In re O’Neal CA2/3
Michael O’Neal, Sr. (petitioner) challenges his sentence as unlawful because the trial court purported to amend it by means of nunc pro tunc orders after orally pronouncing sentence on September 18, 2006.
We conclude the trial court erred when it purported to amend petitioner’s sentence through nunc pro tunc orders. A petition for writ of habeas corpus is an appropriate vehicle for challenging an unauthorized sentence. (In re Johnson (1966) 65 Cal.2d 393, 394; In re Sandel (1966) 64 Cal.2d 412, 417; In re Birdwell (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 926, 931; see also In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 750.) We shall grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and direct the trial court on remand to: (1) vacate petitioner’s original September 18, 2006 sentence and any and all subsequent orders purporting to affect his sentence; (2) appoint counsel to represent petitioner
Comments on In re O’Neal CA2/3