CALIFORNIA TRIAL COURTS SHOULD SENTENCE DEFENDANTS - NAPA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TRIAL COURT REVERSED FOR REFUSING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST
Napa County, California, Judge Stephen T. Kroyer abused his discretion and prejudicially erred in denying a brief continuance so that the judge who heard the trial could conduct the sentencing. Even the poor prosecutor tried to get Judge Kroyer to do the right thing: " I think the court's preference to do it on the day it was scheduled is outweighed by the fact that there is a very strong preference by the judicial system that the trial judge do the sentencing."
Even though a defendant who has been convicted after trial does not have a right to be sentenced by the trial judge (as opposed to a defendant who pleads guilty, see People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749, 746), Judge Kroyer abused his discretion because "it is well recognized that the strongly preferred procedure was for [the trial judge] to impose sentence." Judge Kroyer's decision "was not 'in conformity with the spirit of the law,' and could be said to 'defeat the ends of substantial justice.'" The Court cites to City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1297, Westside Community for Independent Living, Inc. v. Obledo (1983) 33 Cal.3d 348, 355, Department of Parks & Recreation v. State Personnel Bd. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 813, 831, fn. 3.
People v. Jacobs (C.A. 1st, 10/31/07, A113633) 07 C.D.O.S. 12754
