Skip to content
Name: People v. Burnes
Case #: H040102
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/14/2015

Trial court erred by denying defendant's Proposition 36 petition after relying solely on inadmissible and unreliable evidence in the probation report to find he was armed during the commission of the offenses. In July 2010 Burnes pleaded no contest to numerous offenses and admitted two strike priors and five prior prison terms. He received a life Three Strikes sentence. In January 2013 Burnes filed a Proposition 36 petition for resentencing (Pen. Code, § 1170.126). The trial court denied the petition after finding that Burnes was armed with a deadly weapon during the commission of the commitment offenses. (See Pen. Code…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Kingsberry
Case #: B227750
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 10/26/2011
Subsequent History: opn. mod. on 11/10/2011; review den. and depublished by CASC on 2/1/2012

Once an unauthorized sentence has been imposed, the court may correct the error even if it results in a greater sentence. In 2007, the defendant was sentenced to state prison for a violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) for a midterm of four years after a violation of probation. The sentencing triad is three, six or eight years. When his release was imminent, CDCR sent a letter to the trial court to determine if correction of the sentence was required. At the resentencing, the court indicated that it had always intended to impose the midterm and refused to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Conners
Case #: B196516
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 11/19/2008

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…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Dobbins
Case #: C046381
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/28/2005

Failure to order an updated probation report after a violation of probation was harmless error. The defendant had been placed on probation under Proposition 36 with a suspended sentence of 16 months. He was later charged with assault with a deadly weapon and attempted robbery. The new charges resulted in a mistrial, but the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had violated his probation, and ordered execution of the suspended term. The Court of Appeal held that because the new sentencing hearing occurred eight months after the preparation of the original report,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Eckley
Case #: F042343
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/02/2004

Resentencing is required where a sentencing court relied on documents containing factual misstatements in denying probation and selecting a prison term. Following defendant's convictions for abusing her son and daughter by failing to timely seek medical treatment for them, the court denied probation and sentenced her to prison. On appeal, defendant argued that the documents relied upon by the court contained material misstatements of fact. The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that the probation report and other documents erroneously stated that the children were severely dehydrated and in critical condition, when in fact the uncontroverted evidence demonstrated that they were…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Garcia
Case #: F042317
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/20/2004
Subsequent History: None

A juvenile charged under Proposition 21 may be sentenced as an adult without consideration of a social study. The seventeen-year-old minor in this case was sentenced to an aggregate term of 45 years to life for various assault and weapons charges. The court here considered only the narrow question of whether Penal Code section 1170.19, subdivision (a)(4), required the sentencing court to consider a social study by the probation officer prior to imposing an adult sentence on a Proposition 21 discretionary direct filing. Relying on the plain language of the statute, the Court of Appeal found that…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bohannon
Case #: B115308
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/28/2000
Subsequent History: Review denied 11/21/00

Bohannon and Hagemann were convicted of multiple sex offenses involving rape by use of drugs. On appeal Hagemann contended that the court erred by failing to release the addresses and phone numbers of two of the victims. Instead, court had ordered the district attorney to make the witnesses available for interviews, and the defense subsequently interviewed the two witnesses. The appellate court found no error. Although failure to disclose the address of a victim was a statutory violation, discovery violations are measured by a posttrial standard. Here, appellant could not establish that the information not…

View Full Summary