Chlad

People v. Chlad

Bad Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 719·6 Cal. App. 4th 1719·8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610·92 Daily Journal DAR 7525·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4772
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 18, 1992D014686California1,927 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kremer, J.

Gary Chlad appeals an order denying a motion to modify his sentence under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). Chlad contends (1) the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence him under section 1170, subdivision (d) and (2) the order denying his motion is an appealable order. We dismiss the appeal.

Procedural Background

On April 23, 1990, Chlad pleaded guilty to nine counts of second degree robbery (§§211, 212.5) and using a firearm in connection with each count (§ 12022.5) under a plea bargain providing a maximum prison sentence of 19 years.

On September 11,1990, Judge Brown sentenced Chlad to a 14-year prison term.

On October 31,1990, Chlad’s attorney sent a letter to Judge Brown noting Chlad had been transferred to Deuel Vocational Institute without the benefit of a section 1170, subdivision (d) hearing. Counsel requested such a hearing take place to resentence Chlad “within the 120 days stipulated by 1170(d).”

On November 26, 1990, the court entered an order stating:

In response to the amended abstract of judgment, the warden at Deuel Vocational Institute sent Judge Brown a diagnostic study of Chlad on December 31, 1990. The study recommended no change in…

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.