San Francisco Criminal Lawyer BlogSuperior Court does not have juisdiction to correct an unauthorized sentence once judgment is final
Superior Court does not have juisdiction to correct an unauthorized sentence once judgment is final
Summary: Issue: When a superior court receives a letter the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) informing the court that the abstract of judgment for a defendant “may be in error,” does the court have jurisdiction to correct the sentence where the judgment is long since final?
Penal Code section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(1),gives the court jurisdiction to recall and resentence a defendant in limited circumstances, including where the court acts within 120 days of the date of commitment or upon a recommendation of the secretary of CDCR, the Board of Parole Hearings, or other specified entities, but jurisdiction is limited to imposition of a new sentence that is no greater than the initial sentence. Appellate courts are divided as to whether, in the absence of a specific authorizing statute, a superior court has jurisdiction to correct an unauthorized sentence once the judgment is final. The Court here concluded that the courts in these circumstances lack fundamental jurisdiction to vacate or modify the sentence. The court can modify the sentence only if the court has jurisdiction under section 1172.1 or another authorizing statute, or by the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Singleton appeals from a superior court order entered five years after his commitment to state prison that increased his final sentence by almost three years in response to a CDCR letter advising the court that the abstract of judgment may have an error because the court had imposed a consecutive sentence of one-third the middle term for dissuading a witness although the Penal Code required the court to impose a full consecutive sentence. The court held a hearing at which Singleton was not present, but his attorney was. The court modified Singleton’s sentence by imposing a full consecutive term on the count for dissuading a witness, without addressing the sentences on the other counts, increasing the sentence from 10 years eight months to 13 years four months.
On appeal Singleton contends the superior court erred by increasing his sentence without his presence and without conducting a full resentencing hearing. The court did not have jurisdiction to correct the unauthorized sentence. It did not. Because the superior court did not have jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Because leaving the modified (and void) sentence in place would be unjust, the Court treated the appeal, in part, as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered the court to vacate the order modifying the sentence and reinstate the original sentence. The order was without without prejudice to Singleton, the People, the trial court, or the CDCR seeking to correct Singleton’s initial sentence through a valid procedure that vests the court with jurisdiction to modify the sentence.
Background
On April 11, 2023 the trial court received a letter signed by a correctional case records manager in the legal processing unit of the CDCR indicating the abstract of judgment or minute order “may be in error” because the court imposed a consecutive sentence of one-third the middle term for dissuading a witness contrary to section 1170.15, which requires imposition of the full middle term.The letter further stated, “Please review your file to determine if a correction is required. When notified by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that an illegal sentence exists, the trial court is entitled to reconsider all sentencing choices, People v. Hill [(1986)] 185 Cal.App.3d 831, 230 Cal.Rptr. 109.”
Singleton had “communicated with the court” that he believed he was entitled to have the enhancements that were imposed at sentencing (the remaining strike) dismissed. The court continued the hearing without further argument. At the continued hearing on July 6, Singleton was not present, but his attorney appeared on his behalf. Thee matter was again continued.
At the next hearing on September 20, 2023 a different judge5 presided over the hearing, and Singleton was again not present. Singleton’s attorney explained the sentence was erroneous under section 1170.15 for failure to impose the full middle term on count 2 for dissuading a witness. The court responded, “It’s not a resentencing…. It’s a correction of an error in the sentence.” Singleton’s attorney stated he deferred to the court. The court issued a new abstract of judgment reflecting the original sentence imposed on counts 1 and 4, but imposition of a full consecutive term of four years (the middle term of two years doubled) on count 2. The aggregate state prison sentence therefore increased to 13 years four months.
On November 9, 2023 Singleton filed a motion for reconsideration and request to correct an illegal sentence,”On January 16, 2024 the trial court denied the motion.
Singleton appealed from the order correcting his sentence and the order denying his motion for reconsideration.
Trial Court Lacked Jurisdiction To Modify Singleton’s Sentence
Singleton contends the trial court had jurisdiction to correct his unauthorized sentence under section 1172.1, former subdivision (a)(1), based on the CDCR letter (and thus a right to a full resentencing). The trial court did not have jurisdiction to correct Singleton’s sentence even though it was unauthorized.
“Under the general common law rule, a trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has commenced.” (People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 801, 842 P.2d 100 (Karaman); [“The general rule is that ‘once a judgment is rendered and execution of the sentence has begun, the trial court does not have jurisdiction to vacate or modify the sentence.’ ”].)
The common law rule has limited exceptions.A trial court has statutory authority to recall a sentence and resentence a defendant within 120 days of the defendant’s commitment, or at any time upon the recommendation of the CDCR secretary, the Board of Parole Hearings, the District Attorney, or specified other entities. (§ 1172.1, former subd. (a)(1).)9 In addition, the court has inherent power to correct a clerical error at any time. (In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705, 91 Cal.Rptr. 497, 477 P.2d 729; People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 63, 322 Cal.Rptr.3d 687 (Boyd).)
Section 1172.1, former subdivision (a)(1), did not confer jurisdiction on the trial court to modify Singleton’s sentence. Nearly five years passed before the court modified the sentence in September 2023. Thus, the exception for the court to recall Singleton’s sentence within 120 days did not apply.
There was no recommendation for resentencing from the secretary of CDCR. The letter was from a correctional case records manager, not the secretary. The CDCR’s letter specifically asked the court to determine whether a correction is required.
Although Singleton’s 2018 sentence was unauthorized, that does not mean the trial court in 2023 had jurisdiction to correct the sentencing error. The trial court did not have fundamental jurisdiction to enter the September 20, 2023 order modifying the sentence, and the modified sentence is void. (See Boyd, supra, 103 Cal.App.5th at p. 71, 322 Cal.Rptr.3d 687 [“Because Boyd began serving his prison sentence years ago, the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction here was not merely another way to say it acted in excess of its jurisdiction. Rather, it lacked fundamental jurisdiction, and its order was therefore void, not simply voidable.”]
The Court of Appeal Dismissed Singleton’s Appeal and Deemed a Portion of His Appeal a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to modify Singleton’s sentence, the court’s September 20, 2023 sentencing order is nonappealable, and we dismiss the appeal. (Hernandez, supra, 103 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1124, 323 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 [because court lacked jurisdiction, appropriate disposition was dismissal of the appeal]; King, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 634, 292 Cal.Rptr.3d 731 [“ ‘[i]f the trial court does not have jurisdiction to rule on a motion to vacate or modify a sentence, an order denying such a motion is nonappealable, and any appeal from such an order must be dismissed’ ”]; People v. Fuimaono (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 132, 135, 243 Cal.Rptr.3d 545 [dismissing appeal from nonappealable order].)
Dismissing the appeal from the modified sentence would be manifestly unjust because it would leave Singleton with a sentence imposing three additional years of incarceration without his having had an opportunity to be present at the resentencing. The Court treated Singleton’s appeal as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Because the trial court did not have fundamental jurisdiction to modify the order, the Court granted the petition and direct the court to vacate the modified sentence and reinstate the original sentence.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.