California v. AntonioAnnotate this Case
This case presents the question of whether sentencing judges, in cases where the state sentence is ordered to run concurrently with a foreign sentence, must issue an order directing the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) to comply with its statutory duty to make the prisoner available for transfer to the foreign jurisdiction. Jose Alberto Antonio pled guilty to one count of residential robbery, and admitted using a firearm during that robbery. Antonio was sentenced to an eight-year prison term. The court later recalled the sentence when it learned of a federal case in which Antonio had previously been sentenced to 110 months in federal prison. The court chose not to alter the initial eight-year state sentence. Antonio appealed, contending the trial court erred in failing to determine whether the state sentence should be served concurrently or consecutively to the federal sentence. On remand, the trial court ordered the state sentence to run concurrent with the federal sentence. Antonio requested the court sign an order directing the Department to have Antonio transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) so that he could serve the federal and California sentences, "thus fulfilling th[e] court's duty to make the prisoner available to the foreign authorities." The trial court denied Antonio's request to sign the order. The Court of Appeal held the sentencing judge is not required to independently order the Department to perform its established legal responsibility. If the Department fails or refuses to carry out its duties the prisoner may resort to administrative review within the corrections system, and ultimately review by the courts by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, the Court rejected appellant's claim that trial courts, at the time of sentencing, must issue a preemptive order to the Department to do its job.