Error and/or relief
The trial court did not have jurisdiction to amend earlier (erroneous) pronouncements on credit for time served, and the appellate court left in place the uncorrected credit for time served even though it gave him more conduct credit than he was entitled to. The appellate court treated the defendant’s appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, because there was no right to appeal from an order that the trial court had no jurisdiction to make. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation clerk’s letter saying there was an error in the award of credit for time served does not constitute a request by CDCR to resentence the defendant under section 1172.1. As the judgment was already final, the trial court had no jurisdiction to change the judgment, even though erroneous. The superior court was directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect that the prior sentence as reflected in the original abstract of judgment is reinstated including the awarding of the custody credits.
First Holding:
The court may treat an appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Authority:
People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783
Second Holding:
Unlike a letter from the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation Secretary or their authorized representative expressly requesting recall and resentencing, a letter from a CDCR analyst recommending the court to review its file does not confer jurisdiction under section 1172.1 to vacate or modify a sentence notwithstanding the long-standing practice of treating such letters as a jurisdictional basis.
Authority:
People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783
Third Holding:
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. Once the case is final, 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, or to correct a clerical error, or to modify an unauthorized sentence when the error is apparent from the record
Authority:
People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 990
People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344
People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 788, 791
Fourth Holding:
The Legislature has determined that except under certain limited circumstances the People shall have no right of appeal in criminal cases. Courts must respect the limits on review imposed by the Legislature although the People may thereby suffer a wrong without a remedy. The fact that the act of the trial court was without authority and thus was an act in excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction in itself cannot enlarge the right of appeal by the People.
Authority:
PEN 1238
People v. Superior Court (Mitchell) (2024) 17 Cal.5th 228, 244
People v. Godfrey (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 896, 901
People v. Williams (2005) 35 Cal.4th 817, 823