transcript of the sentencing hearing in California

2023At the evidentiary hearing, the court admitted the transcript of the preliminary hearing, the transcript of the sentencing hearing, minute orders from the court’s file, Jackson’s 6 1982 statement as recorded by Detective Zorrilla, the probation officer’s report, and the opinion from Jackson’s direct appeal.3 The prosecutor argued, among other theories, Jackson could still be convicted of felony murder as a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life under People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark).4 Counsel for Jacks

2023At the evidentiary hearing, the court admitted the transcript of the preliminary hearing, the transcript of the sentencing hearing, minute orders from the court’s file, Jackson’s 6 1982 statement as recorded by Detective Zorrilla, the probation officer’s report, and the opinion from Jackson’s direct appeal.3 The prosecutor argued, among other theories, Jackson could still be convicted of felony murder as a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life under People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark).4 Counsel for Jacks

2021The transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals the trial court’s intent to strike (not stay) those enhancements under People v. Jones, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 1153 .

2021While we have authority to correct that clerical error on appeal (People v. Haskin (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1441 ), in light of our remand, the appropriate course is for the trial court to conform its sentence to S.B. 136. 29 III.

2021(Bonetta, supra, 46 Cal.4th at pp. 148-153.) At the time of the defendant’s sentencing hearing, former section 1385 required the trial court to state its reasons for a dismissal upon the record and in the minute order.4 The court held reference to the reporter’s transcript was insufficient to cure the court’s failure to set forth the reasons for the dismissal upon the minutes, as the requirement that the reasons be set forth in the minutes was mandatory. ( Bonnetta, supra, at p. 149 .) According to the court, “[t]he cases have long held a dismissal without a written statement of reasons is inv

2015(People v. Urke, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 779 .) Accordingly, the second restitution fine must be stricken.

2015As Vargas and Arevalo note, and the Attorney General acknowledges, however, the abstract of judgment does not correctly report the joint and several nature of the obligation. 6 Under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, “‘“[a] person who knowingly aids and abets criminal conduct is guilty of not only the intended crime [target 9 supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 158 .) “First degree murder, like second degree murder, is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, but has the additional elements of willfulness, premeditation, and deliberation which trigger a heightened pena

2014The record demonstrates the sentencing judge imposed LWOP on the basis of several factors, including Rainey’s lengthy juvenile court record, the jury’s special circumstance finding that he committed murder during a robbery, the jury’s finding Rainey personally used a firearm during the commission of the crime, and the court’s determination he “knew what he was doing and . . . knew the danger in which he was involved.” Missing from the court’s sentencing discourse is a full consideration of the factors, now constitutionally mandated under Miller, related to “the distinctive attributes of youth

2014(People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110 ; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 .) In reaching this conclusion, we examined the transcript of the sentencing hearing to determine whether there was an arguable issue whether the court abused its discretion in imposing the upper term on count 3 and the upper term of three years for the knife use enhancement, as mentioned by appointed counsel but not argued.

2014(People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110 ; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 .) In reaching this conclusion, we examined the transcript of the sentencing hearing to determine whether there was an arguable issue whether the court abused its discretion in imposing the upper term on count 3 and the upper term of three years for the knife use enhancement, as mentioned by appointed counsel but not argued.

2014(People v. Vargas (2014) 59 Cal.4th 635, 645 .) Here the only evidence of defendant’s convictions is contained in the abstracts of judgment, which are devoid of any information regarding the factual circumstances of his crimes.

2013“Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the 3 oral pronouncement controls.” (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385 ; accord, People v. Walz (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1367, fn. 3 ; see People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070 [“abstract of judgment . . . cannot prevail over the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment to the extent the two conflict”]; People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 864 [“oral pronouncement of judgment controls over any discrepancy with the minutes or the abstract

2001The statutory preference for defendants to understand the possible collateral consequences of their pleas does not warrant more zealous protection than the constitutional imperative that defendants understand their constitutional rights and the direct consequences of their pleas. ( People v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 519, 522 , 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 .) The record reflects Resendiz received correct advice regarding deportation; no further review is warranted.

2001The statutory preference for defendants to understand the possible collateral consequences of their pleas does not warrant more zealous protection than the constitutional imperative that defendants understand their constitutional rights and the direct consequences of their pleas. ( People v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 519, 522 , 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 .) The record reflects Resendiz received correct advice regarding deportation; no further review is warranted.

2001West v. Rundle (1968) 428 Pa. 102 , 237 A.2d 196, 197-198 .) Determining the knowing nature of a plea is a "simple[ ] task." ( People v. Allen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 424, 442 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 682 , 981 P.2d 525 .) Because on-the-record advisement is both necessary and sufficient, our evaluation of Boykin-Tahl challenges is minimal. "[T]he record of the hearing ... should clearly demonstrate the defendant was told of his rights and that he affirmatively waived them.... [A] quick review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing may be all that is necessary." ( Allen, at p. 442, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 682 ,

2001West v. Rundle (1968) 428 Pa. 102 , 237 A.2d 196, 197-198 .) Determining the knowing nature of a plea is a "simple[ ] task." ( People v. Allen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 424, 442 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 682 , 981 P.2d 525 .) Because on-the-record advisement is both necessary and sufficient, our evaluation of Boykin-Tahl challenges is minimal. "[T]he record of the hearing ... should clearly demonstrate the defendant was told of his rights and that he affirmatively waived them.... [A] quick review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing may be all that is necessary." ( Allen, at p. 442, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 682 ,

1998Relying upon People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789 , 917 P.2d 628 ], he sought a hearing, which he and counsel would attend, to have the trial court reconsider his sentence. *928 The verified petition alleged: “Since the record here does not reflect that this court was aware that it had Penal Code section 1385 discretion, nor that it would not have used its Penal Code section 1385 discretion, petitioner must be brought back for reconsideration of his sentence.” The petition presented to the trial court did not attach as an exhibit a transcript of the sent

1998Relying upon People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789 , 917 P.2d 628 ], he sought a hearing, which he and counsel would attend, to have the trial court reconsider his sentence. *928 The verified petition alleged: “Since the record here does not reflect that this court was aware that it had Penal Code section 1385 discretion, nor that it would not have used its Penal Code section 1385 discretion, petitioner must be brought back for reconsideration of his sentence.” The petition presented to the trial court did not attach as an exhibit a transcript of the sent

1986In People v. Langevin, supra, 155 Cal.App.3d at page 524 , the court wrote: “Where the Legislature establishes a sentencing norm and requires the court explicitly to justify a departure therefrom, and the court sentences in conformity with the legislative standard, all that is required on the appellate record is a showing that the court was aware of its discretion to select an alternate disposition.