People v. Griffith CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 25, 2021H047528California1,036 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. DISCUSSION

“Generally, once a judgment is rendered and execution of the sentence has begun, the trial court does not have jurisdiction to vacate or modify the sentence. [Citations.]” (People v. Torres (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1084 (Torres); People v. Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1207-1208 [applying the foregoing general rule to a request to modify a restitution fine].) “There are exceptions to the general rule. [For example, a] court may recall a sentence and resentence a defendant under certain circumstances within 120 days of the defendant’s custody commitment. (§ 1170, subd. (d)(1).) Resentencing is also authorized under the circumstances specified in sections 1170.126, 1170.18, and 1170.95. Courts may correct computational and clerical errors at any time. [Citation.] Unauthorized sentences and ‘ “ ‘obvious legal errors at sentencing that are correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings’ ” ’ are correctable at any time. [Citations.]” (Torres, supra, at p. 1085.) Here, it is undisputed that the execution of defendant’s sentence began before he filed the motion that is the subject of this appeal. Accordingly,…

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.