Trial court did not have jurisdiction to modify defendant’s straight county jail term (imposed pursuant to Realignment) after execution of the sentence. In 2013, Antolin was sentenced to 11 years in county jail for a drug offense and enhancements. Several years later he petitioned to have his sentence recalled and modified to allow him to serve the remaining term on mandatory supervision. The court granted his request. The prosecution appealed. Held: Reversed. “Under the general common law rule, a trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of sentence has commenced.” There are differences under the Realignment Act of 2011, between split sentences and straight sentences in county jail. With a split sentence, execution of the concluding portion of the defendant’s term is suspended and served on mandatory supervision. Thus, the trial court’s jurisdiction to alter the unexecuted portion of the sentence is not abrogated by the common law rule. Further, Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B) specifically provides that the trial court retains jurisdiction to modify the mandatory supervision term. Nothing in that statute provides for retained jurisdiction over straight county jail Realignment Act sentences (although Penal Code section 1170, subd. (d) allows for recall of a sentence within 120 days). It does not matter that the trial court here did not alter the length of Antolin’s sentence; it had no jurisdiction to modify the form of the sentence.
The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A147075.PDF