Sentencing: Difference between revisions
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
===Statement of reasons=== | ===Statement of reasons=== | ||
“Generally speaking, the trial court must state reasons for granting or denying probation.” (People v. Lesnick (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 637, 644.) | |||
"At an initial sentencing hearing, when the court has the discretion to grant probation, the decision to grant probation is a sentence choice which requires a statement of reasons." (§ 1170, subd. (c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 405(f)Court, rule 405(f). (People v. Hawthorne (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 789, 792.) | "At an initial sentencing hearing, when the court has the discretion to grant probation, the decision to grant probation is a sentence choice which requires a statement of reasons." (§ 1170, subd. (c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 405(f)Court, rule 405(f). (People v. Hawthorne (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 789, 792.) | ||
"The denial of probation, in and of itself, is not a sentence choice requiring a statement of reasons. (People v. Gopal (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 524, 547–549, 217 Cal.Rptr. 487, cert. den. 476 U.S. 1105, 106 S.Ct. 1949, 90 L.Ed.2d 359; People v. Crouch (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 902, 904, 182 Cal.Rptr. 701.) The rationale is that the denial of probation is not the ultimate disposition of the case, but rather is part and parcel of the concomitant decision to sentence to state prison, and that is the sentence choice which requires a statement of reasons. (People v. Butler (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 251, 254–255, 165 Cal.Rptr. 709; accord People v. Golliver, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at p. 1616, fn. 2, 269 Cal.Rptr. 191.) (People v. Hawthorne (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 789, 792, fn. 2) | "The denial of probation, in and of itself, is not a sentence choice requiring a statement of reasons. (People v. Gopal (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 524, 547–549, 217 Cal.Rptr. 487, cert. den. 476 U.S. 1105, 106 S.Ct. 1949, 90 L.Ed.2d 359; People v. Crouch (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 902, 904, 182 Cal.Rptr. 701.) The rationale is that the denial of probation is not the ultimate disposition of the case, but rather is part and parcel of the concomitant decision to sentence to state prison, and that is the sentence choice which requires a statement of reasons. (People v. Butler (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 251, 254–255, 165 Cal.Rptr. 709; accord People v. Golliver, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at p. 1616, fn. 2, 269 Cal.Rptr. 191.) (People v. Hawthorne (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 789, 792, fn. 2) | ||
But it need not provide reasons for declining to find a case “unusual” so as to rebut any presumptive ineligibility for probation. (People v. Lesnick (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 637, 644.) | |||
==Misdemeanor sentencing== | ==Misdemeanor sentencing== | ||
Revision as of 01:03, 19 June 2021
Granting probation
Statement of reasons
“Generally speaking, the trial court must state reasons for granting or denying probation.” (People v. Lesnick (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 637, 644.)
"At an initial sentencing hearing, when the court has the discretion to grant probation, the decision to grant probation is a sentence choice which requires a statement of reasons." (§ 1170, subd. (c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 405(f)Court, rule 405(f). (People v. Hawthorne (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 789, 792.)
"The denial of probation, in and of itself, is not a sentence choice requiring a statement of reasons. (People v. Gopal (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 524, 547–549, 217 Cal.Rptr. 487, cert. den. 476 U.S. 1105, 106 S.Ct. 1949, 90 L.Ed.2d 359; People v. Crouch (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 902, 904, 182 Cal.Rptr. 701.) The rationale is that the denial of probation is not the ultimate disposition of the case, but rather is part and parcel of the concomitant decision to sentence to state prison, and that is the sentence choice which requires a statement of reasons. (People v. Butler (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 251, 254–255, 165 Cal.Rptr. 709; accord People v. Golliver, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at p. 1616, fn. 2, 269 Cal.Rptr. 191.) (People v. Hawthorne (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 789, 792, fn. 2)
But it need not provide reasons for declining to find a case “unusual” so as to rebut any presumptive ineligibility for probation. (People v. Lesnick (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 637, 644.)
Misdemeanor sentencing
"A trial court in a misdemeanor case may properly look for guidance to what the rules consider to be aggravating and mitigating." (People v. Faber (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th Supp. 41, 48.)
Sentencing error
Failing to state reasons
Rule 4.403
People v. Dixon (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1037, found it reversible error, when failing to state reasons for consecutive sentences.
Sentencing can't just incorporate by reference, such as just the probation report. People v. Pierce (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1317; People v. Fernandez (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 669; People v. Deloach (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 323; People v. Davis (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 270; People v. Turner (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 244