Daily Archives: August 29, 2026

Discretion, Due process, Duty of the court, Standard of review

Case 000745

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion and violated his right to due process when it denied a continuance to investigate and file a motion for a new trial after granting his motion to represent himself.

First Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision granting or denying a continuance for an abuse of discretion. Absent a showing of an abuse of discretion and prejudice, we will not reverse the trial court’s decision.

Authority:

People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1118

People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 450

Second Holding:

A trial court’s decision that is deemed an abuse of discretion has been described as a decision that exceeds the bounds of reason or as one that is arbitrary, capricious, patently absurd, or even whimsical. A court’s discretion, however, is not a whimsical, uncontrolled power. T

he scope of discretion always resides in the particular law being applied, i.e., in the legal principles governing the subject of the action. The court’s proper exercise of its discretion, therefore, requires knowledge and consideration of the legal principles essential to an informed, intelligent and just decision.

Where a ruling transgresses the confines of the applicable principles of law defining the scope of discretion, the court abuses its discretion.

Authority:

People v. Seigler (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 596, 609

People v. Jacobs (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 728, 737

City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1297

People v. Lara (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 139, 165

Third Holding:

In deciding whether to grant a continuance, trial courts may not exercise their discretion in such a manner as to deprive the defendant or defendant’s counsel of a reasonable opportunity to prepare.

That counsel for a defendant has a right to reasonable opportunity to prepare for a trial is as fundamental as is the right to counsel. The opportunity to prepare is no less fundamental when a defendant elects to proceed pro se.

While it is true that a defendant, who chooses to conduct his defense in pro. per. does so subject to the disabilities normally attendant upon the status as a prisoner, a pro se defendant must be given a reasonable opportunity to prepare a defense.

The denial of a continuance after a trial court grants a defendant’s request for self-representation could deprive a defendant of the opportunity to prepare a defense. To deny him that opportunity would be to render his right to appear in propria persona an empty formality, and in effect deny him the right to counsel.

Therefore, when a trial court grants a defendant’s request to proceed pro se, it has been held an abuse of discretion and a denial of due process to deny a request for a reasonable continuance to allow the in propria persona defendant to prepare a defense.

Authority:

People v. Sakarias (2000) 22 Cal.4th 596, 646

People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647, 652, 653-655

People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308, 324

People v. Wilkins (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 299, 304-305

People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744, 756, 757

Fourth Holding:

Courts have made an exception only where the record demonstrates the trial court expressly conditioned the granting of an untimely Faretta motion on the defendant’s express waiver of a continuance.

Authority:

Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806

People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1038 [court warned the defendant that a request for a continuance would be a basis for denying Faretta motion, and the defendant accepted pro se status on the understanding that no additional time would be granted]

People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 110 [court granted Faretta motion only after the defendant “expressly represented he was able to proceed without a continuance], overruled on other grounds in People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 462

People v. Rudd (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 620, 626 [Faretta motion granted only after the defendant expressly stated he would be able to proceed without a continuance]

Fifth Holding:

The denial of a continuance may be so arbitrary as to deny due process. There are no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process. Instead, the answer must be found in the circumstances present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied.

Authority:

People v. Beames (2007) 40 Cal.4th 907, 921

Sixth Holding:

The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a new trial motion, and its decision will be disturbed only for clear abuse of that discretion. Such an abuse of discretion occurs when the court bases its decision on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Iraheta (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 611, 619

Seventh Holding:

To be sure, the text of section 1181 expressly limits the grant of a motion for new trial to the nine grounds enumerated in the statute. And ineffectiveness of trial counsel is not one of them.

Trial courts, however, have a duty to ensure that a trial is conducted with solicitude for the essential rights of the accused. That includes the right to effective counsel.

The Legislature has no authority to limit by statute a court’s constitutional obligation to ensure that a defendant is accorded due process. Therefore, our Supreme Court has stated that section 1181 should not be read to limit the constitutional duty of trial courts to ensure that defendants be accorded due process of law.

In appropriate circumstances, the trial court should consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a motion for new trial, because justice is expedited when the issue of counsel’s effectiveness can be resolved promptly at the trial level.

Authority:

People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 582

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 630

People v. Watts (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 102, 117

Eighth Holding:

We take issue with the trial court’s determination that the defendant could raise the issues of ineffective assistance of counsel and late discovered evidence on appeal. Unless the record on appeal includes an explanation as to why trial counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, or unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, a claim on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective is at risk of being rejected.

Under the circumstances in this case, the trial court abused its discretion and deprived the defendant of his right to due process. We remand the matter and direct the trial court to grant the defendant a reasonable continuance to investigate and file a motion for new trial.

Authority:

People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267 [claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are often more appropriately litigated in a habeas corpus proceeding]

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000744

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstracts of judgment are inconsistent with the sentencing court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. We will order the abstract of judgment corrected to reflect the trial court’s imposition and stay of a $300 restitution fine, and its waiver of the $80 court security fee and $60 criminal conviction assessment fee. We will further order the determinate abstract of judgment corrected to reflect that the defendant was convicted by jury (not by plea) of count 2 (arson).

Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of judgment.

Authority:

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

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000743

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the defendant was not convicted of a serious felony in this case, the two five-year prior serious felony enhancements are not authorized and must be stricken.

First Holding:

The Three Strikes law is a sentencing scheme that requires a court to double or sometimes triple the punishment for a felony offense if the defendant was previously convicted of a crime that qualifies as a serious or violent’ felony. The serious or violent felonies that trigger this sentencing scheme, commonly referred to as strikes or strike priors, are enumerated by statute. If a defendant’s current offense is a serious felony, the defendant is also subject to a five-year prior serious felony enhancement—a so-called ‘nickel prior’—in addition to any strike

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 582

People v. Thomas (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1122, 1129,

People v. Arnett (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1609, 1613

Second Holding:

Penal Code section 667(a) provides that a person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted of a serious felony shall receive, in addition to the sentence imposed by the court for the present offense, a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction on charges brought and tried separately. A serious felony means a serious felony listed in section 1192.7(c), which identifies 42 offenses as serious felonies, including any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life.

Authority:

PEN 667(a)

PEN 1192.7(c)

Third Holding:

For an offense falling within the enumerated list without any change in elements since the conviction, the question whether that conviction qualifies as a serious felony is entirely legal. But if there is a factual question of whether conduct underlying the crime qualifies the offense as a serious felony, any such facts must be tried to the same factfinder that decided the defendant’s guilt of the charged crime.

Authority:

PEN 969f(a)

People v. Kelii (1999) 21 Cal.4th 452, 456

Fourth Holding:

None of the defendants prior convictions are for offenses listed in section 1192.7(c). And though he received a life sentence because he was a third-strike offender, section 1192.7(c)(7) category requires that the offense be itself punishable by life imprisonment, without regard to application of the Three Strikes law based on defendant’s status as a recidivist.

Authority:

People v. Thomas (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1122, 1130

People v. Hernandez (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 192, 198 [construing the ineligibility factors of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012–Proposition 36–depends on the nature of the offense itself, not the effect of other prior convictions on the defendant’s sentence]

People v. Harrison (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1145, 1159 [construing the ineligibility factors for consideration under section 1170.91 regarding the mitigating effect of trauma incurred in the course of military service, which may even include recall of the sentence and resentencing]

Fifth Holding:

Because the defendant was not convicted of a serious felony in this case, the two five-year prior serious felony enhancements are not authorized and must be stricken. We have authority to correct a sentence that is not authorized by law. But when an error affects part of a sentence, the case must be remanded for a full resentencing hearing as to all counts to permit a trial court to exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances. We thus remand for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Choyce (2025) 18 Cal.5th 86, 128

People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 743, fn. 13.)

People v. Shaw (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 582, 588-589

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000742

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The crime that the defendant pleaded guilty to is not one to which Health and Safety Code section 11372.5 applies to, so the $50 fee must be stricken.

First Holding:

Health and Safety Code section 11372.5(a) states that every person who is convicted of enumerated offenses must pay a criminal laboratory analysis fee of $50 for each separate offense. The fee only applies to the offenses listed or enumerated in section 11372.5(a).

Authority:

HSC 11372.5

People v. Myles (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1158, 1160

Second Holding:

Defendant pleaded no contest to an offense not listed in section 11372.5(a). Thus the trial court could not legally impose the $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee as a probation condition and the fee is, therefore, unauthorized. We therefore strike the fee.

Authority:

People v. Myles (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1158, 1160

People v. Dotson (1997) 16 Cal.4th 547, 554, fn. 6 [claim that a sentence is unauthorized may be raised for the first time on appeal and corrected whenever error comes to the attention of the reviewing court]

People v. Soto (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1231-1233 [striking unauthorized fee on appeal]

Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000741

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in not conducting a full resentencing on the defendant’s petition for recall under section 1172.75. Remanded for full resentencing.

First Holding:

When a defendant raises both statutory and constitutional bases for their appeal, we do not reach the constitutional grounds if the case can be resolved on statutory grounds. When a defendant appeals the denial of a Marsden motion, the core inquiry is whether the trial court’s ruling violated the defendant’s constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

Swart Enterprises, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 497, 513 [a reviewing court should consider a constitutional question only where essential to the disposition of a case]

People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 123

People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 696

Second Holding:

On the other hand, the scope of a trial court’s application of section 1172.75 is a question of statutory interpretation, which is subject to our de novo review. If that review resolves the appeal, it is dispositive.

Authority:

People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276, 1281–1282

Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino (1995) 11 Cal.4th 220, 230–231 [finding that where statutory and constitutional claims are at issue and resolution of the statutory ground is adequate to resolve the matter, doing so is dispositive]

Third Holding:

The parties disagree about whether defendant forfeited his argument that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a full resentencing under section 1172.75. In the interests of judicial economy, to forestall an ineffective assistance of counsel habeas petition, and to avoid the constitutional issues raised by defendant regarding the performance of his trial counsel, we decline to enforce any forfeiture under the circumstances of this case.

Authority:

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 400

Fourth Holding:

In general, we review a trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is found where the court relies upon circumstances that are not relevant to the decision or that otherwise constitute an improper basis for decision.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 323

Fifth Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court. A court that is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no more exercise that informed discretion than one whose sentence is or may have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant’s record. In such circumstances, we have held that the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing 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.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391

Sixth Holding:

Where an issue on appeal requires that we determine the meaning of a statute, we review the trial court’s decision de novo. In any case involving statutory interpretation, our fundamental task is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose. We begin by examining the statute’s words, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning. When the language of a statute is clear, we need go no further.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 323

People v. Scott (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1415, 1421

People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113, 1123 [If no ambiguity appears in the statutory language, we presume that the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute controls]

Seventh Holding:

Section 1172.75 makes any sentence enhancement imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to 667.5(b) legally invalid unless it was imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code. If the court determines (through the process set forth in the statute) that the defendant’s sentence includes an invalid enhancement, it is required to recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. An eligible defendant under section 1172.75 is entitled to a full resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067, fn. 3 [Where section 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing, not simply striking the now-invalidated priors]

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402 [By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements]