Daily Archives: July 6, 2026

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000149

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Where the sentence is life without the possibility of parole, it was improper to impose a parole revocation fine, and it must be stricken.

Holding:

A parole revocation fine may not be imposed for a term of LWOP, as the statute is expressly inapplicable where there is no period of parole. Moreover, our Supreme Court recently recognized that the parole revocation fine statute does not apply where a defendant is given both an LWOP sentence and an indeterminate term.

Authority:

PEN 1202.45

People v. Jenkins (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 805, 819

People v. Alvarez (2025) 18 Cal.5th 387, 485–486

Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000148

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Where the trial court intended to impose the minimum restitution fine, but mistakenly believed the minimum was $600 rather than $300, the appellate court modified the restitution fine to $300 and directed the trial court to prepare an amended minute order following sentencing and an amended abstract of judgment reflecting these amounts. Here, the record makes clear that the trial court intended to impose the statutory minimum fine. We therefore modify the judgments to impose a $300 restitution fine with a matching, suspended parole revocation restitution fine in each case.

First Holding:

In every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. The restitution fine shall be set at the discretion of the court and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. If the person is convicted of a felony, the fine shall not be less than three hundred dollars ($300) and not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(b)(1)

Second Holding:

[GARY NOTE: The court did not cite any authority for its jurisdiction to modify the mistaken order of the court below, but it does have that authority under PC 1260.]

Authority:

PEN 1260 [The court may reverse, affirm, or modify a judgment or order appealed from, or reduce the degree of the offense or attempted offense or the punishment imposed, and may set aside, affirm, or modify any or all of the proceedings subsequent to, or dependent upon, such judgment or order, and may, if proper, order a new trial and may, if proper, remand the cause to the trial court for such further proceedings as may be just under the circumstances.]

Abstracts and Minutes, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case: 000147

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) believed the abstract of judgment was ambiguous because the felony complaint had specifically alleged defendant’s offense was committed under circumstances that would have rendered it a violent felony pursuant to section 667.5(c)(21), but it is not clear from the Minute Order or the Abstract whether the allegation was found true.

The trial court responded by amending the abstract of judgment to check the box indicating that the offense for which petitioner was convicted constituted a violent felony and by forwarding a copy of the amended abstract of judgment to CDCR. We conclude the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the abstract of judgment in the manner that it did after execution had commenced, requiring vacatur of the amended abstract of judgment and reinstatement of the original abstract.

First Holding:

Where a trial court fails to make a necessary finding on a special allegation and imposes a sentence as if the finding were not true, we presume the omission was deliberate and the trial court’s silence operates as a not true finding. In Candelario, the defendant admitted the truth of a special allegation that he suffered a prior conviction at the time he entered his plea, but the trial court omitted any reference to the allegation in its minute order and abstract of judgment, although the printed form contained a box specifically for such entries.

In evaluating the effect of the omission, our high court explained that admission of the prior offense did not thereby relieve the court of its responsibility to pronounce judgment finding petitioner guilty of the substantive offense with a prior conviction, and to have such judgment entered in the official records of the court. If the record is silent in that regard, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it may be inferred that the omission was an act of leniency by the trial court. In such circumstances the silence operates as a finding that the prior conviction was not true. Even when the defendant admits the prior conviction, the court is not compelled to make a finding on the charge.

Authority:

In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702

Second Holding:

The failure to check the box in the abstract of judgment form indicating that defendant’s conviction constituted a violent felony may have been erroneous, but under Candelario and other cases, any such error would have been upon judicial error and not an error in the abstract of judgment. Instead, the abstract of judgment appears fully consistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment omitting a true finding on the special allegation and imposing a sentence consistent with a conviction for a nonviolent felony.

Authority:

In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702

People v. Hartsell (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 8, 14-15 [failure to mention prior conviction at the time judgment is pronounced must be interpreted as deliberate act of leniency]

People v. Gutierrez (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1440 [When no words are used and the trier of fact fails to make a finding the effect is the same as a finding of not true]

People v. Burnett (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 257, 260-261 [On a silent record, the Court of Appeal will presume that the trial court’s failure to impose a statutorily mandated fine was a result of making factual findings in support of a statutory exception to imposition of the fine]

People v. Farias (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 619, 635-636 [In the absence of any mention of necessary findings under the three strikes law at the time of sentencing or in the abstract of judgment, we treat defendants as if the trial court concluded the strike allegations were not true]

Third Holding:

Given our conclusion that the trial court’s original judgment in 2017 should be interpreted as a conviction for a nonviolent felony, the trial court had no jurisdiction to amend the judgment to add a true finding. As the California Supreme Court has repeatedly explained, under the general common law rule, a trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has commenced. And a judgment for imprisonment ordinarily is deemed executed when a certified copy of the minute order or abstract of judgment is furnished to the officer whose duty it is to execute the judgment.

Authority:

People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344

People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081, 1089

Fourth Holding:

The exceptions to the rule are limited and do not apply here. This was not a clerical error that could be corrected at any time. This was not a request by CDCR for resentencing under section 1172.1 (which would prohibit a sentence greater than the initial sentence). Because the failure to make any finding on the special allegations pursuant to section 667.5 operates as a finding of not true on the allegation, the sentence was not unauthorized, so there is no need to enter the debate on the authority of a court to correct an unauthorized sentence at any time, even when the matter has not vested jurisdiction.

Authority:

People v. Farias (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 619, 635-636

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 1120 [holding a trial court that imposes an unauthorized sentence retains jurisdiction to correct the sentence at any time the error comes to its attention]

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, at pp. 67-68 [disagreeing with Codinha, stating that no cases hold that trial courts can act to correct unauthorized (or unlawful or invalid) sentences outside of some other posture where they independently have jurisdiction to do so]

People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, at pp. 634-642 [The unauthorized sentence doctrine does not itself create jurisdiction for a trial court to rule on an incarcerated defendant’s motion to correct an alleged illegal sentence]

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 797

Sentencing

Case: 000146

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A defendant is entitled to credit for actual time spent in custody before the commencement of a prison sentence, even when the sentence is indeterminate. The court is directed to recalculate the amount of custody credit he should receive.

First Holding:

Section 2900.5 entitles a defendant to credit for actual time spent in custody before the commencement of a prison sentence, even when the sentence is indeterminate.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 793

People v. Herrera (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1365

Second Holding:

A sentence for possession of specified weapons while confined in (or being conveyed to or from) any penal institution is to be served consecutively.

Authority:

PEN 4502

Third Holding:

Credit shall be given only once for a single period of custody attributable to multiple offenses for which a consecutive sentence is imposed.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000145

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of his resentencing petition under Penal Code section 1172.6 for failure to state a prima facie case. Because the record of conviction before us does not conclusively establish that defendant is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law, we reverse and remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing.

First Holding:

SB 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) narrowed the scope of the felony-murder rule and eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a basis for murder liability. The Legislature did so to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

It also added section 1172.6, which allows those convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter under a now-invalid theory to petition the trial court to vacate the conviction and resentence the defendant. In its current form, section 1172.6 applies to those who pled guilty to manslaughter after being charged with murder and who would have been subject to prosecution for murder under a felony-murder theory, the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or any other theory of imputed malice

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448-449

People v. Gaillard (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1206, 1211

Second Holding:

If the trial court finds that a petitioning defendant has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing. The prima facie inquiry under section 1172.6(c) is limited. The court takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved. The court may rely on the record of conviction in determining whether defendant has made a prima facie showing, and if the record, including the court’s own documents, contains facts refuting the allegations made in the petition, then the court is justified in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner.

Authority:

PC 1172.6(c) and (d)

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

Third Holding:

At the prima facie stage, the record of conviction includes a preliminary hearing transcript preceding a guilty plea. A trial court does not engage in impermissible judicial factfinding and may rely on a preliminary hearing transcript where it is unchallenged and includes relief-foreclosing facts that refute conclusory, checkbox allegations.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 564, 568

Fourth Holding:

We independently review the denial of a section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage. If it was correct to deny a defendant’s section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie review stage, we will affirm even if the trial court’s reasoning was erroneous.

Authority:

People v. Ervin (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 90, 101

People v. Eynon (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 967, 976

Fifth Holding:

The charging document is insufficient on its own to foreclose a theory of either felony murder or natural and probable consequences murder, where it alleged that defendant unlawfully murdered the victim, willfully and with malice aforethought, in violation of section 187, subdivision (a), does not refer to another defendant, and the only other felonies at issue were related to unlawful firearm possession or activity.

Authority:

People v. Estrada (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 328, 337-338 [because an accusatory pleading need not specify the manner in which a murder was committed, or the theory on which the prosecution will rely at trial, a complaint that only generically charges attempted murder (or murder) is not enough to establish a sec. 1172.6 petitioner is ineligible for relief at the prima facie stage]

Sixth Holding:

In pleading guilty to voluntary manslaughter, defendant admitted every element of voluntary manslaughter, but not to any particular theory, meaning it is possible that defendant could have been convicted under an imputed malice theory. Thus, defendant’s guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter does not make him ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law.

Authority:

People v. Eynon (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 967, 977-978

People v. Gaillard (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1206, 1212 [generic plea of voluntary manslaughter following murder charge does not preclude a natural and probable consequences theory]

Seventh Holding:

Absent additional facts, defendant’s admission of the two firearm enhancements does not establish he is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law.

Authority:

People v. Estrada (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 328,at p. 338 [admitting to personally using a deadly weapon does not preclude a theory of imputed malice]

People v. Jones (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1084, 1120 [a finding of personal use of a firearm would not in itself prove the defendant was the actual killer]