 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Smith6/23/2004
ed change. (People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 348-349; People v. Thomas (1959) 52 Cal.2d 521, 531, citing U.S. v. Benz (1931) 282 U.S. 304, 307 [51 S.Ct. 113, 75 L.Ed. 354]; People v. McAllister (1940) 15 Cal.2d 519, 521-527.)
In a criminal case, judgment is rendered when it is orally pronounced. (People v. Karaman, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 344, fn. 9.) The execution of a judgment of conviction is the process of carrying the judgment into effect. (Id. at p. 344.) In the misdemeanor proceedings in this case, the court pronounced judgment and imposed a sentence consisting of time served. Because defendant had already served the sentence, the judgment was "carried into effect" immediately upon its rendition. Double jeopardy principles therefore precluded any action which would result in an increase in the penalty. (People v. Karaman, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 348-349.) Thus, the court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the misdemeanor judgment and to enter the felony judgment with the attendant increase in the penalty from 30 days in jail to 16 months in state prison. ,
DISPOSITION
The conviction is reversed. The superior court is ordered to reinstate the misdemeanor conviction in case No. TBA043452.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
We concur:
RICHLI, J.
GAUT, J.
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|