Daily Archives: August 16, 2026

Abstracts and Minutes, Plea bargains

Case: 000418

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court failed to orally dismiss counts that were to be dismissed under the plea agreement. We modify the judgment to reflect the dismissal of the two counts.

Holding:

The trial court erred by failing to dismiss the remaining counts as required by the plea agreement. While the minutes indicate the counts were dismissed, the court did not orally dismiss them at the hearing. To avoid unnecessarily wasting limited resources, we modify the judgment to reflect the plea agreement.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Superior Court (Gifford) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337 [A plea agreement is, in essence, a contract between the defendant and the prosecutor to which the court consents to be bound]

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000417

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to impose a $10 crime prevention fine under section 1202.5. It is ordered stricken. The minute order must be corrected to reflect that the resentencing proceedings were under section 1172.75, not under section 1172.6 as the minute order indicated.

First Holding:

The original imposition of the section 1202.5 crime prevention fine was unauthorized.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [claims of unauthorized sentencing error may be raised at any time]

Second Holding:

Under section 1202.5(a), courts are required to impose a $10 crime prevention fine on a defendant who is convicted of a theft-related offense listed in the statute. Here, the $10 crime prevention fine was unauthorized because defendant’s convictions are not among the offenses listed in section 1202.5(a). Thus, we strike the $10 crime prevention fine from defendant’s sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1202.5(a)

People v. Jefferson (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 660, 663

Third Holding:

The minute orders refer to the proceedings as taking place pursuant to section 1172.6. As the record is clear these were resentencing proceedings pursuant to section 1172.75, this appears to be a clerical error.

[Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for the order or observation regarding the correction of the minute order, but there is authority aplenty. The court could have cited one or more of the cases I have set out below.]

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

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000416

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A trial court may properly rely on uncontroverted evidence in a preliminary hearing transcript to refute conclusory allegations in determining whether a petitioner has stated a prima facie entitlement to relief under section 1172.6. We affirm the denial but remand to give the defendant the opportunity file an amended petition.

First Holding:

A trial court may properly rely on uncontroverted evidence in a preliminary hearing transcript to refute conclusory allegations in determining whether a petitioner has stated a prima facie entitlement to relief under section 1172.6.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

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

Second Holding:

Hearsay testimony by a police officer at a preliminary hearing could support a trial court’s finding that the petitioner did not make a prima facie case under section 1172.6.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (2026) 117 Cal.App.5th 1179

Discretion, Duty of the court, Juveniles, Standard of review

Case: 000415

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court failed to show it recognized and exercised its discretion to designate second degree burglary as a felony or a misdemeanor, and the program condition of probation delegated impermissibly broad discretion to the probation officer

First Holding:

Second degree burglary is a “wobbler,” that is, an offense that may be punished as either a felony or a misdemeanor. This determination is important not only because felonies are subject to longer periods of confinement, but also because felony convictions have additional adverse consequences, including use without limitation for impeachment under Proposition 8 in subsequent criminal proceedings, enhancement of sentences, and the general blight upon the character of persons convicted of felonies. To ensure that juvenile courts are aware of their discretion to charge wobblers as misdemeanors and that they consciously choose to treat wobblers committed by juveniles as felonies, juvenile courts are required to expressly declare how they are treating such offenses. If the minor is found to have committed an offense which would in the case of an adult be punishable alternatively as a felony or a misdemeanor, the court shall declare the offense to be a misdemeanor or felony.

Authority:

WIC 707

People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 461, fn. 6

In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199, 1207, 1209

In re Kenneth H. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 616, 619, fn. 3

Second Holding:

Although remand is not automatically required when a juvenile court fails to expressly declare that a wobbler is a felony or misdemeanor, to establish prejudice a juvenile need not show a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome. Also, challenges under Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 are not forfeited by failure to object at trial. Instead, in this context, the key issue is whether the record as a whole establishes that the juvenile court was aware of its discretion to treat the offense as a misdemeanor and to state a misdemeanor-length confinement limit. The record in this case does not reflect that the court was aware of its discretion to properly exercise it. A minute order may not substitute for a declaration by the juvenile court as to whether an offense is a misdemeanor or a felony.

Authority:

In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 704, 711-714, 717

In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199, 1209

Third Holding:

We review juvenile placement decisions for abuse of discretion. It was not an abuse of discretion to order the minor to be placed in a secure facility.

Authority:

In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1154

Fourth Holding:

In placing the minor in a secure facility, the juvenile court imposed a number of terms and conditions, including a requirement that he participate in and complete any appropriate programs as directed by [his] Probation Officer. We review orders of this nature de novo. This condition is an improper delegation of judicial authority. Probation conditions may be challenged for the first time on appeal if they are challenged as unconstitutional on their face and the challenge therefore presents a pure question of law.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888

Fifth Holding:

Although juvenile courts have greater discretion to formulate probation terms than adult criminal courts, their discretion to delegate authority is restricted by the separation-of-powers doctrine. Under the California Constitution, separation of powers does not mean an entire or complete separation of powers or functions, which would be impracticable, if not impossible. Thus, a court may delegate to a probation officer authority to specify the details necessary to effectuate the court’s probation conditions. However, the separation-of-powers doctrine limits the delegation of judicial authority to nonjudicial officers, especially in the absence of judicial supervision and review of the exercise of that authority. Consequently, a court may not delegate complete discretion over a significant aspect of the court’s legal control. To satisfy the separation-of-powers doctrine, a court delegating judicial authority to a probation officer must dictate the basic policy of a condition of probation.

Authority:

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 910, 919

In re D.N. (2022) 14 Cal.5th 202, 208-209, 212

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902, 903 [holding impermissible delegation of authority permitting probation officer to choose between residential and outpatient substance abuse programs]

People v. O’Neal (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1359 [the court’s order cannot be entirely open-ended]

People v. Leon (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 943, 952 [holding impermissible delegation of authority permitting probation officer to authorize probationer to attend court proceedings and otherwise barring probationer from attending court proceedings unless a party or witness]

Appellate Principles, Equal protection, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000414

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erroneously applied the doctrine of the law of the case to deny the defendant’s section 1170(d) petition in which he sought resentencing under its provisions because 50 years to life was the functional equivalent of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP).

First Holding:

In his original appeal from the 2010 conviction the Court of Appeal concluded that 50 years to life was not the functional equivalent of an LWOP sentence. The trial court denied his petition under section 1170(d) in 2023 on the basis that, under the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court had previously ruled that his sentence was not the functional equivalent of LWOP. However, years after the original appeal was decided, the Supreme Court determined that 50 years to life was the functional equivalent of LWOP.

Authority:

People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349

Second Holding:

The law of the case doctrine states that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal, and this although in its subsequent consideration the court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular.

Authority:

People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 374, fn. 6

People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 442 [The law-of-the-case doctrine binds the trial court as to the law but controls the outcome only if the evidence on rehearing of an issue is substantially the same as that upon which the appellate ruling was based.]

People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 253

People v. Vizcarra (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 422, 430 [The doctrines of collateral estoppel and law of the case bar a defendant from raising an issue that was raised and rejected in a prior appeal.]

Third Holding:

The law of the case doctrine generally precludes a party from obtaining appellate review of the same issue more than once in a single action. It is well settled, however, that the doctrine may be disregarded where the controlling rules of law have been altered or clarified by a decision intervening between the first and second appellate determinations.

Authority:

Truck Ins. Exchange v. Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corp. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 67, 87, fn. 6

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 716-717 [Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) does not apply when there has been a significant change in the law since the factual findings were rendered that warrants reexamination of the issue.]

Fourth Holding:

Here, although defendant raised and this court previously rejected the issue of whether, as a juvenile offender, defendant’s 50-year-to-life sentence was the functional equivalent of LWOP, the law on the issue has changed significantly and is currently split.

Authority:

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 268 [eligibility for parole pursuant to sec. 3051 mooted any assertion that defendant’s 50-year-to-life sentence was the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349, 359 [50 years to life for juvenile offender ineligible for sec. 3051 relief is the functional equivalent of LWOP]People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 624 [103 years to life is the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 441 [140 years to life is the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1054-1061 [107 years to life is the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Munoz (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 499, 513, dis. opn. of Feuer, J. [ majority holds 50 years to life is not the functional equivalent of LWOP, but the dissent would hold that it is], review granted June 25, 2025, S290828

People v. Baldwin (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 978, 999 [44 years to life not functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Thompson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1081, review granted Sept. 24, 2025, S292540 [50 years to life not functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Perez (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 49, 58 [parole eligibility at 47 years of age was by no stretch of the imagination functional or de facto LWOP]

People v. Ortega (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1252, 1260, review granted Sept. 17, 2025, S292070 [The requirement of a youth offender parole hearing moots a juvenile defendant’s constitutional claim that he is serving a sentence that is the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Isayev (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1117, review granted Nov. 12, 2025, S292860 [The requirement of a youth offender parole hearing moots a juvenile defendant’s constitutional claim that he is serving a sentence that is the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Lara (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 484, review granted Dec. 30, 2025, S294095 [The requirement of a youth offender parole hearing moots a juvenile defendant’s constitutional claim that he is serving a sentence that is the functional equivalent of LWOP]