Sentencing: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
People v. Dixon (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1037, found it reversible error, when failing to state reasons for consecutive sentences. | 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 | |||
Revision as of 00:43, 19 June 2021
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