Error and/or relief
Although the trial court had the jurisdiction to correct clerical errors, it had no jurisdiction after the judgment was final to correct judicial errors. Thus, it had no jurisdiction to set aside the credit for time served that it had awarded years earlier. The order eliminating the credits must be vacated.
(Because the new offenses were committed in prison while serving an earlier commitment, the new sentence was required to run consecutively, and he was not entitled to credit for time while serving his term on the original offense to be applied against the new consecutive sentence. Nonetheless, the court originally awarded him nearly two years credit for time served.)
First Holding:
The question whether the trial court had jurisdiction to eliminate custody credits after a final judgment is a pure question of law we review de novo.
Authority:
People v. Camp (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 461, 467
Second Holding:
Under the general common law rule, a trial court loses jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has begun. While there are some exceptions to that rule, none justifies the court’s elimination of the defendant’s custody credits.
Authority:
People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344
Third Holding:
A court has inherent power to correct a clerical error at any time. Clerical error, however, is to be distinguished from judicial error which cannot be corrected by amendment. The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered. Here, the trial court’s orders imposing the custodial credits in 2010, 2021, and again in 2024 were plainly judicial—not clerical—errors.
Authority:
In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705
People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 63
In re Rojas (1979) 23 Cal.3d 152, 154
Fourth Holding:
Section 1172.1(a)(1) does not apply here, because (1) it was not the Caliofrnia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation secretary who sent the letter pointing out the errors, but a records analyst who sent the letter; (2) the sentencing was not within 120 days of the date of commitment; and (3) the request did not relate to a change of sentencing laws since the original sentencing. Moreover, the sentence was in fact greater than the original sentence.
Authority:
People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 987 [letter came from a case records manager, not the secretary and did not reference section 1172.1 or use the terms recall or resentencing]
People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 791–792
Fifth Holding:
Regarding jurisdiction to correct an unauthorized sentence, we find King to be a better reasoned case than Codinha. King reasoned that the “venerable notion” that an unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time had been rejected by the Supreme Court in In re G.C.. The unauthorized sentence doctrine is an exception to the waiver doctrine, in that a party does not forfeit the right to argue that a sentence is unlawful by failing to object in the trial court. It is not, however, an exception to the requirement of jurisdiction. Rather, in order to invoke the unauthorized sentence doctrine to remedy a judgment of conviction, the trial court must still have jurisdiction over the judgment.
Authority:
People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 635
In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1129
People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 66
People v. Garcia (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 139, 145–146
People v. Hernandez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1123
Sixth Holding:
Add holding blurb here
Authority:
ADD AUTHORITIES HERE