continued sentencing hearing in California

2022Under the circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in viewing defendant’s eleventh-hour request for counsel as “only based on an intent to delay and obstruct these proceedings.” In any event, any error in failing to appoint counsel for the continued sentencing hearing was harmless. ( Ngaue, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1126–1127 [erroneous denial of request to retract Faretta waiver not an 23 error of constitutional dimension10].) Although defendant maintains “there was much for counsel to do at this hearing,” he does not challenge the probation report which stated there were no f

2021At the continued sentencing hearing, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss his prior strike convictions under Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th 497 , and sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life pursuant to section 667, subdivision “(e)(2)(C)(VIII),” which presumably was intended to refer to (e)(2)(C)(iv)(VIII).

2021At the continued sentencing hearing, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss his prior strike convictions under Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th 497 , and sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life pursuant to section 667, subdivision “(e)(2)(C)(VIII),” which presumably was intended to refer to (e)(2)(C)(iv)(VIII).

2020(See Lara, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 906 [credit-limiting facts need not be formally pled and proven]; People v. Fitzgerald (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 932 , 936- 937 [information charging defendant with violent felonies imparted notice that his presentence custody credits would be limited under section 2933.1].) In addition to the advance written notice of the report, the court actually notified the parties two months before the continued sentencing hearing that they should be prepared to discuss defendant’s entitlement to custody credits.

2016A constantly disruptive defendant who represents himself, and who therefore cannot be removed from the trial proceedings as a sanction against disruption, would have the capacity to bring his trial to a standstill.” (People v. Welch, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 734 , italics added in original.) While witnesses and a jury were not going to be affected by a continued sentencing hearing, the court was not obliged to permit defendant to further delay matters and take control of the hearing, as he attempted to do throughout the criminal proceedings in this case: “The judges of our courts are entitled t

2016(Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 .) At the continued sentencing hearing on December 18, 2013, Garcia and Oliver appeared.

2015(People v. Martin (2010) 51 Cal.4th 75, 79 [defendant's sentence must be within negotiated terms of plea agreement as approved by trial court].) As stated in a different context, "'"[t]he umpire ain't ruled until he's ruled."'" (People v. Delgado (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 551, 555 , quoting baseball great Yogi Berra.) The trial court properly considered Hall's behavior in the courtroom -- his emotional state during Ybarra's testimony at sentencing and his consumption of alcohol prior to attending the continued sentencing hearing.

2015At the continued sentencing hearing, the court made 29 extensive findings and correctly concluded that multiple firearm enhancements were appropriate based on Tameka C., supra, 22 Cal.4th 190 .