Daily Archives: August 16, 2026

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000408

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing under section 1172.75 for recall of sentence and resentencing, the trial court should have considered the impact of AB 333 on the prior serious felony and strike convictions. We agree with the parties that AB 333 applies retroactively to the substantive gang offense conviction and all the gang-related allegations. We therefore vacate the resentencing order, reverse the substantive gang offense conviction, and vacate the findings on the gang enhancement, prior serious felony, and strike prior. On remand, the prosecution may retry all the gang-related allegations under the new law.

First Holding:

Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5(b) required trial courts to impose a one-year sentence enhancement for each true finding on an allegation the defendant had served a separate prior prison term and had not remained free of custody for at least five years. Section 667.5(b) was amended effective January 1, 2020, to eliminate prior prison term enhancements for all crimes except certain sexually violent offenses. Effective January 1, 2022, SB 483 (2021−2022 Reg. Sess.) added what was later renumbered as section 1172.75 to make this change retroactive. A defendant serving a term for a judgment that includes a now-invalid enhancement is entitled to resentencing. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid’ enhancements. Section 1172.75(d) sets forth detailed instructions for resentencing once a sentence has been recalled.

Authority:

PEN 667.5

PEN 1172.75

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 379–380

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1055

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402

Second Holding:

In 1988, the Legislature enacted section 186.20 et seq. to eradicate criminal activity by street gangs. Among other things, the Act created the substantive offense of active participation in a criminal street gang and a sentencing enhancement for a felony committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang.

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 333 made several changes to the criminal street gang laws. First, it narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons.

Second, whereas section 186.22, former subdivision (f) required only that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang, AB 333 requires that any such pattern have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, AB 333 also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Fourth, AB 333 narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational.

Also, AB 333 omitted certain nonviolent offenses from the list of offenses that could make up a gang’s primary activities or form the requisite pattern of criminal gang activity, reducing the list of offenses from 33 to 26.

Authority:

AB 333

PEN 186.22

People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818, 828-829

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 753

Third Holding:

The recall of the defendant’s sentence under section 1172.75 rendered his judgment no longer final, and the defendant was entitled to the presumption of retroactivity of ameliorative legislation under Estrada. The rule in Estrada has been applied to statutes governing penalty enhancements, as well as to statutes governing substantive offenses.

Authority:

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

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744–745

People v. Nasalga (1996) 12 Cal.4th 784, 792

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

People v. Mitchell (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1127, 1137–1142 [AB 333 applied retroactively to the defendant’s substantive gang offense conviction and enhancement]

Fourth Holding:

For Estrada purposes, the judgment means the judgment of conviction and the sentence. A criminal case is only reduced to a singular, final judgment following the conclusion of the entire criminal case or prosecution. Thus, a criminal case in which the sentence is not yet final, including one in which an appellate court has affirmed the conviction and remanded for reconsideration of sentencing-related issues, is not final for purposes of Estrada, and the benefits of supervening ameliorative legislation apply retroactively. It was presumed ameliorative changes to the law extend as broadly as possible, distinguishing only as necessary between sentences that are final and sentences that are not.

Estrada applies to statutory amendments which redefine, to the benefit of defendants, conduct subject to criminal sanctions. Here, the defendant’s sentence was vacated when the trial court recalled his sentence under section 1172.75. Once his sentence was vacated, the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence him to a new sentence. Reversal is required unless the error is harmless pursuant to Chapman.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 392-395

People v. Arias (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 213, 219 [recall of [the defendant’s sentence effectively vacates his original sentence and commitment]

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 163 [once a court has determined that a defendant is entitled to resentencing, the result is vacatur of the original sentence, whereupon the trial court may impose any appropriate sentence]

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

Fifth Holding:

As the judgment is no longer final, it is also necessary for the trial court to reassess whether the prior serious felony and strike conviction were based on gang activity, and whether the conduct then would have been considered unlawful gang activity under AB 333. On remand, the prosecution may elect to retry whether the prior conviction qualifies as a serious felony applying the elements of section 186.22 as amended by AB 333.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 582-583, 607-608

People v. Farias (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 619, 650–653

Discretion, Jury trial, Sixth Amendment, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000407

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Although the defendant initially decided not to testify at his trial, he changed his mind just before oral argument, after the court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss one of the counts and denied the defense motion for acquittal. As the People concede, it was error for the court to deny his request.

First Holding:

It cannot be doubted that a defendant in a criminal case has the right to take the witness stand and to testify in his or her own defense.

Authority:

Rock v. Arkansas (1987) 483 U.S. 44, 49

Second Holding:

After a litigant rests their case, the trial court has wide discretion to reopen a criminal matter to receive additional evidence. When this court reviews a trial court’s decision to preclude the defense from reopening the case to present additional evidence, we must consider four factors: (1) The stage the proceedings had reached when the motion was made; (2) the defendant’s diligence (or lack thereof) in presenting the new evidence; (3) the prospect that the jury would accord the new evidence undue emphasis; and (4) the significance of the evidence. The trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request to testify is subject to the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard enunciated in Chapman.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 66

People v. Masters (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1019, 1069

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

People v. Allen (2008) 44 Cal.4th 843, 871–872

Third Holding:

With respect to the first factor, the state of the proceeding, when the defendant has recently rested his case, closing argument has not begun, and the jury has not been instructed, granting defendant’s request does not entail any great inconvenience. Only 25 minutes passed between when the defense rested and when the defendant expressed that he wished to testify.

Authority:

People v. Carter (1957) 48 Cal.2d 737, 757

Fourth Holding:

As to the defendant’s diligence, the trial court asserted it could not reopen the case because the defense had moved for acquittal, and the prosecution had dismissed count 2. This rationale is not supported by the law. Section 1118.1 provides, in relevant part, that if a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence offered by the prosecution is not granted, the defendant may offer evidence without first having reserved that right. Here, the court took the defendant’s waiver and allowed the defense to rest before hearing its motion for acquittal. Thus, when the defendant decided to testify, the defense had to make a motion to reopen, which the court denied. Under section 1118.1, the court should have ruled on both the motion for acquittal and the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss before inquiring about the defendant’s decision to testify. Had this procedure been followed, the defendant would have had the opportunity to offer evidence after the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal.

Authority:

PEN 1118.1

Fifth Holding:

The third factor is whether reopening the case will cause the jury to give undue emphasis to the new evidence. A jury may accord undue weight to evidence which is admitted close to the time deliberations begin. Here, at the time the defendant changed his mind, the jury had not been told whether he intended to testify. Further, although the court had advised the jury that the presentation of evidence was complete, that advisement occurred only shortly before the defendant changed his mind. For these reasons, we have no reason to believe that the jury would have afforded undue weight to his testimony if the court had reopened the defense case and this factor also shows an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Funes (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1521

Sixth Holding:

The final factor, the significance of the evidence, also shows error by the trial court. The most important witness for the defense in many criminal cases is the defendant himself. This was not a lopsided case with overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence of guilt, as demonstrated by the jury’s acquittal on count 1. Courts must evaluate whether the interests served by restricting a defendant’s right to testify justify the limitation imposed on this most basic right of a defendant in a criminal case—to present his own version of events in his own words. Here, the trial was relatively short and involved a single defendant, and the jury instructions and closing arguments had not yet occurred at the time Mendoza made his request. The defendant’s testimony may have been highly significant and could have altered the outcome of the case. Under this four-factor test, the court’s decision constituted an abuse of its discretion.

Authority:

Rock v. Arkansas (1987) 483 U.S. 44, 51-52, 56

Seventh Holding:

Finally, as the parties agree, the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury deliberated for over three hours and acquitted the defendant of count 1, suggesting it entertained doubts about at least certain aspects of the prosecution’s case. It cannot be said that the jury necessarily would have reached the same result if the court had permitted the defendant to testify.

Authority:

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

Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000406

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The provision in the probation order requiring the defendant to reimburse the county for public defender and probation related services must be stricken.

Holding:

Section 1465.9(a) provides that the balance of any court-imposed costs imposed under former section 987.8, authorizing public defender fees, and former section 1203.1b, authorizing probation services fees, as those sections read on June 30, 2021, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated. Accordingly, we will strike the portion of the probation order authorizing these fees.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(a)

People v. Portillo (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 577, 602-603

People v. Greeley (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 609, 625

Duty of the court, Jury trial

Case: 000405

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in discharging one of only two Black prospective jurors, over defense counsel’s objection, where the prosecutor cited the juror’s multiple family members with criminal records as a basis for the use of peremptory challenge, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7. We reverse and remand the matter for a new trial.

First Holding:

Our standard of review for section 231.7 claims is defined by statute as follows: The denial of an objection made under this section shall be reviewed by the appellate court de novo, with the trial court’s express factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence. The appellate court shall not impute to the trial court any findings, including findings of a prospective juror’s demeanor, that the trial court did not expressly state on the record. The reviewing court shall consider only reasons actually given under [231.7(c)] and shall not speculate as to or consider reasons that were not given to explain either the party’s use of the peremptory challenge or the party’s failure to challenge similarly situated jurors who are not members of the same cognizable group as the challenged juror, regardless of whether the moving party made a comparative analysis argument in the trial court. Should the appellate court determine that the objection was erroneously denied, that error shall be deemed prejudicial, the judgment shall be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.”

Authority:

CCP 231.7(j)

Second Holding:

The exercise of even a single peremptory challenge solely on the basis of race or ethnicity offends the guarantee of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, as well as a defendant’s right to trial by a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community under article I, section 16 of the state Constitution.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1150, 1157

Third Holding:

Section 231.7(a) prohibits the use of a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of their race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or the perceived membership of the prospective juror in any of those groups. It sets up a strict procedure for determining whether a peremptory challenge of a jury should be allowed. It lists several nonexclusive factors the court may consider when evaluating the totality, including whether the objecting party is a member of the same perceived cognizable group as the challenged juror. But it also goes on to list circumstances where a peremptory challenge is presumed invalid absent some further showing by the proponent by clear and convincing evidence that an objectively reasonable person would view the rationale as unrelated to a prospective juror’s defined protected status.

Authority:

CCP 231.7

Fourth Holding:

To allow a party to bury presumptively invalid reasons under an overarching facially neutral reason without the required findings under section 231.7(f), would render section 231.7(e) ineffective.

Authority:

People v. Uriostegui (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 271, 280

Equal protection, Juveniles, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000404

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

For criminal conduct committed when he was 17, the imposition of a sentence of a determinate term of nine years plus and indeterminate term of more than 150 years to life was the functional equivalent of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), and as a matter of equal protection, the defendant must be considered eligible to petition for recall and resentencing under section 1170(d)(1).

First Holding:

Statutory interpretation and the application of undisputed facts to a statute are questions of law we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Salcido (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1311

Second Holding:

A juvenile defendant who was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole is eligible to seek resentencing under section 1170(d). Although the defendant’s sentence does not fall within the statute’s plain language, the constitutional right of equal protection extends section 1170(d) eligibility to juvenile offenders who were sentenced to the functional equivalent of LWOP.

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)(1)(A)

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 633–634

Third Holding:

The defendant’s sentence exceeds the sentence in Heard, and the People concede it unquestionably exceeds the juvenile offender’s natural lifespan.

Authority:

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 440, 450–451 [10 years plus 130 years to life constituted functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Caballero (2012) 55 Cal.4th 262, 265, 267–268 [40 years plus 70 years to life]

Fourth Holding:

The defendant’s youth offender parole eligibility under section 3051 does not affect his eligibility to seek section 1170(d) resentencing because section 3051 relief became available only after his sentence was imposed. As relevant here, under section 3051, a youth offender sentenced to a life term of 25 years to life or more is eligible for parole after 25 years of incarceration. (PC 3051(b)(3).) Because section 1170(d)(1) refers to what the defendant was sentenced to, what matters is the defendant’s original sentence. We acknowledge that other courts have parted ways with Heard, but we do not.

Authority:

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 629