prosecuting defense in California

2016However, Dobbins is inapplicable, because the defendant there remained eligible for probation upon remand. ( Id . at pp. 181-182, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 882 .) Therefore, a probation report was mandated by law, unless a written or oral stipulation was entered by the prosecuting and defense attorneys. (§ 1203, subd. (b)(4).) Since the *429 attorneys did not waive or stipulate to proceed without the probation report, the Dobbins defendant did not forfeit his claim of error even though he failed to object below. ( Dobbins,supra, at p. 182, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 882 .) Unlike Dobbins , defendant would not have b

2016However, Dobbins is inapplicable, because the defendant there remained eligible for probation upon remand. ( Id . at pp. 181-182, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 882 .) Therefore, a probation report was mandated by law, unless a written or oral stipulation was entered by the prosecuting and defense attorneys. (§ 1203, subd. (b)(4).) Since the *429 attorneys did not waive or stipulate to proceed without the probation report, the Dobbins defendant did not forfeit his claim of error even though he failed to object below. ( Dobbins,supra, at p. 182, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 882 .) Unlike Dobbins , defendant would not have b

2016However, Dobbins is inapplicable, because the defendant there remained eligible for probation upon remand. ( Id . at pp. 181-182, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 882 .) Therefore, a probation report was mandated by law, unless a written or oral stipulation was entered by the prosecuting and defense attorneys. (§ 1203, subd. (b)(4).) Since the *429 attorneys did not waive or stipulate to proceed without the probation report, the Dobbins defendant did not forfeit his claim of error even though he failed to object below. ( Dobbins,supra, at p. 182, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 882 .) Unlike Dobbins , defendant would not have b

2016However, Dobbins is inapplicable, because the defendant there remained eligible for probation upon remand. ( Id . at pp. 181-182, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 882 .) Therefore, a probation report was mandated by law, unless a written or oral stipulation was entered by the prosecuting and defense attorneys. (§ 1203, subd. (b)(4).) Since the *429 attorneys did not waive or stipulate to proceed without the probation report, the Dobbins defendant did not forfeit his claim of error even though he failed to object below. ( Dobbins,supra, at p. 182, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 882 .) Unlike Dobbins , defendant would not have b

2014California Rules of Court, rule 4.411(c) provides: “The court shall order a supplemental probation officer’s report in preparation for sentencing proceedings that occur a significant period of time after the original report was prepared.” The hearing here was not a “sentencing proceeding[].” “There are . . . three . . . determinations at issue under Penal Code section 1170.126, subdivision (f): First, the court must determine whether the prisoner is eligible for resentencing; second, the court must determine whether resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety; and t

2014California Rules of Court, rule 4.411(c) provides: “The court shall order a supplemental probation officer’s report in preparation for sentencing proceedings that occur a significant period of time after the original report was prepared.” The hearing here was not a “sentencing proceeding[].” “There are . . . three . . . determinations at issue under Penal Code section 1170.126, subdivision (f): First, the court must determine whether the prisoner is eligible for resentencing; second, the court must determine whether resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety; and t

1966(People v. Francis, supra, 42 Cal.App.2d 335 , 337-338; People v. Daigle (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 340, 342 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; People v. Caruso, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 641-642 ; People v. Snowden (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 552, 557 [ 308 P.2d 815 ] (cert. den. 355 U.S. 841 [ 78 S.Ct. 62 , 2 L.Ed.2d 49 ].) Here he made no mention of having been under the influence of a drug at his first appearance in the superior court 13 days after his pleas were entered before the magistrate, or in either of his motions which are dated February 10th; and in support of the ruling of the lower court, there being n

1966(People v. Francis, supra, 42 Cal.App.2d 335 , 337-338; People v. Daigle (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 340, 342 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; People v. Caruso, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 641-642 ; People v. Snowden (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 552 , *203 557 [ 308 P.2d 815 ] (cert. den. 355 U.S. 841 [ 78 S.Ct. 62 , 2 L.Ed.2d 49 ].) Here he made no mention of having been under the influence of a drug at his first appearance in the superior court 13 days after his pleas were entered before the magistrate, or in either of his motions which are dated February 10th; and in support of the ruling of the lower court, there b

1966(People v. Francis, supra, 42 Cal.App.2d 335 , 337-338; People v. Daigle (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 340, 342 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; People v. Caruso, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 641-642 ; People v. Snowden (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 552, 557 [ 308 P.2d 815 ] (cert. den. 355 U.S. 841 [ 78 S.Ct. 62 , 2 L.Ed.2d 49 ].) Here he made no mention of having been under the influence of a drug at his first appearance in the superior court 13 days after his pleas were entered before the magistrate, or in either of his motions which are dated February 10th; and in support of the ruling of the lower court, there being n

1966(People v. Francis, supra, 42 Cal.App.2d 335 , 337-338; People v. Daigle (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 340, 342 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; People v. Caruso, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 641-642 ; People v. Snowden (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 552 , *203 557 [ 308 P.2d 815 ] (cert. den. 355 U.S. 841 [ 78 S.Ct. 62 , 2 L.Ed.2d 49 ].) Here he made no mention of having been under the influence of a drug at his first appearance in the superior court 13 days after his pleas were entered before the magistrate, or in either of his motions which are dated February 10th; and in support of the ruling of the lower court, there b

1966(People v. Francis, supra, 42 Cal.App.2d 335 , 337-338; People v. Daigle (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 340, 342 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; People v. Caruso, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 641-642 ; People v. Snowden (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 552, 557 [ 308 P.2d 815 ] (cert. den. 355 U.S. 841 [ 78 S.Ct. 62 , 2 L.Ed.2d 49 ].) Here he made no mention of having been under the influence of a drug at his first appearance in the superior court 13 days after his pleas were entered before the magistrate, or in either of his motions which are dated February 10th; and in support of the ruling of the lower court, there being n

1966(People v. Francis, supra, 42 Cal.App.2d 335 , 337-338; People v. Daigle (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 340, 342 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; People v. Caruso, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 641-642 ; People v. Snowden (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 552 , *203 557 [ 308 P.2d 815 ] (cert. den. 355 U.S. 841 [ 78 S.Ct. 62 , 2 L.Ed.2d 49 ].) Here he made no mention of having been under the influence of a drug at his first appearance in the superior court 13 days after his pleas were entered before the magistrate, or in either of his motions which are dated February 10th; and in support of the ruling of the lower court, there b

1966(People v. Francis, supra, 42 Cal.App.2d 335 , 337-338; People v. Daigle (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 340, 342 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; People v. Caruso, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 641-642 ; People v. Snowden (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 552, 557 [ 308 P.2d 815 ] (cert. den. 355 U.S. 841 [ 78 S.Ct. 62 , 2 L.Ed.2d 49 ].) Here he made no mention of having been under the influence of a drug at his first appearance in the superior court 13 days after his pleas were entered before the magistrate, or in either of his motions which are dated February 10th; and in support of the ruling of the lower court, there being n

1966(People v. Francis, supra, 42 Cal.App.2d 335 , 337-338; People v. Daigle (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 340, 342 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; People v. Caruso, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 641-642 ; People v. Snowden (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 552 , *203 557 [ 308 P.2d 815 ] (cert. den. 355 U.S. 841 [ 78 S.Ct. 62 , 2 L.Ed.2d 49 ].) Here he made no mention of having been under the influence of a drug at his first appearance in the superior court 13 days after his pleas were entered before the magistrate, or in either of his motions which are dated February 10th; and in support of the ruling of the lower court, there b

2026(See People v. Bohannon, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 808 .) 10 The contrast between this language and section 1203.067 is stark.

2025(People v. Llamas (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 35, 40 .) And to protect this right, section 1203, subdivision (b)(4), provides that: “The preparation of the report of the consideration of the report by the court may be waived only by a written stipulation of the prosecuting and defense attorneys that is filed with the court or an oral stipulation in open court that is made and entered upon the minutes of the court, except that a waiver shall not be allowed unless the court consents thereto.” (§ 1203, subd. (b)(4).) Given the setting here, the Attorney General concludes―and concedes―that “the superior

2016(See Stephens v. Toomey (1959) 51 Cal.2d 864 [noting difference between pronouncing and imposing judgment]); People v Banks (1959) 53 Cal.2d 370, 384 [same]; People v. Scott (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1415, 1424 [same].) Third, the “report” the attorney general refers to is not a 9 supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 181 .) The trial court’s error, however, “implicates only California statutory law, [and] review is governed by the Watson harmless error standard.” (Id. at p. 182; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [standard for harmless error analysis is whether the reviewing court “is of the ‘opinion’

2016First, the authority relied upon by the attorney general for his waiver argument, such as People v. Oseguera (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 290 “fail[s] to consider the later enactment” of Penal Code section 1203, subdivision (b)(4), which provides that a probation report “ ‘may be waived only by a written stipulation of the prosecuting and defense attorneys . . . or an oral stipulation in open court . . . .’ ” (Dobbins, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 182 , quoting section 1203, subd. (b)(4).) Second, the authorities relied upon by the attorney general for the proposition that no supplemental report was

2016Accordingly, defendant's failure to request a supplemental probation report or object to its omission forfeits his claim on appeal. ( People v. Murray (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 277 , 289, fn. 12, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 820 , overruled on another point in People v. Gutierrez,supra, 58 Cal.4th 1354 , 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 421 , 324 P.3d 245 ; People v. Johnson, supra, at pp. 1431-1432 , 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 423 .) Regardless, we would reject defendant's contention even if we were to consider it on the merits.

2016Accordingly, defendant's failure to request a supplemental probation report or object to its omission forfeits his claim on appeal. ( People v. Murray (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 277 , 289, fn. 12, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 820 , overruled on another point in People v. Gutierrez,supra, 58 Cal.4th 1354 , 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 421 , 324 P.3d 245 ; People v. Johnson, supra, at pp. 1431-1432 , 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 423 .) Regardless, we would reject defendant's contention even if we were to consider it on the merits.

2016Accordingly, defendant's failure to request a supplemental probation report or object to its omission forfeits his claim on appeal. ( People v. Murray (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 277 , 289, fn. 12, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 820 , overruled on another point in People v. Gutierrez,supra, 58 Cal.4th 1354 , 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 421 , 324 P.3d 245 ; People v. Johnson, supra, at pp. 1431-1432 , 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 423 .) Regardless, we would reject defendant's contention even if we were to consider it on the merits.

2016Accordingly, defendant's failure to request a supplemental probation report or object to its omission forfeits his claim on appeal. ( People v. Murray (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 277 , 289, fn. 12, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 820 , overruled on another point in People v. Gutierrez,supra, 58 Cal.4th 1354 , 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 421 , 324 P.3d 245 ; People v. Johnson, supra, at pp. 1431-1432 , 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 423 .) Regardless, we would reject defendant's contention even if we were to consider it on the merits.

2015Section 1203, subdivision (b)(2)(E) requires that the probation report “be made available to the court and the prosecuting and defense attorneys at least five days, or upon request of the defendant or prosecuting attorney nine days, prior to the time fixed by the court for the hearing and determination of the report, and shall be filed with the clerk of the court as a record in the case at the time of the hearing.” A defendant’s due process rights are “ ‘ “protected when the probation report gives notice of the amount of restitution claimed . . ., and the defendant has an opportunity to challe

2015Section 1203, subdivision (b)(2)(E) requires that the probation report “be made available to the court and the prosecuting and defense attorneys at least five days, or upon request of the defendant or prosecuting attorney nine days, prior to the time fixed by the court for the hearing and determination of the report, and shall be filed with the clerk of the court as a record in the case at the time of the hearing.” A defendant’s due process rights are “ ‘ “protected when the probation report gives notice of the amount of restitution claimed . . ., and the defendant has an opportunity to challe

2008Under section 1203, if a person is convicted of a felony and is eligible for probation, the court must refer the matter to a probation officer to investigate and report upon the circumstances surrounding the crime and the prior history and record of the person. (§ 1203, subd. (b)(1).) The report must be made available to the court and prosecuting and defense attorneys at least five days (or, on request of the defendant or prosecuting attorney, nine days) prior to the hearing. (§ 1203, subd. (b)(2)(E).) Under either section 1203 or section 1203.10, a probation report was required in Conners’s c

2008Under section 1203, if a person is convicted of a felony and is eligible for probation, the court must refer the matter to a probation officer to investigate and report upon the circumstances surrounding the crime and the prior history and record of the person. (§ 1203, subd. (b)(1).) The report must be made available to the court and prosecuting and defense attorneys at least five days (or, on request of the defendant or prosecuting attorney, nine days) prior to the hearing. (§ 1203, subd. (b)(2)(E).) Under either section 1203 or section 1203.10, a probation report was required in Conners’s c