People v. Abdullah
Annotate this Case
After the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court and both parties that defendant's original sentence, as reflected in the abstract of judgment, was indeed unauthorized with respect to the serious felony enhancement and the length of the concurrent terms, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's request for a new sentencing hearing to correct these errors.
The court held that the trial court acted under its inherent authority to correct an unauthorized sentence, not under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1). Since the errors did not fundamentally infect the entire sentencing scheme, the trial court was not required to hold a new sentencing hearing or to consider whether to strike the sentence enhancements. Furthermore, the trial court did not err by correcting the abstract of judgment in the same manner here.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.