Jurisdiction of Trial Court

Name: People v. Mohammed
Case #: H052908
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/29/2026

The Court of Appeal that holds trial courts lack inherent jurisdiction to correct unauthorized sentences. Accordingly, even though the trial court’s sentence of defendant contained unauthorized terms, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to resentence defendant and increase the sentence. Because the trial court lacked fundamental jurisdiction, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction as well. However, because it would be unjust to leave the sentencing order intact, the Court treated the appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, granted the petition, and directed the trial court to vacate the increased sentence and enter the original sentence.

The full opinion is available…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sanchez
Case #: D085325
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 04/08/2026

Correction of a clerical error does not authorize a full resentencing hearing. The original abstract of judgment listed a state prison term and a consecutive misdemeanor county jail term as a single aggregate prison sentence, which was clerical rather than judicial error. The trial court correctly denied defendant’s request for a full resentencing and Romero relief, but lacked jurisdiction to change the misdemeanor sentence from a consecutive to a concurrent term. The resulting modification was therefore void. Finally, the correct place to list a county jail misdemeanor sentence on an abstract of judgment is the “other orders” section of box…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Taft
Case #: B339775
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 03/20/2026

PC 1237.1 confers jurisdiction on a trial court to correct erroneous custody credit calculations while an appeal is pending. The trial court cited People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to correct the acknowledged error. However, Singleton stated that a trial court may modify a sentence pursuant to an “authorizing statute,” and here PC 1237.1 qualified.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Cervantes
Case #: B332405
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 10/30/2025

A trial court has jurisdiction to correct an unauthorized sentence discovered while reviewing a defendant’s PC 1172.6 petition. Here, defendant’s sentence included an unlawful firearm enhancement, but the trial court concluded its prima facie PC 1172.6 denial deprived it of jurisdiction to address the error. However, the unauthorized sentence, combined with the “strong showing” defendant made for a PC 1172.6 evidentiary hearing, provided sufficient jurisdictional basis to correct the error.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B332405.PDF

A trial court has jurisdiction to correct an unauthorized sentence discovered while reviewing a defendant’s PC 1172.6 petition. Here, defendant’s sentence included an unlawful firearm enhancement, but the trial court concluded its prima facie PC 1172.6 denial deprived it of jurisdiction to address the error. However, the unauthorized sentence, combined with the “strong showing” defendant made for a PC 1172.6 evidentiary hearing, provided sufficient jurisdictional basis to correct the error.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B332405.PDF

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Singleton
Case #: B341793
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 08/20/2025

An unauthorized sentence does not confer jurisdiction on a trial court to modify a final judgment. The Court of Appeal followed People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, and disagreed with People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, in holding that correcting an unauthorized sentence is only possible where the court otherwise has jurisdiction. Here, a letter from a CDCR case manager did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of PC 1172.1(a)(1). Accordingly, the higher sentence which the trial court imposed by fixing the error was void and the original sentence was reinstated.

The…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hernandez
Case #: F086665
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/25/2024

Appeal dismissed where defendant did not dispute his PC 1172.6 petition was properly denied, but instead argued the case should be remanded for the trial court to correct the unauthorized portion of his original sentence. The opinion follows People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629 and People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, and disagrees with People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, in holding that an unauthorized sentence does not create freestanding trial court jurisdiction to correct the error. A habeas writ is the proper vehicle for challenging such a sentence.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56
Case #: E081005
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/27/2024

The trial court lacked "fundamental jurisdiction" to hear defendant’s motion to correct error in calculating custody credits filed years after sentencing. The Court of Appeal follows People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629 in holding that an unauthorized sentence does not create trial court jurisdiction to correct the error, disagreeing with People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976. Further, a sentence unauthorized in one respect (custody credits) does not require vacating the entire sentence or justify a full…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976
Case #: D080633
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/26/2023

A trial court’s inherent authority to correct an unauthorized sentence allows the court to modify a final judgment. In 2019, defendant pleaded guilty to two felonies (counts 1 and 3), and admitted committing count 3 while released on bail for count 1. At his initial sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered count 3 to be served concurrent to count 1, for a total of 8 years. After defendant’s case was final, CDCR sent a letter noting that under the Penal Code, it appeared count 3 should be consecutive to count 1, and asked if correction was required. The trial court…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Harris
Case #: C079470
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Citation: 22 Cal.App.5th 657
Opinion Date: 04/23/2018

A motion to recall the remittitur is not the appropriate procedural vehicle to reopen a final case in order to argue the application of amendments to Penal Code section 12022.53 (Senate Bill No. 620). Harris was convicted of the first degree murder of her husband. A gun use enhancement was found true (Pen. Code, § 12022.53). Her conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and her case became final in early 2017. In October 2017, Senate Bill No. 620 amended Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (h) to provide trial courts the discretion to strike gun use enhancements in the interest of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Race
Case #: E066059
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Citation: 18 Cal.App.5th 211
Opinion Date: 12/11/2017

Trial court correctly issued protective order as to defendant's daughter, even though he did not plead to any criminal offense involving her. Race pleaded no contest to attempted lewd acts on his minor niece (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 288, subd. (a)). As part of sentencing the trial court issued a 10-year protective order (Pen. Code, § 136.2, subd. (i)(1)) as to both his niece and his daughter. Race challenged the protective order as to his daughter because he did not plead to any offense involving her. Held: Affirmed. In cases where a defendant is convicted of a crime involving domestic…

View Full Summary