P. v. Engram
Defendant Mark Engram appeals from a judgment entered after the superior court revoked a probationary sentence following a contested hearing on the alleged probation violation and imposed a sentence of seven years in state prison. Defendant does not challenge the order revoking his probation but contends the trial court misunderstood its sentencing options and requests that the matter be remanded for resentencing. The Attorney General acknowledges that [t]he record of the sentencing hearing is arguably ambiguous and, consequently, a remand for the trial court to have the opportunity to articulate the reasons for its sentencing decision appears to be appropriate. Although we share the Attorney Generals skepticism that the trial court misunderstood its options, Court agree there is an ambiguity and that the prudent course is to remand for resentencing.
Comments on P. v. Engram