People v. Druschel

132 Cal. App. 3d 667, 183 Cal. Rptr. 348, 1982 Cal. App. LEXIS 1651
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 17, 1982
DocketCrim. 41078
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 132 Cal. App. 3d 667 (People v. Druschel) 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.

Bluebook
People v. Druschel, 132 Cal. App. 3d 667, 183 Cal. Rptr. 348, 1982 Cal. App. LEXIS 1651 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

Opinion

BEACH, J.

On April 20, 1981, Gerald Edwin Druschel was sentenced to state prison for a total aggregate unstayed term of three years four months following revocation of probation previously granted in Los Angeles Superior Court cases Nos. A586723 and A586797. 1 On July 8, 1981, appellant, represented by counsel, obtained an order for nine months fifteen days of presentence credit. The court, however, refused the request to order a report prepared pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). 2 It is here claimed that “[a]ppellant had a right to be personally present at the post-judgment sentencing hearing.”

We need not reach the merits of the appeal. By its own terms, defendant has no standing to make a motion for recall of sentence pur *669 suant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d), and the denial of such a motion is not one which affects the substantial right's of the defendant within the meaning of Penal Code section 1237, subdivision 2. (See People v. Niren (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 850, 851 [143 Cal.Rptr. 130].) Nothing in In re Cortez (1971) 6 Cal.3d 78, 89 [98 Cal.Rptr. 307, 490 P.2d 819] concerning the defendant’s presence at a postjudgment proceeding to determine the validity of a prior requires that we declare that a defendant has the right to be present when he unsuccessfully requests a recall pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). The appeal being irregular, it is subject to dismissal. (Pen. Code, § 1248; People v. Bond (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 918, 922-923 [172 Cal.Rptr. 4].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Roth, P. J., and Compton, J., concurred.

1

This aggregate is made up of the following components: middle two-year term as to count I in case A586723, consecutive subordinate term of eight months as to count III of that case; consecutive subordinate term of eight months as to count II in case No. A586797.

2

Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d), in pertinent part, provides: “When a defendant subject to this section .. . has been sentenced to be imprisoned in the state prison and has been committed to the custody of the Director of Corrections, the court may, within 120 days of the date of commitment on its own motion ... recall the sentence and commitment previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if he had not been previously sentenced .... ”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. McCallum
California Court of Appeal, 2020
People v. Loper
343 P.3d 895 (California Supreme Court, 2015)
People v. Jewell CA4/2
California Court of Appeal, 2014
People v. Baida CA2/5
California Court of Appeal, 2014
People v. Swain CA4/1
California Court of Appeal, 2014
P. .v Brown CA3
California Court of Appeal, 2014
The People v. Leggett
California Court of Appeal, 2013
Teal v. Super. Ct.
California Court of Appeal, 2013
People v. Pritchett
20 Cal. App. 4th 190 (California Court of Appeal, 1993)
Portillo v. Superior Court
10 Cal. App. 4th 1829 (California Court of Appeal, 1992)
People v. Chlad
6 Cal. App. 4th 1719 (California Court of Appeal, 1992)
People v. Delson
161 Cal. App. 3d 56 (California Court of Appeal, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 Cal. App. 3d 667, 183 Cal. Rptr. 348, 1982 Cal. App. LEXIS 1651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-druschel-calctapp-1982.