unauthorized sentence exception in California

2025(Ibid.) The defendant appealed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, concluding “the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain [the defendant’s] motion to vacate his sentence, and therefore this court has no appellate jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.” (Ibid.) The court rejected the defendant’s argument that an unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time, explaining “the unauthorized sentence doctrine does not itself create jurisdiction for a trial court to rule on an incarcerated defendant’s 11 A trial court imposes an unauthorized sentence if the sentence “could not la

2025(Boyd, supra, 103 Cal.App.5th at p. 67, citing G.C., supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 1129 and People v. Scott, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 354 .) The court also observed that “in none of the cases that Codinha cites was [the trial court’s] jurisdiction based on the unauthorized sentence doctrine.” (Boyd, at p. 67.) Rather, in each of the cited cases, the courts had a separate basis for jurisdiction, including Karaman, G.C., Serrato, and Sandel.

2025“The unauthorized sentence doctrine is designed to provide relief from forfeiture for ‘obvious legal errors at sentencing that are correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings.’ [Citation.] It applies when the trial court has imposed a sentence that ‘could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.’ ” (People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 962 , italics added.) An unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time by a court with and as explained above, the trial court did engage with the merits of Wimberly’s r

2025People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 962 [“The unauthorized sentence doctrine is designed to provide relief from forfeiture for ‘obvious legal errors at sentencing that are correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings.’ It applies when the trial court has imposed a sentence that ‘could not be lawfully imposed under any circumstances in the particular case.’ ”].) Since we are not enforcing the forfeiture doctrine in this case, we need not address defendant’s argument.

2021“The unauthorized sentence exception is ‘a narrow exception’ to the waiver doctrine that normally applies where the sentence ‘could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case,’ … [Citations.] The class of nonwaivable claims includes ‘obvious legal errors at sentencing that are correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Brach (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 571, 578 , italics added.) “The appropriate amount of restitution is precisely the sort of factual determination that can and should be brought

2020Jinkins’s claim lacks merit. “‘The unauthorized sentence exception is “a narrow exception” to the waiver doctrine that normally applies where the sentence “could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case,” for example, “where the court violates mandatory provisions governing the length of confinement.” [Citations.] The class of nonwaivable claims includes “obvious legal errors at sentencing that are correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings.”’ (People v. Brach (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 571, 578 .)” (People v. Turri

2025(People v. Mancebo (2002) 27 Cal.4th 735, 749, fn. 7 [forfeiture principles do not apply to legal error resulting in an unauthorized sentence]; People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 , 751 [“The unauthorized sentence rule is an exception to the [forfeiture] doctrine.

2022(Mancebo, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 739 .) 8 the first time on appeal.” (Anderson, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 962 .) “The unauthorized sentence doctrine is designed to provide relief from forfeiture for ‘obvious legal errors at sentencing that are correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings.’ [Citation.] It applies when the trial court has imposed a sentence that ‘could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.’ [Citation.] Take, for example, a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum.

2023But as our Supreme Court explained in In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119 , 1129 (G.C.), “the ‘unauthorized sentence’ rule is an exception to the waiver doctrine, not to the requirement that a court must have jurisdiction before it may act.” (King, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 635; see also People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [“the ‘unauthorized sentence’ concept constitutes a narrow exception to the general requirement that only those claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal”]; People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295 [the rule permits defendants to “c

2008Given the ambiguity concerning the intended scope of defendant's waiver and the timing of the alleged error, we do not find that defendant waived his right to challenge the validity of the restitution and parole revocation fines. [4] *253 The Plea Bargain Although one need not object to an unauthorized sentence to challenge it on appeal, it is settled that when a defendant has pleaded guilty in return for a specified sentence, he or she may not challenge that sentence on appeal, even if it might otherwise be statutorily unauthorized, as long as the trial court had fundamental jurisdiction. ( P

2025(People v. Dotson (1997) 16 Cal.4th 547, 554, fn. 6 .) One court has indicated that whether a person may be included as a protected person under a section 136.2(i)(1) protective order is a claim that may be reviewed through the unauthorized sentence doctrine.

2024(Id. at. pp. 555, 559-560 [construing “shall be served consecutive” in section 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(B)].) Based on those circumstances, the high court, citing People v. Scott, supra, 9 Cal.4th at page 354 and earlier cases, noted the unauthorized sentence claim had not been forfeited in the direct appeal from the judgment (Dotson, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 554, fn. 6 ).

2025The unauthorized sentence doctrine provides relief from forfeiture for “obvious legal errors at sentencing that are correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings.” (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852 .) It applies when the court imposes a sentence that “could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 .) Our California Supreme Court has made clear that “[t]o impose unpleaded sentence enhancements is an error of a different variety.” (People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Ca

2020The unauthorized sentence doctrine is designed to provide relief from forfeiture for “obvious legal errors at sentencing that are correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings.” (People v. Smith, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 852 .) It applies when the trial court has imposed a sentence that “could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.” (People v. Scott, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 354 .) Take, for example, a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum.

2020Jinkins’s claim lacks merit. “‘The unauthorized sentence exception is “a narrow exception” to the waiver doctrine that normally applies where the sentence “could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case,” for example, “where the court violates mandatory provisions governing the length of confinement.” [Citations.] The class of nonwaivable claims includes “obvious legal errors at sentencing that are correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings.”’ (People v. Brach (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 571, 578 .)” (People v. Turri

2020The correct punishment is “imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to life.”5 (§ 667.61, subd. (j)(2).) “An unauthorized sentence is subject to correction when it comes to the attention of the reviewing court.” (People v. Tua (2018) 18 Cal.App.5th 1136, 1140 .) “‘The unauthorized sentence exception is “a narrow exception” to the waiver doctrine that normally applies where the sentence “could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case,” for example, “where the court violates mandatory provisions governing the length of confinement.”’” (People v. Turrin (2009) 17

2021The unauthorized sentence doctrine “applies when the trial court has imposed a sentence that ‘could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.’ ” (People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 962 .) Garrison’s current claim 9 regarding the allegedly erroneous imposition of a restitution fine and various fees “is based on factual arguments concerning his ability to pay, and does not fall within the exception carved out for unauthorized sentences.” (People v. Jinkins (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 707 , 713; see also In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119 , 1130; People v. Avila (2009)

2021The unauthorized sentence doctrine “applies when the trial court has imposed a sentence that ‘could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.’ ” (People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 962 .) Garrison’s current claim 9 regarding the allegedly erroneous imposition of a restitution fine and various fees “is based on factual arguments concerning his ability to pay, and does not fall within the exception carved out for unauthorized sentences.” (People v. Jinkins (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 707 , 713; see also In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119 , 1130; People v. Avila (2009)

2025A defendant cannot rely on an unauthorized-sentence claim to “sidestep the additional hurdle of section 1237.5, which is triggered by entry of a guilty or no contest plea.” (People v. Zuniga (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1186 .) Bohannan’s appeal of his sentence challenges errors made during the course of his plea and “ ‘is properly viewed as a challenge to the validity of the plea itself’ and thus requires a certificate of probable cause.” (People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 766 ; see also People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1098 [§ 1237.5 and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 31(d) should

2022The conclusion followed from the general 6 principle that a timely notice of appeal is “ ‘ “essential to appellate jurisdiction.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 1127, quoting People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1094 .) The court in G.C. rejected the unauthorized sentence doctrine as a vehicle to create jurisdiction to consider the trial court’s error in the prior proceedings.

2025The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is ‘whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered.’” (Candelario, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 705 .) “If the error is in rendering judgment, then it is judicial error.” (People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56 , 63.) For judicial errors, the appellate courts are split on whether the trial court has jurisdiction under the unauthorized sentence doctrine to correct such errors.

2009A clerical error is one that is made in recording the judgment; a judicial error is one that is made in rendering the judgment. ( People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 303 , 26 P.3d 1040 ]; In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 477 P.2d 729 ]; see People v. Borja (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 481, 483-485 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 728 ].) Also, an unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time. ( People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354-355 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 627 , 885 P.2d 1040 ]; People v. Crooks (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 797, 811 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 236 ].) "T

2024(People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 ; accord, People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416 , 424–425.) Neither the analysis nor the concerns raised in Falcon are as limited as the majority suggests, however, and I do not join in that position. also does not involve an unauthorized sentence claim (Falcon, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at pp. 942–943, review granted; see In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119 , 1130 [“an unauthorized sentence or one in excess of jurisdiction is a sentence that ‘could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case’ ”]), or a claim of structural

2024(People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 ; accord, People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416 , 424–425.) Neither the analysis nor the concerns raised in Falcon are as limited as the majority suggests, however, and I do not join in that position. also does not involve an unauthorized sentence claim (Falcon, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at pp. 942–943, review granted; see In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119 , 1130 [“an unauthorized sentence or one in excess of jurisdiction is a sentence that ‘could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case’ ”]), or a claim of structural

2024(People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 ; accord, People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416 , 424–425.) Neither the analysis nor the concerns raised in Falcon are as limited as the majority suggests, however, and I do not join in that position. also does not involve an unauthorized sentence claim (Falcon, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at pp. 942–943, review granted; see In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119 , 1130 [“an unauthorized sentence or one in excess of jurisdiction is a sentence that ‘could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case’ ”]), or a claim of structural

2024(People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 ; accord, People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416 , 424–425.) Neither the analysis nor the concerns raised in Falcon are as limited as the majority suggests, however, and I do not join in that position. also does not involve an unauthorized sentence claim (Falcon, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at pp. 942–943, review granted; see In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119 , 1130 [“an unauthorized sentence or one in excess of jurisdiction is a sentence that ‘could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case’ ”]), or a claim of structural

2024(In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 886 .) “The unauthorized sentence doctrine is designed to provide relief from forfeiture for ‘obvious legal errors at sentencing that are correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings.’ [Citation.] It applies when the trial court has imposed a sentence that ‘could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.’ ” (People v. Anderson, supra, at p. 962 .) 17.

2024(In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 886 .) “The unauthorized sentence doctrine is designed to provide relief from forfeiture for ‘obvious legal errors at sentencing that are correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings.’ [Citation.] It applies when the trial court has imposed a sentence that ‘could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.’ ” (People v. Anderson, supra, at p. 962 .) 17.

2023(In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813, 839 .) Writ relief may be granted when “the sentencing court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by imposing a sentence on the petitioner that was longer than that permitted by law.” (Ibid. [“We again invoked this rule in a case in which a habeas corpus petitioner claimed two enhancement provisions were improperly applied to lengthen his overall sentence.”].) (In re Harris (1989) 49 Cal.3d 131, 134, fn. 2 , quoting In re Huffman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 552, 555 .) The unauthorized sentence exception to the general rule precluding relief after a judgment is final, a

2022(See, e.g., In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813, 823 , 838–839 [writ of habeas corpus available to review claim that a sentence imposed is illegal or longer than that permitted by law].) Because the unauthorized sentence doctrine is a principle of waiver rather than jurisdiction, however, it is not one of those exceptions.

2025DISCUSSION “Under the general common law rule, a trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has commenced.” (People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344 .) Additionally, subject to certain exceptions, “once a judgment is rendered, . . . the sentencing court is without jurisdiction to vacate or modify the sentence.” (People v. Hernandez (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 323, 326 .) Important exceptions to this common rule concerning the trial court’s jurisdiction include: (1) recall and resentencing provisions set forth in specific statutes, (2

2023(See, e.g., Karaman, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 345, fn. 11 ; Sandel, supra, 64 Cal.2d at pp. 418-419.) Those decisions, as we read them, are inconsistent with the recent decision in King, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th 629 , that “the unauthorized sentence doctrine does not itself create jurisdiction for a trial court to rule on an 18 incarcerated defendant’s motion to correct an alleged illegal sentence after the conviction is final and after the execution of the sentence has begun.” (Id. at pp. 641-642.) In King, the trial court denied a motion the defendant had filed more than 30 years after sentencing

2016We conclude the contention was forfeited, but that the victim restitution award must be reduced to 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 3 $7,249 because it was erroneous as awarded, and trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the victim restitution award. 1.0 Forfeiture “An objection to the amount of restitution may be forfeited if not raised in the trial court. ‘The unauthorized sentence exception is “a narrow exception” to the waiver doctrine that normally applies where the sentence “could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in t

2014Express findings by the court as to the factors bearing on the amount of the fine shall not be required.” (§ 1202.4, subd. (d), italics added.) “An objection to the amount of restitution may be forfeited if not raised in the trial court. ‘The unauthorized sentence exception is “a narrow exception” to the [forfeiture] doctrine that normally applies where the sentence “could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case,” for example, “where the court violates mandatory provisions governing the length of confinement.” [Citations.] The class of non[forfeitable] claims incl

1996Appellate courts have relied upon the principle to which defendant refers in allowing habeas corpus review of a claim or sentencing error amounting to an excess of jurisdiction when a defendant has delayed in raising the issue (e.g., In re Harris, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 842 ) and in holding that an unauthorized sentence is no bar to the imposition of a proper, even if more severe, judgment thereafter (e.g., People v. Serrato (1973) 9 Cal.3d 753, 764-765 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 512 P.2d 289 ], disapproved on other grounds, People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 583, fn. 1 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 855 ,

1996Appellate courts have relied upon the principle to which defendant refers in allowing habeas corpus review of a claim or sentencing error amounting to an excess of jurisdiction when a defendant has delayed in raising the issue (e.g., In re Harris, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 842 ) and in holding that an unauthorized sentence is no bar to the imposition of a proper, even if more severe, judgment thereafter (e.g., People v. Serrato (1973) 9 Cal.3d 753, 764-765 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 512 P.2d 289 ], disapproved on other grounds, People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 583, fn. 1 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 855 ,

2014(People v. Valenzuela, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1249 ; People v. Holman (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1450-1451 ; People v. Turrin, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 1205 .) However, the unauthorized sentence exception is a “ ‘ “narrow exception” ’ ” to the forfeiture doctrine that applies only where the sentence “ ‘ “could not lawfully be 7 imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.” ’ ” (Turrin, at p. 1205; People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19, 26 .) Under the version of section 1202.4 in effect when Kinrade committed his crimes, the trial court had discretion to impose an amoun

2014(People v. Valenzuela, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1249 ; People v. Holman (2013) 9 214 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1450-1451 ; People v. Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1205 (Turrin).) However, the unauthorized sentence exception constitutes a “ ‘ “narrow exception” ’ ” to the forfeiture doctrine that applies only where the sentence “ ‘ “could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. ” ’ ” (Turrin, at p. 1205; People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19, 26 .) Under the version of section 1202.4 in effect when defendant committed her crimes, the trial court had discretion

2025A defendant cannot rely on an unauthorized-sentence claim to “sidestep the additional hurdle of section 1237.5, which is triggered by entry of a guilty or no contest plea.” (People v. Zuniga (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1186 .) Bohannan’s appeal of his sentence challenges errors made during the course of his plea and “ ‘is properly viewed as a challenge to the validity of the plea itself’ and thus requires a certificate of probable cause.” (People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 766 ; see also People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1098 [§ 1237.5 and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 31(d) should

2015(See People v. Zuniga (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1186 [the principle that defendant’s unauthorized-sentence claim is cognizable on appeal despite no objection in the trial court “cannot be employed to sidestep the additional hurdle of section 1237.5, which is triggered by entry of a guilty or no contest plea”].) In support of his argument, defendant asks us to consider two decisions by our colleagues in Division One (People v. Corban (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1111 (Corban)) and Division Four (People v. Loera (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 992 (Loera)).