People v. Scarbrough
240 Cal. App. 4th 916
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Christy Scarbrough pleaded no contest to possession of hydromorphone and heroin and admitted an on-bail enhancement under Prop. 36, with probation to be served if sentenced.
- In 2013, she violated probation and pleaded no contest to felony child endangerment, which the court treated as a probation violation in related cases and revoked probation.
- In November 2013, the trial court sentenced her to a nine-year-four-month aggregate state prison term and imposed various fines, fees, credits, and three years of postrelease supervision.
- While her appeal was pending, she sought recall and resentencing under section 1170.18, and the trial court ostensibly reduced two felony convictions to misdemeanors and resentenced accordingly.
- Appointed counsel filed a Wende brief; defendant did not file a supplemental brief; the issue presented concerns trial court jurisdiction to resentence during the pending appeal.
- The appellate court held that section 1170.18 does not create concurrent jurisdiction to resentence while an appeal is pending, so the recall and resentencing order was void; defendant may pursue recall after final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 1170.18 create concurrent jurisdiction during an appeal? | People contends no concurrent jurisdiction; trial court erred in resenting during appeal. | Scarbrough argues 1170.18 grants concurrent recall and resentencing while appeal is pending. | No concurrent jurisdiction; order void. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Yearwood, 213 Cal.App.4th 161 (Cal. App. 2013) (interpreted 1170.126; not applicable to non-final judgments; good cause relief after appeal)
- Portillo v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.App.4th 1829 (Cal. App. 1992) (1170(d) provides limited post-sentence recall jurisdiction)
- Dix v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 442 (Cal. 1991) (jurisdictional principles regarding concurrent proceedings)
- In re Carpenter, 9 Cal.4th 634 (Cal. 1995) (habeas corpus jurisdiction is sui generis and cannot expand trial court powers here)
- People v. Nelms, 165 Cal.App.4th 1465 (Cal. App. 2008) (trial court can correct clerical/unauthorized-sentence errors during appeal)