Friday, October 31, 2025
Page 1
Judge Has Power Upon Realizing Sentence Was Unauthorized to Correct It—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A judge who realized, at a hearing on a motion for resentencing, that the defendant had received a longer prison term than was authorized had the power to correct it, on the spot, rather than awaiting a petition for a writ of habeas corpus or a request from the District Attorney’s Office or the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Div. Six of the Court of Appeal for this district declared yesterday.
Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert penned the opinion which rejects the position of the Attorney General’s Office that the defendant’s remedy is to seek habeas corpus relief. The opinion reverses an order by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mike Camacho Jr. denying a resentencing motion by Jose Luis Cervantes Jr. who was convicted in 2001 of attempted second degree murder.
Initially sentenced to 42-years-to-life in prison, the Court of Appeal in 2003 reduced the term to 32-years-to-life. Camacho, at a 2023 hearing, concluded that even the pared term is too long, saying that the defendant “should have been sentenced solely upon the substantive crime of attempted murder,” without enhancements.
“He’d be entitled to be resentenced under a writ of habeas corpus or some other postconviction relief, but I don’t have the jurisdiction to do so on my own even though it’s a legitimate issue,” Camacho remarked at the hearing.
Gilbert declared in yesterday’s opinion:
“We conclude…that the trial court had the authority to correct an unauthorized sentence. We reverse and remand with instructions that the court hold a prompt resentencing hearing. If it finds the sentence is unauthorized, it must correct it.”
He explained:
“[A] sentence is ‘legally unauthorized’ where the defendant is sentenced to the wrong term….Trial courts have the inherent authority to correct unauthorized sentences at any time the issue is presented to the court.”
Use of Judgment
The jurist kicked off the opinion with these words:
“Courts are required to issue judgments. Courts also use judgment, as that word is commonly used, in their rulings. A defendant requested a hearing to be resentenced. In reviewing the motion, the trial court discovered it had previously made a sentencing error. The prosecuting attorney acknowledged the error. The Attorney General argues the defendant must file a habeas corpus petition for relief. No, he need not. We use “judgment,” common sense, and case law to give the trial court the opportunity to correct the error at the resentencing hearing.”
The case is People v. Cervantes, 2025 S.O.S. 3066.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company