People v. Codinha
92 Cal.App.5th 976
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Defendant Joseph Codinha pleaded guilty to two felonies (indecent exposure and possession of a controlled substance) and two misdemeanors (possession of drug paraphernalia); he admitted committing the drug felony while out on bail for the indecent exposure count.
- At sentencing the court struck two prior strikes, denied probation, imposed an aggregate prison term of eight years, and—contrary to law—ordered the four-year term for the drug felony (count 3) to run concurrently with the six-year term on the indecent exposure count (count 1).
- The Department of Corrections sent a letter notifying the trial court that section 12022.1 required count 3 to run consecutively to count 1; the court then amended the judgment to add a consecutive term (ultimately increasing the aggregate term by 16 months to 9 years 4 months).
- Codinha appealed the postjudgment modification. The appeal raises whether the trial court had jurisdiction to modify a final judgment in response to the Department’s notice and, if so, whether the court could simply correct the single component or had to conduct a full resentencing.
- The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court had authority to correct an unauthorized sentence but, because the original sentence reflected discretionary, interdependent choices (and other sentencing errors existed), the proper remedy here is a full resentencing; it vacated the modified sentence and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Codinha’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did the trial court have jurisdiction to modify the final judgment after the Department’s letter? | The court could correct a clerical error or otherwise fix the sentence without recall; inherent authority sufficed. | The court could only act by recalling and resentencing under §1172.1 or, if exercising inherent authority, must provide full resentencing. | The court has inherent authority to correct an unauthorized sentence; the unauthorized-sentence doctrine provided jurisdiction to modify after finality. |
| 2. Was the court’s action a clerical correction or a judicial change? | It was a clerical correction of the judgment subject to correction at any time. | It was judicial error (a discretionary sentencing choice) that could not be treated as clerical. | It was judicial error, not clerical; the clerical-correction power did not authorize the change. |
| 3. Did §1172.1 (recall and resentencing on Department recommendation) authorize the modification? | §1172.1 was not triggered because the Department did not recommend recall and resentencing. | The Department’s notice could or should be treated as a recommendation, requiring recall and full resentencing. | §1172.1 did not apply: the Department’s letter was not a Secretary’s recommendation and the court did not act under §1172.1; moreover §1172.1 prohibits increasing the original sentence. |
| 4. If jurisdiction existed, was the proper remedy limited correction or full resentencing? | The court could correct only the unauthorized portion and leave other components intact. | Full resentencing was required so the court could re-evaluate all interdependent discretionary choices (and consider changed law and an updated probation report). | Because the original sentence involved interdependent discretionary choices and other sentencing defects (e.g., failure to pronounce sentence on misdemeanors), remand for full resentencing is required. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Karaman, 4 Cal.4th 335 (1992) (finality rule and exceptions, including correction of unauthorized sentences).
- People v. Serrato, 9 Cal.3d 753 (1973) (unauthorized sentences may be corrected whenever discovered).
- In re Sandel, 64 Cal.2d 412 (1966) (concurrent sentence where law required consecutive term is void in part).
- In re G.C., 8 Cal.5th 1119 (2020) (unauthorized-sentence doctrine does not override appellate-timeliness rules; scope of remedy discussed).
- In re Candelario, 3 Cal.3d 702 (1970) (distinguishing clerical errors from judicial sentencing errors).
- People v. Hill, 185 Cal.App.3d 831 (1986) (invalid component infects aggregate sentence; court may reconsider all sentencing choices on remand).
- People v. King, 77 Cal.App.5th 629 (2022) (contrasting view that unauthorized-sentence doctrine does not itself create trial-court jurisdiction to rule postfinality).