People v. Arnold

Opinion

STONE (W. A.), Acting P. J. Appellant, Christopher H. Arnold, contends reversal is required for two reasons: (1) the trial court failed to consider all mitigating factors when it imposed sentence, namely, a portion of the police report which referred to his cooperation in the case investigation, and (2) the trial court failed to state its reasons for denying probation when he was resentenced following his rejection by the California Youth Authority (CYA). We disagree with appellant’s first contention, but agree with his second, and will remand for resentencing.

Summary of the Facts and Proceedings

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 (auto theft). Probation was denied, and he was sentenced to state [90]prison for the midterm of two years. He was ordered housed in the CYA pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 1731.5, subdivision (c).1 When the CYA declined to accept him, he was returned for resentencing, at which time the trial court ordered that the sentence be amended to reflect that appellant was to be housed in state prison for the term previously imposed.

Discussion

Part I*

Part II

Failure to State Reasons for Sentence Choice Upon Resentencing

When the trial court imposes a prison term with an order that the defendant be housed with the CYA and the CYA fails to accept custody of the defendant, the defendant is returned for resentencing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1731.5, subd. (c).) The question is whether the court is required to state its reasons for making a sentence choice when resentencing in such a case.

Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d), provides that when a defendant is recalled for resentencing upon the court’s own motion or upon the recommendation of the Director of Corrections, the court must apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council. This necessarily includes the rule that the court must state in simple language the primary factors which support the [91]