Daily Archives: July 21, 2026

Case: 000227

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the trial court erred in its calculation of his custody credits. The court awarded custody credit of 461 days, the amount of custody credit listed on the defendant’s original abstract of judgment from 2012. The matter is remanded to the trial court to recalculate the defendant’s custody credits; the court shall amend the abstract of judgment accordingly.

Holding:

When a prison term already in progress is modified, the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served. As stated in section 2900.5, it is the duty of the court imposing the sentence to determine the date or dates of any admission to, and release from, custody prior to sentencing and the total number of days to be credited pursuant to that section. The total number of days to be credited shall be contained in the abstract of judgment provided for in section 1213.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29

People v. Dean (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 391, 396 [resentencing courts must recalculate actual time served]

Cases: 000224 – 000226

Error and/or relief

(GARY NOTE: There were three nearly identical petitions filed on the same day out of the same Court of Appeal in different cases. Each summary, therefore, is identical, and the three cases are summarized here in this single summary.)

In this writ proceeding, the petitioner challenges the summary denial of his request for discovery under the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (RJA). He made the request in conjunction with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but the trial court ruled RJA discovery is not permitted in that context unless the petitioner first makes a prima facie showing for habeas relief. Because he did not make such a showing, the court summarily denied his discovery request without addressing its merits. While his challenge to that ruling was pending in this court, the Legislature amended the RJA effective January 1, 2026. Designed to expand access to RJA discovery, AB 1071 allows defendants to seek such discovery when they file a petition for writ of habeas corpus, or in preparation of filing such a petition. Because AB 1071 does not condition access to RJA discovery on a prima facie showing for habeas relief, we grant his petition for a writ of mandate. We direct the trial court to vacate its order summarily denying his request for discovery and remand for the court to consider the merits of that request.

First Holding:

Under amendments effective January 1, 2026, the RJA allows defendants to seek discovery when they file a petition for writ of habeas corpus, or in preparation of filing such a petition. Because the amendment does not condition access to RJA discovery on a prima facie showing for habeas relief, the trial court must consider the merits of the discovery request.

Authority:

AB 1071

PEN 745

Second Holding:

The RJA was enacted in 2020 with a stated aim to eliminate racial bias from California’s criminal justice system and to ensure that race plays no role at all in seeking or obtaining convictions or in sentencing. To that end, the RJA prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a criminal conviction, or seeking, obtaining, or imposing a sentence, on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin.

Authority:

People v. Wilson (2024) 16 Cal.5th 874, 944–945

Third Holding:

Under the RJA, an incarcerated defendant whose judgment is final may bring a claim for relief under the Act by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The defendant may also file a motion requesting disclosure of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of the RJA in the possession or control of the state. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall order the records to be released.

Authority:

PEN 745

Case: 000223

Error and/or relief

Sentences for eight of his convictions, which the defendant served concurrently with his completed determinate term, should have been stayed under section 654. The court found the balance of the issues forfeited for lack of objection at the trial level.

First Holding:

A party in a criminal case may not, on appeal, raise claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices if the party did not object to the sentence at trial. The rule applies to cases in which the stated reasons allegedly do not apply to the particular case, and cases in which the court purportedly erred because it double-counted a particular sentencing factor, misweighed the various factors, or failed to state any reasons or give a sufficient number of valid reasons.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 745, 751

Second Holding:

In contrast to errors in exercising sentencing discretion, the waiver doctrine does not apply to questions involving the applicability of section 654. Errors in the applicability of section 654 are corrected on appeal regardless of whether the point was raised by objection in the trial court or assigned as error on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3

Third Holding:

In general, a person may be convicted of, although not punished for, more than one crime arising out of the same act or course of conduct. In California, a single act or course of conduct by a defendant can lead to convictions of any number of the offenses charged. Section 954 generally permits multiple conviction. Section 654 is its counterpart concerning punishment. It prohibits multiple punishment for the same act or omission. When section 954 permits multiple conviction, but section 654 prohibits multiple punishment, the trial court must stay execution of sentence on the convictions for which multiple punishment is prohibited. Imposition of concurrent sentences is not the correct method of implementing section 654, because a concurrent sentence is still punishment.

Authority:

PEN 654

PEN 954

People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224, 1226–1227

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468

Case: 000222

Error and/or relief

On appeal from resentencing under section 1172.75, the sole contention is that the trial court omitted updating his abstract of judgment with credit for time served as of the date he was resentenced. The case is remanded for the necessary credits correction and amendment of the abstract of judgment to reflect those credits.

Holding:

Absent a new sentence, the court left in place its 2023 amended abstract of judgment, with the same actual-days credit calculation as had been entered at defendant’s original 2015 sentencing. That calculation must be updated.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23, 40

Case: 000221

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment inaccurately reflects that the two convictions for forcible rape when Doe was not a minor were for rape by force upon child. In addition, the abstract does not specify the year that each count of forcible rape was committed but instead gives the length of the term imposed. The trial court shall amend the abstract to correct these errors.

Holding:

[GARY NOTE: The court did not cite any authority, likely because this error so obviously needs corrections. The appellate court even has authority to make the corrections itself. Based solely on unsupported speculation, I assume that this court chose to remand the matter to the superior court for correction because the trial court is normally set up to prepare abstracts of judgment and to send them to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Regardless of the reason, there is authority supporting correction of the record, some examples of which I have set forth.]

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2