120 days county jail (with credit), fines, and various probation conditions.
After probation was briefly revoked and reinstated with modified conditions, defense counsel moved to transfer venue; at that hearing counsel also asked the court to reduce probation for the felony (count 1) to two years under AB 1950 while leaving the misdemeanor probation at three years.
The trial court denied the requested unilateral reduction, reasoning it lacked authority to split probation length by count and that the three-year term was part of a post-AB 1950 plea bargain the parties likely contemplated.
Petty appealed the denial; appellate counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues, no supplemental brief was filed, and the Court of Appeal conducted an independent review and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to reduce only the felony probation term to two years under AB 1950 while keeping the misdemeanor term at three years	The People argued the court properly denied relief because probation is a single grant for the entire case, the negotiated three-year term was permissible (the DUI misdemeanor is excluded from AB 1950’s one-year limit), and the plea was entered after AB 1950 so parties likely accounted for it	Petty argued he was entitled to AB 1950’s benefit to reduce the felony probation to two years even though the misdemeanor probation would remain longer	Court affirmed: probation is imposed as a single term for the case; where one conviction is excluded from AB 1950 limits the court may set probation up to the longest authorized term for any conviction; the negotiated post-AB 1950 plea did not entitle Petty to unilateral reduction

People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (establishes counsel’s duties in appeals raising no arguable issues)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (federal counterpart addressing appointed counsel’s obligations when seeking to withdraw)
Fayad v. Superior Court, 153 Cal.App.2d 79 (probation for multiple counts treated as a single period)
People v. Blume, 183 Cal.App.2d 474 (same principle on single probation term)
Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (plea bargains entered after changes in law are presumed to have been negotiated with awareness of the law)
People v. Cole, 50 Cal.App.5th 715 (discusses treatment of probation terms across multiple counts)