Error and/or relief
The trial court had no jurisdiction to modify the long-final judgment in response to a letter from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) that pointed out sentencing errors (which were adverse to the defendant’s interests). The defendant appealed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because there was no jurisdiction in the lower court, and thus nothing to appeal from.
It did, however, treat the appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and granted the writ, directing the trial court to to vacate the order modifying the defendant’s’ sentence on the conviction for dissuading a witness and reinstate the original sentence imposed on that count.
First 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. However, there are limited exceptions to this rule. For example, the court has inherent power to correct a clerical error at any time. A court also may resentence a defendant in connection with a petition for writ of habeas corpus or under specified conditions provided in section 1172.1.
Authority:
People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344
People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 787, 790–791
Second Holding:
Here, the trial court made two modifications to the defendant’s sentence long after execution of the sentence had commenced. First, the court imposed a 10-year enhancement under section 12022.5(a), rather than under section 667.6(c). A record of the court’s oral pronouncement of the original sentence could not be produced for this appeal, so it is not clear if the court misspoke while announcing the sentence, or if the mistake appeared for the first time in the minute order.
In any event, it is apparent the court intended to impose the enhancement under section 12022.5(a), as alleged in the information and found true by the jury. Therefore, the error was essentially clerical, which the trial court had inherent discretion to correct at any time.
Authority:
People v. Menius (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1294 [court’s inadvertent reference to the wrong statute at sentencing was a clerical error]
People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 790–791
Third Holding:
Second, the trial court modified the defendant’s sentence to impose a full consecutive middle term on the dissuading a witness count. The original sentencing court imposed a consecutive one-third the middle term on that count, as is generally required under section 1170.1(a). However, the resentencing court determined section 1170.15 required it to impose a full consecutive term, presumably because the victim of the dissuading offense also was the victim of another felony conviction. A court’s failure to impose a full consecutive term under section 1170.15 is a judicial error, not a clerical error.
Authority:
People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 792 [a court makes a judicial error when it fails to impose the legally required sentence under section 1170.15]
Fourth Holding:
Courts of Appeal are split on whether trial courts have inherent jurisdiction to correct an unauthorized sentence, i.e., a sentence that could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. The majority of appellate courts have concluded they do not but others see it differently.
Authority:
People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354
People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 633
People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 62–63
People v. Hernandez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1122–1124
People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 796–797
People v. Garcia (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 139, 144–145
People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 990
People v. Cervantes (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 825
In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119