Where the trial court requests a probation report pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.01, it may not pronounce judgment unless the report has been completed and the parties have received copies of it. Appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property and money laundering in November 2006, and the court ordered completion of a supplemental probation report. Prior to trial, a report containing only appellant’s prior record had been completed in July 2006. At the sentencing hearing, the supplemental report had yet to be completed. Defense counsel, who had been appointed that day, requested a continuance but the court denied the request and sentenced appellant to state prison. Finding that the imposition of sentence, in spite of the absence of the ordered supplemental probation report (and counsel’s request for a continuance), violated statutory requirements and rendered the sentencing fundamentally unfair, the appellate court remanded for resentencing after receipt of an updated probation report.
The test of a valid waiver of the right to counsel is based on the record as a whole. The court also found that appellant’s claim of Faretta error was without merit because viewing the record as a whole indicated that his waiver of counsel was valid. (People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194).
The court erred in refusing to apply Penal Code section 654. The court determined that the concurrent sentence for receiving stolen property was error pursuant to Penal Code section 654 as it resulted in multiple punishment for a single, indivisible course of conduct in which appellant had only one criminal intent. The intent for both the money laundering and receiving stolen property was to receive the stolen funds.