Opinion ID: 1124385
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Colado

Text: Colado concluded that Karaman did not change the sentencing rules in probation revocation cases. In Colado, the defendant was convicted of a drug offense while on probation for two other drug-related convictions. ( Colado, supra, 32 Cal. App.4th at pp. 261-262.) The trial court had sentenced him to nine years in prison after one of his previous convictions, but it suspended execution of sentence. ( Id. at p. 262.) After his third conviction, the trial court revoked his probation and ordered the previously suspended sentence to run concurrently with the sentence for his latest conviction. ( Ibid. ) The trial court noted that it would have ordered a shorter sentence, but felt compelled to impose the nine-year sentence previously imposed and suspended. ( Ibid. ) The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court could have modified the sentence downward at any time before execution of sentence because Karaman permits a judge revoking probation to impose a new and lesser sentence than originally imposed. ( Ibid. ) The Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the defendant's sentence, concluding that Karaman did not apply to a probation revocation.  Karaman had nothing to do with a grant of probation and a later revocation, but rather with the mechanics of a short stay of execution of an imposed commitment to state prison, and the time at which jurisdiction to modify such an imposed sentence is lost. ( Colado, supra, 32 Cal. App.4th at p. 263.) The Colado court observed that the sentence initially imposed in the case had become final, both because the defendant had not appealed the original judgment that imposed the sentence, and because the trial court's jurisdiction to modify the sentence had also expired once the clerk entered the judgment in the court's minute book. ( Ibid. )