People v. Martinez
240 Cal. App. 4th 1006
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- David Martinez was convicted in two separate Madera County cases (Case No. 1 and Case No. 2) for heroin offenses; both judgments were pronounced in 2009 and execution of an aggregate sentence was suspended with probation granted.
- In 2009 the court imposed a three-year aggravated principal term in Case No. 1 and an eight-month subordinate consecutive term (one-third of the middle term) in Case No. 2; the aggregate sentence became a final judgment.
- Probation in Case No. 1 later expired (June 2013); probation in Case No. 2 was revoked in 2013 after violations and the trial court, at resentencing, imposed an upper term of three years in Case No. 2 instead of ordering the previously imposed eight-month subordinate term into effect.
- Defense argued the court lacked authority to increase or alter the previously imposed (but execution-suspended) subordinate sentence; the Attorney General argued the subordinate term was unauthorized once the principal term no longer existed, permitting resentencing.
- The Court of Appeal held the trial court must order the previously imposed sentence into effect upon revocation of probation when execution had been suspended, even if the previously imposed subordinate term was consecutive to a principal term that no longer exists; the sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent with that rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may refuse to order into effect a previously imposed but execution-suspended subordinate consecutive term after revocation of probation when the original principal term no longer exists | The subordinate term is unauthorized once the principal term has expired, so the court may impose a lawful full term at revocation | The court lacks jurisdiction to change a final judgment; when sentence was imposed and execution suspended, the exact sentence must be ordered into effect on revocation | The court must order the previously imposed suspended sentence into effect; it cannot modify that final judgment at the precommitment stage |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Howard, 16 Cal.4th 1081 (California Supreme Court) (when sentence was imposed but execution suspended, trial court lacks authority on revoking probation to reduce the imposed sentence; must order previously imposed sentence into effect)
- People v. Scott, 58 Cal.4th 1415 (California Supreme Court) (a defendant is "sentenced" when judgment imposing punishment is pronounced even if execution is suspended; lifting suspension does not re-sentence)
- People v. Chagolla, 151 Cal.App.3d 1045 (California Court of Appeal) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify final judgment on probation revocation; must order previously pronounced judgment into effect)
- People v. Colado, 32 Cal.App.4th 260 (California Court of Appeal) (same principle: suspended-execution judgments are final and must be executed on revocation)
- In re Renfrow, 164 Cal.App.4th 1251 (California Court of Appeal) (distinguishes unauthorized-sentence corrections from Howard; an unauthorized sentence may be corrected even if harsher)
- People v. Ramirez, 159 Cal.App.4th 1412 (California Court of Appeal) (order imposing sentence with execution suspended is appealable and becomes final if not appealed)