# People v. Howard

> California Supreme Court · December 1, 1997 · 16 Cal. 4th 1081

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9532646

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CADELIA LOUISE HOWARD, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 1, 1997
- **Citations:** 16 Cal. 4th 1081; 68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 870; 97 Daily Journal DAR 14473; 946 P.2d 828; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8952; 1997 Cal. LEXIS 7664
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mosk
- **Judges:** Chin, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 218 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9532646

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that court has full sentencing discretion upon revocation of probation in such circumstances

## Opinion text

MOSK, J., Concurring.
The majority opinion accurately interprets existing statutes on the subject of sentencing and resentencing. Thus I fully concur.
However, I do have reservations on the strict limitation imposed on trial courts in the sentencing area. Sentences are imposed at the conclusion of trial proceedings or acceptance of a guilty plea. It is not inconceivable that the trial court, upon later reflection and in what it may subsequently deem to be the interests of justice, prefers a somewhat different sentence.
My confidence in the sentencing ability of trial courts suggests that their discretion should not be rigidly impaired by what appears to be a rather technical statutory limitation based entirely on the original sentence pronounced.
I mention this only to indicate a hope that the Legislature may consider expanding the statutory sentencing function of trial courts in this area.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9532646. Public record. Not legal advice.