People v. Arnold
This text of 206 Cal. App. 3d 88 (People v. Arnold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion
Appellant, Christopher H. Arnold, contends reversal is required for two reasons: (1) the trial court failed to consider all mitigating factors when it imposed sentence, namely, a portion of the police report which referred to his cooperation in the case investigation, and (2) the trial court failed to state its reasons for denying probation when he was resentenced following his rejection by the California Youth Authority (CYA). We disagree with appellant’s first contention, but agree with his second, and will remand for resentencing.
Summary of the Facts and Proceedings
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 (auto theft). Probation was denied, and he was sentenced to state [90]*90prison for the midterm of two years. He was ordered housed in the CYA pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 1731.5, subdivision (c).1 When the CYA declined to accept him, he was returned for resentencing, at which time the trial court ordered that the sentence be amended to reflect that appellant was to be housed in state prison for the term previously imposed.
Discussion
Part I
Part II
Failure to State Reasons for Sentence Choice Upon Resentencing
When the trial court imposes a prison term with an order that the defendant be housed with the CYA and the CYA fails to accept custody of the defendant, the defendant is returned for resentencing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1731.5, subd. (c).) The question is whether the court is required to state its reasons for making a sentence choice when resentencing in such a case.
Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d), provides that when a defendant is recalled for resentencing upon the court’s own motion or upon the recommendation of the Director of Corrections, the court must apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council. This necessarily includes the rule that the court must state in simple language the primary factors which support the [91]*91exercise of its discretion in denying probation and sentencing the defendant to state prison. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 439(d), 443; People v. Romero (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1148, 1151 [213 Cal.Rptr. 774].)
Although return for resentencing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 1731.5, subdivision (c), is automatic and not upon motion of the court or recommendation of the Director of Corrections, it is nonetheless resentencing and the sentencing rules are applicable.
In resentencing appellant, the court below stated only: “Probation is denied. The sentence is amended to reflect that the Defendant is to be housed in state prison.” The court failed to state reasons for exercising its discretion in this manner.
We hold that appellant was entitled to an independent consideration by the trial court of all factors relevant to the sentence choice.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The judgment insofar as it relates to sentencing is reversed, and the matter is remanded for resentencing after preparation and consideration of an updated probation officer’s report.
Ardaiz, J., and Gallagher, J.,
See footnote, ante, page 88.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
206 Cal. App. 3d 88, 253 Cal. Rptr. 468, 1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 1104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arnold-calctapp-1988.