People v. Antolin
9 Cal. App. 5th 1176
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2013 Jesse Lin Antolin was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for sale and sentenced to an 11-year county jail term under former Penal Code §1170(h)(5)(A) (Realignment Act sentence).
- He had served several years of that county jail sentence when, in 2015, he moved to recall and modify the sentence so the remaining time would be served as a split sentence with mandatory supervision to allow drug treatment.
- Over the People’s opposition, the trial court granted the motion and converted the straight county jail term into an 11-year split sentence, immediately commencing mandatory supervision.
- The People appealed, arguing the trial court lacked authority to modify the sentence after execution had begun.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that under the common-law rule a trial court loses jurisdiction to modify a sentence once execution has commenced, and no statute then authorized modifying a straight county jail Realignment sentence after execution had begun.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings; the court left open whether resentencing would be unjust under the Tanner factors, directing the trial court to consider that issue first.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to recall and convert a straight county-jail Realignment sentence to a split sentence after execution had begun | Trial court lacked jurisdiction under the common-law rule once execution started; no statutory exception then applied to straight §1170(h)(5)(A) sentences | Realignment is a wholly statutory sentencing scheme so the common-law jurisdictional rule should not control; Camp suggests courts can modify such sentences | Court held common-law rule applies; because execution had begun and no statute authorized modification of straight county-jail Realignment sentences at that time, the trial court lacked authority to modify the sentence |
| Whether split-sentence mandatory supervision portion may be modified after commencement | N/A (Plaintiff sought reversal of modification) | For split sentences, statutes expressly permit modification of mandatory supervision | Court explained statutory authority exists to modify mandatory supervision portions, distinguishing split sentences from straight county-jail sentences |
| Relevance of legislative amendment to §1170(d) (post-sentencing) | Legislative amendment authorizing recall of county-jail Realignment sentences within 120 days confirms courts previously lacked such authority | Defendant conceded that if amendment had applied at sentencing, court would lack power to recall after 120 days | Court relied on amendment’s legislative history to support conclusion that no pre-amendment authority existed to recall straight county-jail Realignment sentences |
| Whether returning defendant to custody would be unjust (Tanner factors) | People did not dispute court should consider Tanner factors on remand | Defendant argued second incarceration would be unjust given reliance and rehabilitation | Court declined to decide on record; remanded for trial court to apply Tanner/Lockridge factors in first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Karaman v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.4th 335 (discusses common-law rule that court loses resentencing jurisdiction after execution begins)
- Dix v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 442 (explains §1170(d) is an exception to the common-law rule)
- Ceja v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.4th 1 (statutory repeal by implication disfavored; statutes construed alongside common law)
- People v. Camp, 233 Cal.App.4th 461 (addressed modification of split Realignment sentence where mandatory supervision was impossible)
- People v. Howard, 16 Cal.4th 1081 (statutory scheme can limit common-law resentencing authority; probation context)
- People v. Tanner, 24 Cal.3d 514 (held resentencing may be unjust when defendant relied on erroneous disposition; sets three-factor test)
- Lockridge v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.App.4th 1752 (applies and discusses Tanner three-part test)