People v. Smyers

California Court of Appeal Dec 16, 1969 No. Crim. 16220Published

Before: Jefferson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that when an appellate court limits a reversal to resentencing, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear a motion for a new trial, and the doctrine of law of the case precludes review of trial errors already addressed.

Issues

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear a motion for a new trial following a limited remand for resentencing.
Whether the defendant may raise trial errors on appeal that were previously addressed in a prior appeal.
Whether the judgment's recitals regarding the defendant being armed require modification.

Disposition. Modified and affirmed; appeal from order denying new trial dismissed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Where an appellate court limits its reversal solely for the purpose of rearraigning defendant for judgment and sentence, on a subsequent appeal following the rearraignment for judgment hearing, only errors connected with that hearing may be considered.”

“The trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion in the first place.”

“The affirmance of the issue of guilt on the first appeal precludes subsequent review by the trail court on a motion for new trial.”

Opinion

JEFFERSON, Acting P. J.

A jury found defendant guilty of burglary, rape and two counts of first degree robbery. As to the robbery counts, the verdicts each contained the additional finding that defendant was armed at the time of the commission of the offense. Defendant appealed and, in

People

Smyers,

261 Cal.App.2d 690 [68 Cal.Rptr. 194], the judgment was reversed “for the purpose only of rearraigning appellant for judgment under circumstances which will accord to him his constitutional right to counsel at that time.” Upon his return to superior court, the court entertained a motion for new trial which it denied after the presentation of additional evidence. Defendant was then rearraigned for judgment in conformity with the directions of the appellate court, and was resentenced, as before, to state prison. The judgment contains the recitals as to the robbery counts that defendant “was armed as alleged.”

Defendant again appeals from the judgment. (He also purports to appeal

[668]

from the order denying his motion for new trial from which no appeal lies, and which appeal must be dismissed in any event for reasons discussed hereafter.)

Defendant raises no question about the proceedings on his rearraignment for judgment and sentence. Rather, he attempts to urge what he considers to be errors in the conduct of the trial. Such matters were before the appellate court in defendant’s first appeal. The court (in

People

Smyers, supra,

261 Cal.App.2d 690) stated at p. 702: “[Njeither our examination of the record nor that of counsel for appellant (both court-appointed counsel and subsequently his own private counsel), have uncovered any error in the conduct of the trial which appears to have been fairly conducted in all respects.” The judgment was reversed in that appeal solely because the court concluded that defendant was denied his constitutional right to counsel at the post trial arraignment for judgment hearing. The reversal was specifically limited “for the purpose only of rearraigning appellant for judgment.” Impliedly, the judgment was, in all other respects, affirmed.

People v. Smyers

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief