The trial court sentences the defendant to a total of eight years in prison, which included a concurrent 16 month sentence on a particular enhancement. Some time later, long after the judgment was final, the court received a letter from the Department of Corrections saying -- correctly -- that the underlying statute says that those 16 months need to be served consecutively, not concurrently.
Can the trial court simply correct the sentence and add the extra 16 months?
Jurisdiction has terminated. But there are some statutory provisions that, in particular settings, allow the trial court to nonetheless correct an erroneous sentence. The classic examples involve clerical errors.
But it's crystal clear that those statutory provisions don't apply.
Does the trial court nonetheless retain inherent power to correct the erroneous sentence?
The Court of Appeal says: Yes.
Justice Irion's opinion seems persuasive to me. It's true that the trial court can't just change its mind or the like; that's not permitted. But the Court of Appeal holds that if, as here, the sentence is "unauthorized" by law, the trial court possesses the inherent power to recall and correct it. Even long after the time for appeal has expired.
Okay. I get that. Makes sense. Comports with justice, too.
(There might be an exception when, for example, the defendant has already completed his entire sentence, but this case doesn't involve that scenario.)
Here's my only follow-up question for Justice Irion, though.
If that's the case, then doesn't the same rule apply to lots of collateral objections by defendants as well?
Defendants often claim that their sentence is unauthorized by law; e.g., illegal. It's unconstitutional, it's an erroneous interpretation of the statute, etc. Normally, those disputes get resolved on appeal, and typically, if the defendant tries to raise them later in the trial court (e.g., through a writ of "coram nobis"), trial courts hold that they have no jurisdiction to entertain them. Too late.
But, after this opinion, isn't what's good for the goose also good for the gander? If the prosecution (or the trial court, on its own initiative or pursuant to a letter request from the DOC) can permissibly ask the trial court to increase a sentence (or conviction) because it's legally impermissible, can't defendants do the exact same?
Seems like that's a pretty big deal.
