Bullock

People v. Bullock

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 722·26 Cal. App. 4th 985·31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 850·94 Daily Journal DAR 9820·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5391
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 11, 1994No. F019965California2,117 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thaxter, J.

— This is an appeal following a resentencing hearing which was ordered by this court in an unpublished opinion that affirmed the convictions of appellant Virgil Dell Bullock on various felony charges but found sentencing error. In this appeal Bullock claims the trial court erred by not ordering and considering an updated probation report before imposing a new sentence. He relies on a series of cases from this court, starting with *987 People v. Brady (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 21 ], holding that the preparation of a supplemental probation report is required on remand even when the defendant is “completely and unalterably ineligible for probation” if the sentencing court has discretion to alter the length of the defendant’s imprisonment.

In the published portion of this opinion we reexamine the Brady rule and conclude it cannot be squared with the clear language of Penal Code 1 section 1203, subdivision (g) which expressly gives the trial court discretion to refer the matter to the probation officer for investigation and report on facts relevant to sentencing when the defendant is ineligible for probation. 2 Because we conclude Brady incorrectly strips the…

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.