Daily Archives: July 3, 2026

Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000134

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court erred in imposing the upper term on factors that had not been proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

A criminal judgment does not become final for purposes of Estrada when an appellate court affirms a conviction, but leaves sentencing issues pending before the trial court following remand. During the resentencing on remand, the benefits of supervening ameliorative legislation apply retroactively.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 392

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740

Second Holding:

Absent waiver or stipulation, aggravating factors such as the increasing seriousness of a defendant’s prior convictions and unsatisfactory performance on probation must be found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury before those facts can be used to justify an upper term sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082

Third Holding:

This case must be distinguished from Brannon-Thompson, which found that the plain language of section 1172.75(d)(4) indicated the Legislature intended the new burden of proof amendments to section 1170(b) to apply only if the trial court is imposing the upper term for the first time at a section 1172.75 resentencing. In this case, the defendant was not being resentenced after a prior sentence that imposed an upper term was recalled.

Instead, he was on remand from the prior appeal directive to strike prior prison term enhancements before section 1172.75 even went into effect (which the court did). As such, when the trial court proceeded to resentence defendant in 2023, his sentence already lacked any enhancements imposed pursuant to former section 667.5(b). Defendant accordingly was not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 in 2023, making the provision inapplicable. Instead, appearing for resentencing based on a remand in the prior appeal, the defendant was entitled to the benefits of supervening ameliorative legislation, including the new evidentiary standards of section 1170(b).

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

People v. Brannon-Thompson (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 455

Discretion, Juveniles, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000133

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2000, appellant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after being tried as an adult for two murders he committed when he was 17. In 2021, his sentence was recalled under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). The prosecution filed a motion to again transfer appellant’s case from juvenile court to criminal court. The court granted the motion, and appellant challenges that ruling on appeal. We conclude that the court misapprehended one aspect of its discretion, reverse the order transferring appellant to criminal court, and remand for reconsideration of the issue.

First Holding:

In determining at a transfer hearing whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult, the court must consider five statutory factors, one of which is whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. The court stated that juvenile jurisdiction would have ended when appellant turned 25 years old. The court was quite clear that its consideration of the relevant factor was always directed at determining whether appellant would have been rehabilitated by the age of 25.

However, the court was incorrect. The juvenile court may retain jurisdiction over a person who is 25 years of age or older for a period not to exceed two years from the date of disposition if the person is found to be a person described in Section 602 by reason of the commission of an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 707. In this instance, the defendant would have been in his 40s two years after disposition hearing held in this case.

Authority:

WIC 707(d)

Second Holding:

When the appellant presents an issue of statutory interpretation, we review it de novo.

Authority:

In re Noah S. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 410, 414

Third Holding:

Reversal is required unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion. Here, the court did not express how it would have ruled had it known juvenile jurisdiction could have lasted longer. One of the few comments the court made about the defendant’s post-age 25 conduct cuts against a finding of harmlessness. Paraphrased, the court stated that there was no question before it that the defendant has grown as an adult, but that the question was whether or not that growth would have occurred before age 25. It stated that the evidence it considered at the hearing indicates his growth occurred well past the age of 25.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 139

Fourth Holding:

In order to transfer a minor from juvenile court to criminal court, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(3)

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Pleading, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000132

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We shall reduce one conviction to reflect a lesser included offense, remand for resentencing, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

In considering the sufficiency of evidence, we must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, presuming in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. We also accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence. We do not resolve credibility issues or evidentiary conflicts.

Authority:

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690

People v. Baker (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1044, 1103

People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181

Second Holding:

In considering the substantiality of generic testimony regarding multiple indistinguishable instances of child sexual abuse, a victim of child molestation need not specify precisely the date, time, or circumstances of each crime. Rather, the victim must describe the kind of act or acts committed with sufficient specificity, both to assure that unlawful conduct indeed has occurred and to differentiate between the various types of proscribed conduct (e.g., lewd conduct, intercourse, oral copulation or sodomy). Moreover, the victim must describe the number of acts committed with sufficient certainty to support each of the counts alleged in the information or indictment, a requirement that can be met with such testimony as “twice a month” or “every time we went camping.”

Authority:

People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 299–300, 315–316

Third Holding:

The jury was instructed pursuant to CALCRIM No. 1015 that duress means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, hardship, or retribution that causes a reasonable person to do or submit to something that he or she would not otherwise do or submit to, and that in making its determination the jury should consider all the circumstances, including the age of the other person and his relationship to the defendant.

As to fear, the jury was told, “[a]n act is accomplished by fear if the other person is actually and reasonably afraid.” The existence of duress is an objective inquiry, and it is not dependent on the response exhibited by a particular victim.

We consider the totality of the circumstances, including the victim’s relationship to the perpetrator, whether the perpetrator physically controlled the victim when the victim attempted to resist, and the relative physical vulnerability of the victim. Duress may arise in a variety of ways related to psychological and/or situational factors between the perpetrator and victim, including an uneven power dynamic between a victim and perpetrator inhabiting a position of authority. Not all forms of coercion necessarily constitute duress, however.

Authority:

People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229, 246

People v. Guenther (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 483, 518 [courts apply reasonable person standard to inquiry into duress]

People v. Thomas (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1063, 1072–1073

People v. Veale (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 40, 44, 47

People v. Espinoza (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1321

Fourth Holding:

A variance between the crime charged and proved is not material unless it is of such a substantive character as to mislead the accused in preparing his defense, or is likely to place him in second jeopardy for the same offense.

Authority:

PEN 960 [No accusatory pleading is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment, or other proceeding thereon be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter of form which does not prejudice a substantial right of the defendant upon the merits]

People v. Williams (1945) 27 Cal.2d 220, 226

People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342

Fifth Holding:

A lesser offense is necessarily included in a charged offense if one of two tests is met: either all the legal ingredients of the corpus delicti of the lesser offense are included in the elements of the greater offense (the “elements test”) or the charging allegations of the accusatory pleading include language describing the offense in such a way that if committed as specified the lesser offense is necessarily committed (the “accusatory pleading test”). We do not consider the evidence presented at trial to determine whether one offense is necessarily included in the other.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 282, 288–289

People v. Cheaves (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 445, 454

People v. Ortega (1998) 19 Cal.4th 686, 698

Sixth Holding:

Despite the constitutional prohibition of a second trial if a conviction is reversed for insufficient evidence, when a trial or appellate court concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction of a greater offense, it can reduce the conviction to a lesser included offense that is supported by the evidence.

Authority:

PEN 1181

PEN 1260

People v. Goolsby (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1225

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 677

People v. Espinoza (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1321–1322, 1324 [reducing conviction to reflect lesser included offense where there was no evidence defendant used direct or implied threat to commit a lewd act]

Seventh Holding:

We review a court’s award of restitution to a victim for abuse of discretion, reversing only if it is arbitrary or capricious. An abuse of discretion exists when there is no rational and factual basis for the amount of restitution ordered. The court must demonstrate a rational basis for its award, and ensure that the record is sufficient to permit meaningful review. The burden is on the party seeking restitution to provide an adequate factual basis for the claim.

Authority:

People v. Gomez (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 111, 116

Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case: 000131

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

[GARY NOTE: No relief was granted, because the errors were all found to be harmless in light of the rest of the evidence. The gold here rests in the relative clarity in which the principles of implied malice were set out by the court.] The trial court instructed the jury incorrectly on implied malice and aiding and abetting implied malice murder. However, we find the error harmless beyond reasonable doubt. If anything, the defect in CALCRIM No. 401 only made it harder for the jury to find defendant guilty. It would have been easier for the jury to find that defendant knew that the co-defendants intended to commit a life-endangering act than to find defendant knew they intended to commit murder, a life-ending act.

First Holding:

Implied malice requires a defendant’s awareness of engaging in conduct that endangers the life of another—no more, and no less. Implied malice contains an objective or physical component and a subjective or mental component.

Authority:

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 143

People v. Nieto Benitez (1992) 4 Cal.4th 91, 106

Second Holding:

To be liable for an implied malice murder, a direct aider and abettor must aid the perpetrator in committing a life endangering act that proximately causes death.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990-991

People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 712-713

Third Holding:

Instructions regarding the elements of the crime affect the substantial rights of the defendant, thus requiring no objection for appellate review.

Authority:

People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 503

Fourth Holding:

Defendant’s jury was incorrectly instructed under CALCRIM No. 401 to determine whether defendant aided and abetted the perpetrators’ commission of a crime, not an act. Direct aiding and abetting is based on the combined actus reus of the participants and the aider and abettor’s own mens rea. In the context of implied malice, the actus reus required of the perpetrator is the commission of a life-endangering act. For the direct aider and abettor, the actus reus includes whatever acts constitute aiding the commission of the life endangering act. Thus, to be liable for an implied malice murder, the direct aider and abettor must, by words or conduct, aid the commission of the life-endangering act, not the result of that act. The mens rea, which must be personally harbored by the direct aider and abettor, is knowledge that the perpetrator intended to commit the act, intent to aid the perpetrator in the commission of the act, knowledge that the act is dangerous to human life, and acting in conscious disregard for human life.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 991

People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689,

People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1122

Fifth Holding:

The instruction given was thus an erroneous aiding and abetting instruction for purposes of this case. We review the error under the Chapman harmless error standard.

Authority:

People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 714-715

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Discretion, Plea bargains, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000130

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Following remand from the defendant’s prior appeal, the trial court declined to strike a firearm enhancement. The court did not realize the impact of recent changes in the law on gang criminal activity, asserting that its jurisdiction was limited to the scope defined in the remittitur (which remanded for reconsideration of the request to dismiss the firearm enhancement). We reverse the judgment and remand the matter for the trial court to rule on defendant’s motion to dismiss the gang enhancements, and to reconsider its determination declining to dismiss the firearm enhancements under section 1385 under the standard more recently articulated by the Supreme Court.

First Holding:

The scope of the superior court’s jurisdiction as defined by a remittitur does not prevent the retroactive application of ameliorative laws. We review associated questions of statutory construction de novo. Whether a statute applies retroactively is a question of statutory construction we review de novo. We review for abuse of discretion the trial court’s exercise of discretion under section 1385(c).

Authority:

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

People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 242

People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 319

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1033

Second Holding:

Section 1385(c)(1) provides that, notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute. In exercising its discretion under this subdivision, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the nine mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present. Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)

Third Holding:

Absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a court retains the discretion to impose or dismiss enhancements provided that it assigns significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances, when they are present. In other words, if the court does not find that dismissal would endanger public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024

Fourth Holding:

The Legislature amended PC 186.22(g) to redefine the phrase “benefit, promote, further, or assist” a criminal street gang for the purposes of section 186.22. The phrase now means “to provide a common benefit to members of a gang where the common benefit is more than reputational.” Those elemental changes apply retroactively to all nonfinal cases such as this one.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(e)(1)

PEN 186.22(g)

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1207

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745

Fifth Holding:

Where a statute is silent regarding retroactivity, we employ the ordinary presumptions and rules of statutory construction to discern the Legislature’s intent. Ordinarily, statutes are presumed to apply only prospectively, unless the Legislature expressly declares otherwise. Estrada, however, held that an amendment to a statute that lessened punishment for a crime gave rise to an inference of contrary legislative intent; that is, that the Legislature must have intended that the amendment mitigating punishment would apply retroactively to every case to which it constitutionally could apply. The Estrada rule rests on an inference that the Legislature intends an amendment reducing punishment under a criminal statute to apply as broadly as possible, distinguishing only as necessary between sentences that are final and sentences that are not.

Authority:

Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, LLC (2006) 39 Cal.4th 223, 230

People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, 7

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740

People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 308

Sixth Holding:

If the trial court exercises its discretion to dismiss the gang enhancements, the prosecution will be entitled to the same remedy as the defense (i.e., withdrawal from the plea agreement) and the trial court may withdraw its approval of the plea agreement as well. In that event, the trial court must restore the parties to the status quo ante, including permitting the prosecution to request to reopen the preliminary hearing and present evidence on the new elements of the gang allegations or to proceed without those charges.

Authority:

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 707-708

People v. Superior Court (Garcia) (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 256

Mendoza v. Superior Court (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 42

Seventh Holding:

Penal Code section 1016.7 provides that, in the interest of justice and to reach a just resolution during plea negotiations, the prosecutor shall consider whether the defendant has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, whether the defendant is or was a youth at the time of the commission of the offense, and whether any of those considerations contributed to the commission of an alleged offense. The statute defines youth as any person under 26 years of age on the date of the offense. But it is not retroactive. It does not reduce punishment for a criminal offense, create discretion to reduce punishment, narrow the scope of criminal liability, or create a concrete avenue for certain individuals charged with a criminal offense to be treated more leniently or avoid punishment altogether.

Authority:

People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, 13