Daily Archives: June 22, 2026

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000089

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Error and/or relief:
On the defendant’s claim that it was error to deny his petition for recall of his sentence under Penal Code section 1172.6 because the trial court found that he was ineligible as matter of law in considering the preliminary hearing transcript, the cause is remanded with directions to consider an amended petition should defendant seek to file one within 30 days of the issuance of the remittitur. The trial court’s order is otherwise affirmed.

First Holding:

At the prima facie stage, a court must accept as true a petitioner’s allegation that he or she could not currently be convicted of a homicide offense because of changes to sections 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019, unless the allegation is refuted by the record.

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 463

Second Holding:

After determining the facial validity of a resentencing petition and before ordering an evidentiary hearing, a trial court may properly, at the prima facie stage, reference the record of conviction, which includes the preliminary hearing transcript, to refute conclusory allegations in furtherance of its statutorily required screening function at that juncture of a section 1172.6 proceeding.

Authority:

People v.Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 569

Third Holding:

Although the defendant has not shown error in connection with the court’s denial of his section 1172.6 petition, following the Supreme Court’s directive to the Court of Appeal in Patton, we will remand the matter to the trial court with directions to consider an amended petition should defendant seek to file one within 30 days of the issuance of the remittitur.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 569 569–570

People v. Glass (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 922, 930–931

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000088

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court made several errors in resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.5. It failed to strike the now-invalid priors, if failed to consider the impact of AB 333 on gang aspects; it imposed of repealed $10 admin fee. On remand the court must also recalculate credits and correct the abstract of judgment. [GARY NOTE: The opinion also provided extensive discussion of the application of section 1385, regarding dismissals in the furtherance or interest of justice, touching on abuse of discretion, etc., that were resolved against the defendant on appeal. I have provided a few principles and authorities on those points for educational reasons, even though they did not support relief for the defendant in this instance.]

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 declares legally invalid all one-year prior prison term enhancements except those for sexually violent offenses described in WI Code section 6600(b). Because the defendant’s two priors are not sexually violent offenses, they were legally invalid and should have been stricken.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (AB 333) modified the gang enhancement by adding new requirements that did not previously exist. Because AB 333 retroactively applies to people, like defendant, who have been granted a resentencing hearing, the trial court erred in not assessing whether the jury’s findings in this case otherwise addressed the new requirements or whether the jury’s failure to do so was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 395-396

Third Holding:

The trial court imposed a $10 administrative screening fee ostensibly under section 1463.07 in November 2018. This is unenforceable because our Legislature in 2021 repealed that section and nullified prior fees imposed under that section.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Fourth Holding:

It was not necessary for the trial court to respond to all of the defendant’s contentions at the sentencing hearing. Unless the record affirmatively demonstrates otherwise, the trial court is deemed to have considered all the relevant sentencing factors set forth in the rules.

Authority:

Rules of Court, rule 4.409 [sentencing factors will be deemed to have been considered unless the record affirmatively reflects otherwise]

People v. Knowles (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 757, 765

People v. Parra Martinez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 317, 322

People v. Brugman (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 608, 637

Fifth Holding:

We review the exercise of sentencing discretion for an abuse of discretion but recognize that a trial court’s reliance on an incorrect legal standard constitutes such an abuse. Application of the wrong test in determination of whether a defendant poses a danger to public safety is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 225

Sixth Holding:

Despite the use of the phrase “shall be dismissed,” section 1385’s provisions that require a court to give great weight in favor of dismissal do not apply where a trial court finds that dismissal of the enhancements would endanger public safety.

Authority:

People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 296

People v. Mazur (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 438, 444-446

People v. Cota (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 318, 335-337

People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276, 1284-1290

People v. Anderson (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 233, 238-241

People v. Lipscomb (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 9, 15-21

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees

Case 000087

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is remanded to allow the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect that the $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373), the $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, sec. 1465.8), the $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, sec. 1202.4), and the $300 parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, sec. 1202.45), were vacated.

Holding:

The court has inherent power to correct clerical errors in abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Baker (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1044, 1109

Fourth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000086

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence, contending the court erred when it found police officers had reasonable suspicion to detain him. Because we have concluded there was insufficient evidence that defendant’s conduct, when considered in the totality of circumstances, supported a reasonable suspicion that he was, or was about to be, engaged in activity relating to crime, we agree with defendant that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him. Accordingly, the subsequent recovery of the handgun was the product of an illegal detention and arrest and evidence related to the recovery was subject to exclusion.

[GARY NOTE: The facts relied on by the court are too extensive to adequately summarize. Essentially, the officer saw a group of people milling about. When some appeared to notice him, they ran off, though the defendant and one other did not run off. The officer described various body movements and claimed to have seen something that was not borne out by the appellate court’s review of the body cam video.]

First Holding:

The Fourth Amendment permits an officer to initiate a brief investigative stop when the officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. [Although a mere hunch does not create reasonable suspicion, the level of suspicion the standard requires is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence, and obviously less than is necessary for probable cause. Because it is a less demanding standard, reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause. The standard depends on the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. Courts cannot reasonably demand scientific certainty where none exists. Rather, they must permit officers to make commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior.

Authority:

Kansas v. Glover (2020) 589 U.S. 376, 380–381

People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1041

Second Holding:

The officer’s subjective suspicion must be objectively reasonable, and an investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith.

Authority:

People v. Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078, 1083

Third Holding:

In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we defer to that court’s factual findings, express or implied, if they are supported by substantial evidence. We exercise our independent judgment in determining whether, on the facts presented, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. In doing so we do not consider each fact in isolation. Instead, we must consider the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture.

Authority:

People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1043

Appellate Principles, Jurisdiction

Case 000085

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This habeas petition seeks a belated appeal from a judgment rendered in the superior court. Petitioner demonstrates to this court’s satisfaction that his forthcoming notice of appeal should be deemed timely filed under the constructive filing doctrine.

First Holding:

In response to this court’s request to file an informal response, the Attorney General does not oppose petitioner’s requested relief. Pursuant to the Attorney General’s response, this court may grant relief without further proceedings.

Authority:

People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 740, fn. 7

Second Holding:

Habeas relief can determine whether a notice of appeal should be deemed timely constructively filed.

Authority:

In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72

Third Holding:

(Gary note: The “Benoit” process is fairly routine, and the opinion does not discuss it. Except for roughly a 10-year period from 1961-1971 (when the Rules of Court set up a process for a petition for relief from default), there is no such thing in criminal law as a valid “late notice of appeal.” If the notice of appeal is not filed by the deadline, the court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal.

(In Benoit, however, the Supreme Court recognized the difficulties of getting documents filed when the defendant is in custody. It confirmed or adopted the concept that if (a) the defendant is in custody the entire period of time for the filing of a notice of appeal, and (b) during the filing period the defendant takes steps to timely file the notice of appeal or to get someone to file it on his behalf (such as his or her attorney), the court will deem the notice of appeal constructively timely filed. Once it’s deemed to have been filed (albeit constructively) within the filing period, then it is not late, right?

(But both conditions are critical: the defendant must have been in custody the entire period AND the defendant must have taken reasonable efforts before the expiration of the deadline for filing.

(There is also the “prison delivery” rule, which treats the notice of appeal has having been filed timely if–prior to the expiration of the filing period–the inmate delivers the notice of appeal to the custodial official. I have listed the additional authorities below, though they were not part of the unpublished opinion. If you are faced with a similar problem, I suggest you read Benoit, Jordan, and Silverbrand, because they go into depth on the history and development of constructive filing and the prison delivery rule.)

Authority:

In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72 [incarcerated defendant timely requests the attorney to file the notice of appeal but the attorney does not]

In re Jordan (1992) 4 Cal.4th 116 [articulately the “prison delivery rule,” something that Benoit also discussed]

Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 46 Cal.4th 106 [extending the prison delivery rule to incarcerated defendants needing to appeal in civil cases]

Houston v. Lack (1988) 487 U.S. 266, 271 [holding that a self-represented prisoner’s appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus—a civil proceeding—was timely filed when delivered by the petitioner to prison authorities within the applicable 30-day period]

Rules of Court, rule 8.25(b)(5) [If the clerk receives a document by mail from an inmate or a patient in a custodial institution after the period for filing the document has expired but the envelope shows that the document was mailed or delivered to custodial officials for mailing within the period for filing the document, the document is deemed timely. The clerk must retain in the case file the envelope in which the document was received.]

Fourth Holding:

[GARY NOTE: In felony cases, the notice must be filed within 60 days.]

Authority:

Rules of Court, rule 8.308

Fifth Holding:

[GARY NOTE: In misdemeanor appeals, the notice must be filed within 30 days.]

Authority:

Rules of Court, rule 8.393

Sixth Holding:

[GARY NOTE: An untimely notice of appeal divests the appellate court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. I’ve listed authority below.]

Authority:

In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119

People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1094 [An untimely notice of appeal is wholly ineffectual. The delay cannot be waived, it cannot be cured by nunc pro tunc order, and the appellate court has no power to give relief, but must dismiss the appeal on motion or on its own motion.]