Skip to content
Name: In re Mancillas
Case #: H042652
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/23/2016

A defendant whose probation has been summarily revoked "has been released on probation" within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203.2a and the jurisdictional limits for sentencing a probationer who has been imprisoned for another offense apply. Mancillas was placed on probation with execution of a three-year prison term suspended. He failed to report and his probation was summarily revoked. But before further proceedings were held, Mancillas was convicted of new offenses in Nevada and imprisoned there. On December 23, 2013, the trial court received notification that Mancillas was incarcerated in Nevada and his request for final disposition. Eight months…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sanchez
Case #: G050481
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 03/28/2016

Defendant had a constitutional right to be present in the trial court during resentencing after obtaining federal habeas relief. Sanchez was convicted of numerous offenses and originally sentenced to 63 years to life in prison. The trial court had imposed a consecutive term of one year, eight months on Sanchez's conviction for possession of a concealed stolen gun in a vehicle (count five; Pen. Code, § 25400, subd. (a)(1)), and stayed (Pen. Code, § 654) the term on his conviction for possession of a loaded gun in a vehicle (count eight; Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a)). After the state…

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. Cropsey
Case #: c061052
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/18/2010

A restitution fine imposed with a grant of probation remains in force despite a subsequent revocation of probation and there is no need to reimpose the extant fine at revocation and imposition of sentence. Appellant was granted probation and ordered to pay a restitution fine (Pen. Code, sec. 1202.4) and probation-revocation restitution fine suspended pending successful completion of probation (Pen. Code, sec. 1202.44). On the first violation, the court reinstated probation but dissolved the stay on the 1202.44 fine. On a second violation, probation was again reinstated. On the third violation, appellant was sentenced to prison, with execution of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. McIntosh
Case #: A122142
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 09/08/2009

Where sentencing discretion is constrained by terms of the plea bargain and the sentencing judge becomes unavailable for reasons beyond the control of the court or prosecution, defendant is not entitled to withdraw his plea, absent a showing that individualized judicial sentencing discretion was a material element of the plea agreement. Appellant entered into a plea agreement whereby it was agreed that he would initially be granted probation on condition he serve a year in jail, have no contact with the victim, register as a sex offender, and comply with other specified conditions of probation. Thereafter, the visiting judge, who…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Neely
Case #: B204851
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 08/13/2009

Reversal and remand for resentencing was required due to several misapplications of the Determinate Sentencing Law. A jury convicted appellant of first degree murder, two attempted robberies, and possession of cocaine base for sale. Appellant also admitted that a principal personally used a firearm. The murder and attempted robberies stemmed from an incident in which appellant and three cohorts tried to rob a cell phone store and one of the men working in the store was fatally shot. The drug charge was from an unrelated incident. Appellant was sentenced to a term of 36 years to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bonnetta
Case #: S159133
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 04/27/2009

The requirement in Penal Code section 1385 that reasons for a dismissal be set forth in the minute order is mandatory. As part of a plea agreement, the trial court reached the agreed-upon sentence by striking most of the drug and prior conviction enhancements over prosecution objection. The court's decision was reduced to an order entered in the minutes, but the written order did not set forth any of the court's reasons for striking the enhancements. The prosecution appealed, contending that the trial court abused its discretion by striking the enhancements, and that the order was ineffective because the court…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Safety National Casualty Corporation
Case #: F050421
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/27/2007

Under Penal Code section 1195 the surety's obligations under the bond are extinguished upon pronouncement of sentence, with the section being self-executing. Here, when appellant was granted probation, bail was exonerated by operation of law and the trial court had no jurisdiction to later order forfeiture when defendant failed to appear to show proof of probation…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hernandez
Case #: C053061
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/26/2007
Subsequent History: 5/9/07: Revw granted & hold pending Cunningham: S151549

As there is no presumption or other entitlement to concurrent sentences for multiple offenses, a defendant is not entitled to a jury trial for determination of factors utilized to justify consecutive sentences. Under Penal Code section 669 a defendant convicted of multiple offenses is entitled to the sentencing court's exercise of discretion but is not entitled to a particular result. Likewise, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.406(b)(5) requires the court to state its reasons for sentencing choices but does not create a presumption or entitlement to a particular…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Zackery
Case #: C051431
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/01/2007

Following Zackery's sentencing, the court clerk included in the minutes and abstract of judgment some provisions that were not in the judge's pronouncement of sentence, including a plea of no contest to Count 3, Zackery had not in fact entered, and terms of probation not pronounced by the court. The appellate court modified the judgment to strike the sentence on Count 3 and ordered the trial court to prepare amended minutes to reflect the corrections noted in the opinion. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of the judgment and the minute order or abstract of…

View Full Summary