In re Williams

Good Law
100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 144·2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 734·2000 Daily Journal DAR 10357·83 Cal. App. 4th 936·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7815
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 19, 2000No. B133998California3,823 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Vogel, J.

Introduction

In this matter the petitioner was convicted of escape pursuant to a plea bargain which included a provision for presentence credit. After the sentence was entered, the Department of Corrections informed the trial court that petitioner is not entitled to presentence credit because petitioner was serving a prior prison sentence when he was sentenced here. Without holding a hearing, the trial court amended its sentence, striking the provision for presentence credit. Petitioner contends that the trial court had no jurisdiction to amend the sentence and is bound by the terms of the plea bargain. The *939 issues presented are: (1) may the trial court strike the provision for presentence credit at the request of the Department of Corrections without affording petitioner an opportunity to be heard; and (2) if the sentencing provision for the presentence credit is vacated, may petitioner withdraw from the plea bargain.

Summary of Facts

Petitioner Daniel M. Williams was convicted of a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352 in March 1994 and was placed on probation for 36 months on condition that he serve 365 days in the county jail. Thereafter, for…

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.