Skip to content
Name: People v. Boyd
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 resentencing.

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

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
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
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
Name: People v. Hahn
Case #: B279344
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 10/19/2017

Termination of probation does not affect a court's power to enforce a prior lawful sentencing order when the jail sentence was not imposed as a term of probation. Several years after pleading guilty to drug possession, the trial court terminated Hahn's probation as unsuccessful and ordered him to serve 120 days in jail. Notwithstanding his history of failing to appear in court, the court stayed the execution of the sentence to permit Hahn to apply for work furlough and gave him a date to report to jail. Hahn failed to comply with the court's order and did not turn himself…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Barber
Case #: B284060
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 09/14/2017

After probation expired, sheriff did not have authority to confine former probationer who failed to complete work release program. In 2007, Barber pleaded no contest to second degree commercial burglary, and the court sentenced him to three years' probation. In 2010, the court revoked and reinstated probation and sentenced Barber to 365 days in jail. In August 2010, Barber began a work release program in lieu of his jail sentence. He failed to complete the program, and an "IRC Want" was entered into the county warrant system. He appeared in court on multiple occasions after this, but apparently no one…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Christian S.
Case #: H043104
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/09/2017

Arbuckle right does not extend to contested victim restitution hearing in juvenile proceedings. Minor admitted one count of conduct that if committed by an adult would be considered lewd and lascivious conduct on a child under age 14. The judge who handled the disposition hearing was away at judicial training on the day of the contested restitution hearing, which occurred six months after the disposition hearing. A different judge ordered minor to pay over $12,000 in victim restitution. Minor appealed, arguing that the court erred in denying his request to have the restitution hearing continued so that the judge who…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Waters
Case #: A143557
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 10/26/2015

Trial court lacks jurisdiction to order victim restitution after probationary term has expired. Waters was convicted of felony embezzlement (Pen. Code, §§ 487, subd. (a), 508) in 2008 and placed on probation. Although the victim requested $20,800 in restitution, the trial court did not order it. In March 2011, Waters' probation was terminated as successfully completed. In October 2013, she filed a petition to reduce her offense to a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 1203.4). In response, probation noted that victim restitution had not been ordered. At first Waters agreed to pay restitution, but then withdrew that stipulation. After a hearing,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Mendoza
Case #: E059613
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 10/26/2015

The procedure whereby a defendant sentenced to state prison may request sentencing in absentia in a probation case (Pen. Code, § 1203.2a) also applies to defendants sentenced to "county prison." Mendoza was convicted of drug offenses in Riverside County and granted probation. Two years later, while she remained on probation for the Riverside offense, Mendoza was convicted of a felony in San Bernardino and sentenced to 16 months, to be served in the county jail. She filed a petition in Riverside to terminate her probation and sentence her in absentia. (Pen. Code, § 1203.2a.) The trial court did not act…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Borynack
Case #: E061733
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/24/2015

Provisions of the Realignment Act of 2011 that allow the court to impose a split sentence may not be applied to a conviction for possession of a destructive device. Borynack pled guilty to a number of counts related to possession of destructive devices (Pen. Code, §§ 18715, subds. (a)(1), (a)(3), 18720) and other offenses. The trial court imposed a two-year term for possession of a destructive device (Pen. Code, § 18715, subd. (a)) and ordered the remaining counts served concurrently. After applying credits, the court suspended execution of the remainder of the sentence and placed appellant on mandatory supervision (Pen.…

View Full Summary