Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Separate sentencing

Text: Defendant contends that his sentence on counts III (attempted murder), IV (attempted robbery), and V (felon in possession of a firearm) must be vacated because he separately was sentenced to death as well as to terms of imprisonment on these three counts, in violation of section 1191 and California Rules of Court, rule 433(d), and because the court had lost jurisdiction to sentence him. The record reflects that the jury's verdict of death was rendered on September 2, 1988. The trial court indicated that defendant was entitled to be sentenced within 28 days (no later than Sept. 30, 1988), whereupon the defense moved for and was granted a continuance. Thereafter, the sentencing hearing was continued on a number of occasions, at which the trial court secured defendant's express waiver of the statutory time in which to impose sentence (on several occasions defendant was an in-custody miss-out). Following the hearing on the motion for a new trial and the application for modification of penalty, on June 16, 1989, the trial court sentenced defendant to death on count I for the murder conviction, remanding him to state prison. On July 14, 1989, at the prison where defendant was housed, the trial court held a hearing, which it characterized as a continuance of the prior sentencing hearing. At that hearing, the court, acting pursuant to section 654, determined not to impose sentence on count II (the robbery of Treto, the murder victim). The court sentenced defendant to the upper term of nine years on count III (the attempted murder of Cebreros), with three years' enhancement for the finding of great bodily injury and two years' enhancement for the finding of use of a gun. The court imposed one-third the midterm or eight months consecutively on counts IV (the attempted robbery of Cebreros) and count V (felon in possession of a firearm) as well as a five-year consecutive enhancement for each of the prior convictions, for a total term of 25 years and four months. Section 1191 provided at the time of defendant's trial that the trial court must pronounce judgment within 28 days of the verdict, unless proceedings are continued. California Rules of Court, rule 433(d), provides that sentencing shall occur and be determined at a single hearing unless the sentencing judge orders otherwise in the interest of justice. Section 1202 provides that if the judgment is not rendered or pronounced within the statutory time or as continued under section 1191, the defendant is entitled to a new trial if he or she requests one. As a general rule, the time limits on the pronouncement of sentence provided by section 1191 are not jurisdictional, but may be waived by the parties. ( Dix v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 464, 279 Cal.Rptr. 834, 807 P.2d 1063; People v. Ford (1966) 65 Cal.2d 41, 47, 52 Cal.Rptr. 228, 416 P.2d 132; People v. Williams (1944) 24 Cal.2d 848, 850, 151 P.2d 244.) A judgment pronounced following the statutory time limit may not be reversed on appeal unless the delay resulted in a miscarriage of justice. (Cal. Const., art. VI, ง 13; People v. Ford, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 47, 52 Cal.Rptr. 228, 416 P.2d 132.) Although defendant objected generally to the 28-day continuation of sentencing from the June 16, 1989, hearing to the hearing that was held on July 14, 1989, he did not move for a new trial. In any event, that delay between the two hearings did not result in a miscarriage of justice. Defendant also contends that the trial judge could not impose sentences on the additional counts because defendant already was under restraint of sentence and therefore the trial court lacked jurisdiction to do so. ( People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344-345, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 801, 842 P.2d 100.) Defendant was not under restraint of sentence for the crimes represented by those counts, because the trial court previously had omitted to sentence him on the counts in question. Defendant also contends that the trial court could not impose these sentences because that trial court lost jurisdiction once a notice of appeal was filed. Although, as a general rule, an appeal from an order in a criminal case removes the subject matter of that order from the jurisdiction of the trial court ( Anderson v. Superior Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 863, 865, 59 Cal.Rptr. 426, 428 P.2d 290), it is settled that an unauthorized sentence is subject to correction despite the circumstance that an appeal is pending. Because the trial court was not authorized simply to waive sentencing on these counts, any error in failing to impose sentence in this regard would have been subject to judicial correction when it ultimately came to the attention of the trial court or this court. (Cf. People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 641, 992 P.2d 569; People v. Serrato (1973) 9 Cal.3d 753, 762-764, 109 Cal.Rptr. 65, 512 P.2d 289, overruled on another ground in People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 583, fn. 1, 189 Cal.Rptr. 855, 659 P.2d 1144; In re Sandel (1966) 64 Cal.2d 412, 417-419, 50 Cal.Rptr. 462, 412 P.2d 806; People v. Terrell (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1255, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 231.)