probation and sentencing hearing in California

2017(See People v. Peterson (1973) 9 Cal.3d 717 , 728, 730, 108 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 511 P.2d 1187 .) Here the trial court impliedly rejected, i.e. did not credit, appellant's claim that his commission of the crimes was "influenced by the medication he was taking for his Parkinson ['s] disease." "We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trial court on issues of credibility. [Citation.]" ( People v. Markley (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 230 , 242, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 257 .) All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court.

2017(See People v. Peterson (1973) 9 Cal.3d 717 , 728, 730, 108 Cal.Rptr. 835 , 511 P.2d 1187 .) Here the trial court impliedly rejected, i.e. did not credit, appellant's claim that his commission of the crimes was "influenced by the medication he was taking for his Parkinson ['s] disease." "We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trial court on issues of credibility. [Citation.]" ( People v. Markley (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 230 , 242, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 257 .) All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court.

1993Code, § 1203.1; People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ] ( Lent )) proposed at the probation and sentencing hearing constitutes a waiver of the claim on appeal. [1] We conclude that it does.

1993Code, § 1203.1; People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ] ( Lent )) proposed at the probation and sentencing hearing constitutes a waiver of the claim on appeal. [1] We conclude that it does.

1979(People v. Valdiva, 182 Cal.App.2d 145, 149 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 832 ].) The time for exercising that right is at the hearing itself.

1979(People v. Valdiva, 182 Cal.App.2d 145, 149 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 832 ].) The time for exercising that right is at the hearing itself.

1984Any dispute over the right to credit, the number of days of credit, or the judgment or judgments to which the credits are applicable can then be resolved at the probation and sentencing hearing.’ {People v. Sage, supra, 26 Cal.3d at p. 509.)” {People v. Taiton, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at pp. 731-733, fn. omitted, final italics added.) As did the Taitón court, we interpret Welfare and Institutions Code section 3201, subdivision (c), to mean that the provisions of Penal Code section 2930 et seq. will be applied in calculating the period of an individual’s CRC confinement.

1983Any dispute over the right to credit, the number of days of credit, or the judgment or judgments to which the credits are applicable can then be resolved at the probation and sentencing hearing.” (People v. Sage, supra, 26 Cal.3d at p. 509 .) Finally, we note that the Attorney General is incorrect in the suggestion that in the usual CRC exclusion case the defendant would not be entitled to inpatient conduct credits because exclusion means a failure to earn such *734 credits.

2010In that case, the court unanimously agreed that the failure of a defendant to challenge the reasonableness of a probation condition "proposed at the probation and sentencing hearing constitutes a waiver of the claim on appeal." ( Id. at p. 230.) In his brief concurring opinion, Justice Arabian, joined by Justice Kennard, agreed, but added that the imposition of such conditions should not (1) violate "procedural due process" (such as when imposed without a probation department's report in misdemeanor cases), (2) be imposed with any "vindictiveness," or (3) apply as and when "legal error is demo

2010In that case, the court unanimously agreed that the failure of a defendant to challenge the reasonableness of a probation condition "proposed at the probation and sentencing hearing constitutes a waiver of the claim on appeal." ( Id. at p. 230.) In his brief concurring opinion, Justice Arabian, joined by Justice Kennard, agreed, but added that the imposition of such conditions should not (1) violate "procedural due process" (such as when imposed without a probation department's report in misdemeanor cases), (2) be imposed with any "vindictiveness," or (3) apply as and when "legal error is demo

2010In that case, the court unanimously agreed that the failure of a defendant to challenge the reasonableness of a probation condition "proposed at the probation and sentencing hearing constitutes a waiver of the claim on appeal." ( Id. at p. 230.) In his brief concurring opinion, Justice Arabian, joined by Justice Kennard, agreed, but added that the imposition of such conditions should not (1) violate "procedural due process" (such as when imposed without a probation department's report in misdemeanor cases), (2) be imposed with any "vindictiveness," or (3) apply as and when "legal error is demo

2010In that case, the court unanimously agreed that the failure of a defendant to challenge the reasonableness of a probation condition "proposed at the probation and sentencing hearing constitutes a waiver of the claim on appeal." ( Id. at p. 230.) In his brief concurring opinion, Justice Arabian, joined by Justice Kennard, agreed, but added that the imposition of such conditions should not (1) violate "procedural due process" (such as when imposed without a probation department's report in misdemeanor cases), (2) be imposed with any "vindictiveness," or (3) apply as and when "legal error is demo

2009“When there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” (People v. Walz (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1367, fn. 3 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 494 ], citing, inter alia, People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 303 , 26 P.3d 1040 ] (Mitchell).) A reviewing court has the authority to correct clerical errors without a request by either party, so we order the appropriate relief.

2009“When there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” (People v. Walz (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1367, fn. 3 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 494 ], citing, inter alia, People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 303 , 26 P.3d 1040 ] (Mitchell).) A reviewing court has the authority to correct clerical errors without a request by either party, so we order the appropriate relief.

2009“When there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” (People v. Walz (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1367, fn. 3 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 494 ], citing, inter alia, People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 303 , 26 P.3d 1040 ] (Mitchell).) A reviewing court has the authority to correct clerical errors without a request by either party, so we order the appropriate relief.

2009“When there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” (People v. Walz (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1367, fn. 3 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 494 ], citing, inter alia, People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 303 , 26 P.3d 1040 ] (Mitchell).) A reviewing court has the authority to correct clerical errors without a request by either party, so we order the appropriate relief.

2008Our Supreme Court requires that section 1237.5 and former rule 31(d), first paragraph (predecessor to rule 8.304(b)(1)), “be applied in a strict manner.” (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1098 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 , 969 P.2d 146 ] (Mendez).) Since “defendants who have received the benefit of their bargain should not be allowed to trifle with the courts by attempting to better the bargain through the appellate process” (People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 641 , 992 P.2d 569 ]), we will dismiss Navarro’s appeal for failure to secure a certificate of probable caus

2008Our Supreme Court requires that section 1237.5 and former rule 31(d), first paragraph (predecessor to rule 8.304(b)(1)), “be applied in a strict manner.” (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1098 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 , 969 P.2d 146 ] (Mendez).) Since “defendants who have received the benefit of their bargain should not be allowed to trifle with the courts by attempting to better the bargain through the appellate process” (People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 641 , 992 P.2d 569 ]), we will dismiss Navarro’s appeal for failure to secure a certificate of probable caus

2008Our Supreme Court requires that section 1237.5 and former rule 31(d), first paragraph (predecessor to rule 8.304(b)(1)), “be applied in a strict manner.” (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1098 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 , 969 P.2d 146 ] (Mendez).) Since “defendants who have received the benefit of their bargain should not be allowed to trifle with the courts by attempting to better the bargain through the appellate process” (People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 641 , 992 P.2d 569 ]), we will dismiss Navarro’s appeal for failure to secure a certificate of probable caus

2008Our Supreme Court requires that section 1237.5 and former rule 31(d), first paragraph (predecessor to rule 8.304(b)(1)), “be applied in a strict manner.” (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1098 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 , 969 P.2d 146 ] (Mendez).) Since “defendants who have received the benefit of their bargain should not be allowed to trifle with the courts by attempting to better the bargain through the appellate process” (People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 641 , 992 P.2d 569 ]), we will dismiss Navarro’s appeal for failure to secure a certificate of probable caus

1985(People v. Prater (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 695, 702 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 566 ].) Thus the plea bargain in this case contemplated defendant’s appearance at the probation and sentencing hearing set for October 30, 1981.

1985(People v. Prater (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 695, 702 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 566 ].) Thus the plea bargain in this case contemplated defendant’s appearance at the probation and sentencing hearing set for October 30, 1981.

1985(People v. Matson (1974) 13 Cal.3d 35, 39 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 664 , 528 P.2d 752 ].) All of the offenses occurred within a 19-day period and in the same neighborhood around Avalon Gardens. 4 The lower court denied defendant’s motion to sever one count of murder which took place in March 1982 from the remaining counts, which charged a murder, two attempted murders and conspiracy relating to a shooting incident which occurred in June 1981. 5 The Supreme Court issued a writ directing the trial court to set aside its order denying defendant’s motion to sever and to enter an. order granting such motion

1985(People v. Matson (1974) 13 Cal.3d 35, 39 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 664 , 528 P.2d 752 ].) All of the offenses occurred within a 19-day period and in the same neighborhood around Avalon Gardens. 4 The lower court denied defendant’s motion to sever one count of murder which took place in March 1982 from the remaining counts, which charged a murder, two attempted murders and conspiracy relating to a shooting incident which occurred in June 1981. 5 The Supreme Court issued a writ directing the trial court to set aside its order denying defendant’s motion to sever and to enter an. order granting such motion

1985(People v. Matson (1974) 13 Cal.3d 35, 39 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 664 , 528 P.2d 752 ].) All of the offenses occurred within a 19-day period and in the same neighborhood around Avalon Gardens. 4 The lower court denied defendant’s motion to sever one count of murder which took place in March 1982 from the remaining counts, which charged a murder, two attempted murders and conspiracy relating to a shooting incident which occurred in June 1981. 5 The Supreme Court issued a writ directing the trial court to set aside its order denying defendant’s motion to sever and to enter an. order granting such motion

1985(People v. Matson (1974) 13 Cal.3d 35, 39 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 664 , 528 P.2d 752 ].) All of the offenses occurred within a 19-day period and in the same neighborhood around Avalon Gardens. 4 The lower court denied defendant’s motion to sever one count of murder which took place in March 1982 from the remaining counts, which charged a murder, two attempted murders and conspiracy relating to a shooting incident which occurred in June 1981. 5 The Supreme Court issued a writ directing the trial court to set aside its order denying defendant’s motion to sever and to enter an. order granting such motion

1984(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 441(a); People v. Jones (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 75, 77-78 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 571 ].) Furthermore, “ ‘the time for sentencing’ ” during which reasons for sentence choice must be given encompasses the entire probation and sentencing hearing in which sentence is imposed.

1984(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 441(a); People v. Jones (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 75, 77-78 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 571 ].) Furthermore, “ ‘the time for sentencing’ ” during which reasons for sentence choice must be given encompasses the entire probation and sentencing hearing in which sentence is imposed.

1980(People v. Thornton (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 324, 327 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 327 ].) The new three-year period of probation was properly imposed.

1980(People v. Thornton (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 324, 327 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 327 ].) The new three-year period of probation was properly imposed.