People v. Torres CA4/2

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the matter should be remanded for resentencing because the

trial court failed to orally pronounce the sentence and did not understand its discretion to

impose a lesser included firearm enhancement. He explains that because the prior

sentence had been vacated, the trial court was required to pronounce a new sentence and

its failure to do so was unauthorized.

The People argue the trial court clearly indicated it was declining to exercise its

discretion to strike the firearm enhancement without altering the original sentence and

3 that even if the court “should have orally pronounced the same sentence originally

imposed at that juncture, remand is unnecessary as it is not reasonably probable that the

court would impose a sentence any different than the sentence originally imposed.”

A. Remand to Orally Pronounce Sentence

“In a criminal case, judgment is rendered when the trial court orally pronounces

sentence.” (People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344, fn. 9; People v. Mesa (1975)

14 Cal.3d 466, 471.) “After conviction of a felony and where probation is denied, the

court must pronounce judgment upon the defendant by imposing a fine…