In Re Renfrow

Good Law
164 Cal. App. 4th 1251·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1060·79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 898
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 16, 2008C055564California1,847 words

Opinion

Opinion

Scotland, J.

When a trial court revokes and declines to reinstate probation after having imposed sentence but suspended its execution during the period of probation, the court “must order that exact sentence into effect” (People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081, 1088 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 870 , 946 P.2d 828 ]; see Pen. Code, § 1203.2, subd. (c)). However, as we will explain, if the sentence was an unauthorized sentence, the trial court can order execution of the correct sentence whether it is more or less than the sentence previously imposed.

PROCEDURAL FACTS

Defendant Leathan Renfrow entered a negotiated plea of no contest to assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury and admitted a great bodily injury (GBI) enhancement. (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7; further section references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation.

When defendant admitted violating a condition of probation, the trial court revoked probation, imposed the middle term of three years for the felony assault conviction, suspended execution of that sentence, and reinstated him on formal probation.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.