While a habeas corpus petition challenging a void or unauthorized sentence is always proper,[125] the trial court also retains jurisdiction to correct a sentence that is unauthorized, which is completely or partially void, even if a notice of appeal has been filed.[126]  The sentencing court itself may correct a sentence that is void on its face even if an appeal is pending.[127]  When a sentence has been declared void, the court can impose a more severe correct sentence.[128] 

[125] C.E.B., § 38.34.

[126] C.E.B. § 39.34; California Criminal Defense Practice, supra, § 91.13[2]; see In re Sandel (1966) 64 Cal.2d 412, 418, 50 Cal.Rptr. 462 (prosecution); People v. Chagolla (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 422, 434, 193 Cal.Rptr. 711 (enhancement was attached to incorrect count; properly corrected by trial court after filing of notice of appeal); C.E.B., § 38.34.

[127] People v. Serrato (1973) 9 Cal.3d 753, 109 Cal.Rptr. 65; People v. Calhoun (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 494, 140 Cal.Rptr. 225.

[128] People v. Brown (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 957, 961, 238 Cal.Rptr. 697; People v. Grimble (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 678, 685, 172 Cal.Rptr. 362. 

Other

GROUNDS " UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE " VOID FOR VAGUENESS
People v. Saleem, 102 Cal.App.4th 652, 2009 WL 4852440 (2d Dist. Dec. 17, 2009)(conviction of p possession of body armor by a person previously convicted of a violent felony is reversed where Penal Code 12370 must be construed to contain a knowledge element and the prosecution had to prove that defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, the body vest in his possession had characteristics making it illegal under section 12370, the statute is unconstitutionally void for vagueness because it does not provide fair notice of which protective body vests constitute the body armor made illegal by the statute).