(a)Every person who commits a public offense, for which any specification of three time periods of imprisonment in any state prison or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 is now prescribed by law or for which only a single term of imprisonment in state prison or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 is specified shall, unless such convicted person be placed on probation, a new trial granted, or the imposing of sentence suspended, be sentenced pursuant to Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 1170) of Title 7 of Part 2.
(b)For any person not sentenced under such provision, but who is sentenced to be imprisoned in the state prison or imprisonment
pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, including imprisonment not exceeding one year and one day, the court imposing the sentence shall not fix the term or duration of the period of imprisonment.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
60
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1927–2024 · leading case:
People v. Wingo, 534 P.2d 1001 (Cal. 1975).
People v. Wingo, 534 P.2d 1001 (Cal. 1975).
· cites it 4× “" His sole contention is that the punishment is disproportionate to his offense and thus is unconstitutionally cruel or unusual.”
In re Tahl, 460 P.2d 449 (Cal. 1969).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, I believe that whenever such information is relevant to the terms of a disclosed bargain, a defendant should be told of the broad discretion of the Adult Authority (Pen. Code, §§ 1168, 3020, 5077), that the authority is apprised of the prosecutor's and judge's views…”
United States v. Willie Lee Dancy, 861 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Cal.Penal Code § 1168 (Deering 1977). A judgment was valid if it, like Dancy’s, ordered imprisonment “for the term prescribed by law.”
People v. Pedro T., 884 P.2d 1022 (Cal. 1994).
· cites it 2× “853 ] [Pen. Code, § 1168, authorizing trial court to recall prison term for resentencing after diagnostic study by Department of Corrections].”
Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings, and parolees who complain about the…”
Frank Haygood v. Evelle J. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1985).
“See Cal.Penal Code § 1168 (West 1970). All references to the California Penal Code herein are to the Code in effect at the time of Haygood’s sentencing in 1959 or at the time of the California Supreme Court decision in 1975.”
In re Anderson, 447 P.2d 117 (Cal. 1968).
· cites it 2× “) Footnote 8 thus relates to those sentencing procedures in which the jury performs a function similar to that performed by the Adult Authority (Pen. Code §§ 1168, 3020-3024.5, 5075-5082) and the trial judge (e.”
People v. Ralph, 150 P.2d 401 (Cal. 1944).
· cites it 2× “The court denied the motions for such certification, as well as the applications for probation, and sentenced each defendant to the state prison for the term prescribed by law (Pen. Code, § 1168). From the judgment and sentence against him each defendant appeals.”
John Wesley Clutchette v. Raymond J. Procunier, 497 F.2d 809 (9th Cir. 1974).
· cites it 2× “However, a closer examination of the features of San Quentin’s disciplinary procedures in the context of California’s Indeterminate Sentencing Act (Cal.Penal Code §§ 1168, 3020-3035), to which these prisoners are subject, requires a reappraisal of their case under the Rodriguez…”
In re Caudillo, 610 P.2d 1021 (Cal. 1980).
· cites it 2× “" Penal Code section 1168 deals in part with prisoners sentenced before the effective date of the Determinate Sentencing Act and hence to an indeterminate term.”
People v. Leach, 541 P.2d 296 (Cal. 1975).
“5 Lorraine Kramer was sentenced to the prescribed five-years-to-life term in state prison (Pen.”
In re Tartar, 339 P.2d 553 (Cal. 1959).
“(Pen. Code, § 1168; see also Stats. 1931, pp.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.