# Dix v. Superior Court

> California Supreme Court · April 18, 1991 · 53 Cal. 3d 442

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633717

## Case

- **Full name:** WILLIAM EDWARD DIX, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF HUMBOLT COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE Et Al., Real Parties in Interest
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 18, 1991
- **Citations:** 53 Cal. 3d 442; 279 Cal. Rptr. 834; 91 Daily Journal DAR 4525; 807 P.2d 1063; 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2776; 1991 Cal. LEXIS 1332
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mosk
- **Judges:** Baxter, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 399 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/9633717

## Opinion text

MOSK,J.
—I concur in the well-reasoned opinion of Justice Baxter.
However, I would add a caveat. Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d), authorizes the trial court to resentence a defendant in the “same manner” as if the defendant has not previously been sentenced. Not only is the court limited to no greater sentence than that originally imposed, but one additional factor must be stressed.
The “same manner” requires resentencing within the statutory period specified in Penal Code section 1191, that is, 28 days. Thus the trial court *466 may recall its sentence within 120 days of the date of the commitment, and then must resentence the defendant within 28 days thereafter. The court is not permitted to delay the proceedings indefinitely. The entire process may take no more than a total of 148 days.
Of course, as the majority opinion declares, a defendant may waive time for sentencing or resentencing. Since there was a waiver in this instance, no time problem arises and the trial court has not acted in excess of its jurisdiction.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9633717. Public record. Not legal advice.