legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Daley
After he was convicted of several offenses and sentenced to a total of 19 years 8 months in prison, appellant Mark Delroy Daley filed an appeal. In an opinion filed March 13, 2007, this court affirmed the conviction but determined the case had to be remanded for resentencing pursuant to Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [166 L.Ed.2d 856, 127 S.Ct. 856]. (People v. Daley (Mar. 13, 2007, A109917) [nonpub. opn.].)
On April 3, 2007, before our decision was final, the trial court issued a notice of hearing and transportation order scheduling further proceedings in the case on April 19, 2007. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(1) [Court of Appeal decision is final in that court 30 days after filing of opinion].) At the April 19, 2007 hearing, the trial court stated it had conferred with counsel and understood the Appellate Court had determined a new sentencing hearing was required. The court then conducted a new hearing on May 17, 2007, at which it sentenced appellant once again to an aggregate term of 19 years 8 months imprisonment.
An appellate court has inherent power to grant a motion for summary reversal, even of criminal judgments, in an appropriate case. (People v. Browning (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 320, 323.) Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to resentence appellant, the sentence it imposed on May 17, 2007, reflected in the June 11, 2007 abstract of judgment, is null and void, and the matter must again be remanded for resentencing.


Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale