People v. Jones

California Court of Appeal Mar 5, 1987 No. Docket Nos. A035142, A036836Published

Before: Elkington

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant's letter to a probation officer did not constitute a valid request for sentencing under Penal Code section 1203.2a because it failed to strictly comply with the statute's requirements for written requests, attestation, and content.

Issues

Whether a defendant's letter to a probation officer satisfied the requirements for a request for sentencing under Penal Code section 1203.2a.

Disposition. Affirmed and denied.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It has been held, as to such state prison inmates’ requests for sentencing, that there must be “strict compliance” with section 1203.2a”

“The letter does not appear to be in strict, or any, compliance with section 1203.2a under the rules we have quoted. Nowhere does a request for sentencing appear. Nor was it “properly attested” as required by section 1203.2a.”

[1455]

Opinion

ELKINGTON, Acting P. J.

—We have before us the appeal of Curtis Jones from an order revoking his probation on a perjury conviction, and his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The issues of both proceedings are the same; they concern the application of Penal Code section 1203.2a (hereafter section 1203.2a). We have consolidated them for our consideration and determination.

Section 1203.2a, a lengthy code section, provides a procedure by which a person given probation without imposition of sentence following a felony conviction, who during the probationary period is arrested, prosecuted and convicted for another felony offense and incarcerated in state prison therefore, may at his option request imposition of sentence on the conviction for which he had been granted probation. The request for imposition of sentence must be in writing and “signed in the presence of the warden or superintendent of the prison in which he is confined or the duly authorized representative of the warden or superintendent, and such warden or superintendent or his representative attests both that the defendant has made and signed such request and that he states that he wishes the court to impose sentence in the case in which he was released on probation....”

Section 1203.2a then states: “The probation officer may, upon learning of such defendant’s imprisonment, and must within 30 days after being notified in writing by the defendant or his counsel, or the warden or superintendent or duly authorized representative of the prison in which the defendant is confined, report such commitment to the court which released him on probation.... [If] In the event the probation officer fails to report such commitment to the court or the court fails to impose sentence as herein provided, the court shall be deprived thereafter of all jurisdiction it may have retained in the granting of probation in said case.”

Jones was such a person as would have been

eligible

for the application of section 1203.2a, should he have so elected.

It has been held, as to such state prison inmates’ requests for sentencing, that there must be

“strict

People v. Jones

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief