The defendant is entitled to correction of the abstract of judgment to reflect the credit for time served orally pronounced.
Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflet the credit for time served orally pronounced.
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186
The defendant was improperly prosecuted under Penal Code section 594, rather than Penal Code section 4600, for damaging two safety cells while on special watch. Section 594 generally prohibits malicious damage to property not one’s own in cases other than those specified by state law. In contrast, section 4600 specifically addresses the destruction or injury of jail or prison property by an inmate. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including any retrial the People may elect to pursue.
The defendant’s conviction for felony vandalism under section 594 was improper, as a more specific statute was available.
PEN 594
PEN 4600
When a general statute includes conduct covered by a more specific statute, prosecution must proceed under the specific statute. This principle, known as the Williamson rule, prevents the government from circumventing legislative intent by charging a defendant under a broader statute carrying a harsher penalty.
In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651, 654
People v. Murphy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 81, 86
The Legislature’s intent was to exclude from section 594’s scope conduct addressed by other, more specific statutes, such as section 4600’s prohibition against damaging jail property. Reading the two provisions together gives effect to both and avoids rendering section 4600 superfluous, consistent with well-settled rules of statutory construction.
Imperial Merchant Services Inc. v. Hunt (2009) 47 Cal.4th 381, 390 [statutes must be interpreted, if possible, to give each word some operative effect, meaning that we should not construe statutory provisions so as to render them superfluous]
Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 22 [We do not presume that the Legislature performs idle acts, nor do construe statutory provisions so as to render them superfluous]
River’s Side at Washington Square Homeowners Assn. v. Superior Court (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1209, 1228
The appellate court affirmed the denial of the request for resentencing. The defendant appealed from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.1. For the reasons discussed in the opinion, the appellate court found that the trial court’s order was appealable in this instance. However, it concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to recall and resentence the defendant and affirm the order denying the defendants petition.
The steps taken by the court in this instance, mirroring those it would take had the petition been submitted by an entity with the right to submit a petition for recall (appointment of counsel, holding of a contested hearing, and the merits-based comments denying the request), affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and in this instance, the order is appealable.
People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 375 [noting that even if a defendant does not have the right to petition for relief, he does have the right to invite the court to exercise its power to do so and may raise a trial court’s failure to do so on appeal]
The right to appeal is statutory only, and a party may not appeal a trial court’s judgment, order or ruling unless such is expressly made appealable by statute.
People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155, 1159
Ordinarily, the defendant has no right to appeal from either inaction by the court on or its denial of a defendant’s invitation to recall the sentence under section 1172.1.
People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985
People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687
People v. Raoy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 991
People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040
While a defendant may invite the court to recall the sentence under PC 1170.1, the defendant has no right to petition for recall under section 1170.1, and the court is not required to respond to such an invitation or to consider the request at all.
PEN 1172.1(c)
People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985
An appellate court has an independent obligation to assure itself of its own jurisdiction.
Doe v. Regents of University of California (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 282, 291
The charge for violating a protective order was barred by the statute of limitations. We therefore vacate defendant’s conviction for violating a criminal protective order but otherwise affirm the judgment.
The misdemeanor violating a criminal protective order (sec. 166(c)(1)) must be vacated because it is barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations.
PEN 166(c)(1)
PEN 802
People v. Williams (1999) 21 Cal.4th 335, 338, 341
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm with instructions to modify the abstract of judgment. The trial court clerk shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect appellant’s conviction of second degree murder and forward a copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other aspects, the judgment is affirmed.
The abstract of judgment incorrectly states that the conviction was for murder in the first degree, whereas it was actually for murder in the section degree. The People agree that an error in the classification of appellant’s conviction exists and that we have the authority to correct this error.
People v. Taylor (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 628, 647