Can a sentencing judge who did not preside over the trial and has "minimal familiarity with the case" exercise his discretion in imposing harsher individual sentencing terms than the prior sentencing judge?

Defendant relies primarily upon People v. Stunk (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 265, 275 (Stunk) for the proposition that a sentencing judge who did not preside over the trial and has "minimal" familiarity with the case abuses its discretion in imposing harsher individual sentencing terms than the prior sentencing judge. We find Stunk's application to this case incongruous. First, Stunk did not involve a matter remanded for resentencing after an appeal. Second, unlike Stunk, there is nothing in the current record to suggest that it was this superior court's normal "administrative practice... [to] direct[] all sentencing matters to be handled by one judge... regardless of whether the trial judge is still actively exercising judicial power."⁶ (Id. at p. 275.) Third, defendant failed to object to any individual imposition of sentence exceeding that imposed by the prior sentencing court. Fourth, defendant failed to object to being sentenced by a judge other than the one who presided over his trial.⁷ Fifth and most importantly, here, unlike in Stunk, the

Page 9