People v. Jackson

California Court of Appeal Mar 10, 1982 No. Crim. 13468Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred in concluding it lacked the authority to grant a defense counsel's motion for a sentencing continuance over the defendant's personal objection, as counsel has the power to control such procedural matters.

Issues

Whether a trial court has the discretion to grant a defense counsel's motion for a sentencing continuance over the defendant's objection under Penal Code section 1191.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court incorrectly concluded it did not have the power to grant defense counsel’s motion for a continuance over Jackson’s request.”

Opinion

THE COURT.

A jury convicted Cedric Jackson of arson (Pen. Code, §451, subd. (b)) and he was sentenced to prison. He appeals claiming sentencing error.

The sentencing hearing was set for May 28, 1981, 27 days after the verdict was pronounced. On that date, defense counsel asked for a continuance, explaining Jackson had been examined by a psychiatrist and he was awaiting the doctor’s report so he could prepare a statement in mitigation. The court noted the probation department and the People recommended Jackson receive the upper term, which was two years longer than the mid term. It granted the continuance for one week, then asked Jackson if he wanted the matter continued despite the fact he had a statutory right to be sentenced then. (See Pen. Code, § 1191.) Jackson replied he preferred to be sentenced immediately. The following dialogue then occurred:

[955]

“The Court: [Based on the unfavorable probation report and the People’s statement in aggravation], all I could do ... is send you to prison for [the upper term].... I think your lawyer ... may have some good arguments to reduce that to [the mid term]. He has had insufficient time to file his Motion in Mitigation which might cut the thing down to a mitigated term or a midterm. You are dealing with a number of years, sir, and you have the right to have your lawyer file that. In fact, if you request it, that’s what’s going to be granted. If you don’t request it, I’ll be very glad to sentence today. I think it’s inappropriate, and I advise you against it.... ”

“The Court: ... [I]t’s not very bright of you to insist on sentencing today; however, if you do, I will....

“The Defendant: I want it done today.

“The Court: Are you sure of that now, sir? You have the right to have a Motion in Mitigation considered.

“The Defendant: I’m sure.

“The Court:

You will not allow us to continue the

matter?

People v. Jackson

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief