People v. Crouch
| Decision Date | 19 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 39724 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dane Craig CROUCH, Defendant and Appellant. |
Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.
George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Shunji Asari and Gelacio L. Bayani, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant was charged with possession of heroin for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351; he was found guilty of possession (a lesser included offense) in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350. Probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to state prison for the middle base term of two years.
It is unnecessary to set forth a full statement of the facts, for the sole issue presented is whether the court erred in failing to state the reasons for its sentence choice as required under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (c), and if so whether that error requires that defendant be resentenced.
Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (c), provides in pertinent part: "The court shall state the reasons for its sentence choice on the record at the time of sentencing...."
Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b), states: "... The court shall set forth on the record the facts and reasons for imposing the upper or lower term [of the three available, i.e., lower, middle, upper]...."
California Rules of Court, rule 439(d), restates the code requirements and explains the meaning of Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (c), as follows: "Selection of the middle term does not relieve the court of its obligation under section 1170(c) to state the reasons for imprisonment as its sentence choice." Hence, we see that the court need express no reasons for imposition of the midterm imprisonment sentence. Where the court has a sentence choice, as when probation is a possible alternative to imprisonment, the court must express its reasons for the sentence it imposes. The court in sentencing defendant to state prison did not explain its sentence choice. It merely stated, "I will deny the defendant's application for probation, sentence him to state prison for a period of two years, credit for 130 days." This was error. The court should have stated on the record why it chose to sentence defendant to prison. This could have been done directly with explicit reasons or indirectly by stating why probation was deemed inappropriate. 1 (See People v. Ramos, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d 591, 599, 165 Cal.Rptr. 179.)
The question remains, however, as to whether it is necessary to require resentencing. The court read and considered the probation report. The argument for probation on behalf of defendant was, at best, bottomed on shifting sand while the prosecutor stated chapter and verse from defendant's lengthy record, both juvenile and adult. 2 It appears to us that the record in this case justifies the order made, hence defense counsel's tacit acceptance of the sentence without statement of reasons can be construed as a waiver or invited error. To hold otherwise merely places form over substance and contributes to a "make-work" slowdown in the courts.
As an officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Scott
... ... Page 640 ... [885 P.2d 1053] minority of cases holding that a defendant cannot complain for the first time on appeal about the court's failure to state reasons for a sentencing choice. (People v. Neal, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th [9 Cal.4th 353] 1114, 1117-1124, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 129; People v. Crouch (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 902, 905, 182 Cal.Rptr. 701; see also People v. Mustafaa (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1311, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 172 [favoring contemporaneous objection to statement of reasons in dictum]; People v. Olken (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 1064, 1067-1068, 178 Cal.Rptr. 497 [disallowing ... ...
-
People v. Scott
... ... Neal, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 1124, fn. 7, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 129.) ... 15 Although the court in People v. Crouch (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 902, 905, 182 Cal.Rptr. 701 did not directly entertain a waiver issue, it did address the impact of the sentencing error (the failure to state reasons for imposing a prison term) found in that case. Regarding remand for resentencing, that court found the record adequate to ... ...
-
People v. Leung
...been rejected in favor of imprisonment. (People v. Romero (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1148, 1151, 213 Cal.Rptr. 774; People v. Crouch (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 902, 904, 182 Cal.Rptr. 701; Pen.Code, § 1170(c); Cal.Rules of Ct., former rule 439(d).) The circumstances utilized by the trial court to sup......
-
People v. Neal
...to a failure to state reasons for a sentence choice. The most important decision was one of this division, People v. Crouch (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 902, 904-905, 182 Cal.Rptr. 701, where then Associate Justice Clarke Stephens, who was nearing the end of a 30-year career as a judge and justice......