Error and/or relief
The trial court prejudicially erred in failing to conduct a full resentencing. The court erred in its calculation of custody credits, both as to postsentence conduct credits and credits for days in actual custody. The abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment as to the restitution fines and the victim restitution order.
First Holding:
When a defendant is convicted of an offense, a sentencing court has a duty to render judgment and impose the penalty authorized by law. Judgment is rendered when the trial court orally pronounces sentence. In rendering the judgment, the court must pronounce sentence on each count for which the defendant sustained a conviction. The failure to pronounce a sentence for each conviction results in an unauthorized sentence that can be corrected at any time.
Authority:
PEN 12
People v. Martinez (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1012
People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344, fn. 9
People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 994
People v. Price (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1405, 1411, fn. 6
Second Holding:
At the resentencing hearing following our remand in the earlier appeal, the trial court addressed only the errors we identified in our opinion. Our remand order was not so limited. It was for a full resentencing.
Authority:
People v. Smith (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1003, 1008, abrogated on another ground by People v. Bullock (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 985
Third Holding:
The trial court’s statements suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the effect of our order vacating the defendant’s sentence and remanding for a full sentencing, which was the nullification of the previous sentence. Because the prior sentence no longer existed, the court had to construct an entirely new sentence. By failing to orally pronounce a sentence on the nine counts for which it stayed the sentences at the original sentencing, the court failed to render judgment on all of the defendant’s convictions, resulting in an unauthorized sentence. When the trial court stated it was excluding counts it had previously stayed under section 654, the trial court used the term concurrent in connection with section 654. But where section 654 applies, it precludes any multiple punishment, consecutive or concurrent.
Authority:
People v. Rouse (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 292, 297
People v. Price (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1405, 1411, fn. 6
People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 994
People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 594
Fourth Holding:
Generally, when an unauthorized sentence is discovered on appeal, a reviewing court affirms the defendant’s conviction and remands the case for the trial court to pronounce a sentence consistent with the verdict.
Authority:
People v. Taylor (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 349, 353
Fifth Holding:
Our order for a full resentencing necessarily encompasses calculating the defendant’s custody credits and the appropriate assessments, fines, and restitution awards. When it resentenced the defendant, the trial court was required to credit her with all actual days she had spent in custody up to that time, including time in custody after the original sentencing.
Authority:
PEN 2900.1
People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424-425
People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37
Sixth Holding:
A trial court is required to include all aspects of a judgment in its oral pronouncement. That includes fines and direct victim restitution. The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order and the abstract of judgment. Upon a defendant’s request, the trial court must hold a hearing on the defendant’s ability to pay before imposing ancillary costs, like the court operations assessment (sec. 1465.8(a)(1)) and the court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373).
Authority:
People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387-388
People v. Rowland (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1745, 1751
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1