Burbine

People v. Burbine

Bad Law
106 Cal. App. 4th 1250·131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 628·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 384·2003 Daily Journal DAR 2855·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2233
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 12, 2003A096825California6,033 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ruvolo, J.

I.

Introduction

It is settled that a felony defendant’s original aggregate prison term cannot be increased on remand for resentencing following a partially successful appeal. (See, e.g., People v. Serrato (1973) 9 Cal.3d 753, 763-764 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 512 P.2d 289 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 583, fn. 1 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 855 , 659 P.2d 1144 ]; People v. Craig (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1447 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 659 ].) This case presents the converse question: whether, after the reversal of one count of a felony conviction, the defendant’s aggregate prison term must be decreased upon resentencing.

We hold that on remand following the reversal of a felony count for which a subordinate term had been imposed, neither lack of jurisdiction nor res judicata bars the trial court from reconsidering its prior sentencing choices made under the normal rules of felony sentencing, including imposing a higher term for the principal, or base, term, so long as the total prison term for all affirmed counts does not exceed the original aggregate sentence.

We also reject appellant’s subsidiary contentions that the trial court: 1) abused its…

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.