Daily Archives: August 29, 2026

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000725

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment fails to reflect the total credit for time served as of the date of resentencing. It must be corrected accordingly.

First Holding:

(Gary’s note for context: The abstract of judgment following resentencing under section 1172.75 listed only the credit for time served ordered originally in 1989. The order in this Case 000725 directs that the abstract of judgment be corrected, but in fact, it was the trial court that declined to recalculate the credit for time served, leaving it up to the Department of Corrections. The case authority cited by the court–Buckhalter–does state that the court has a duty to recalculate the credit for time served when a person is resentenced.)

The amended abstract of judgment fails to reflect the appropriate calculation of custody credits for time already served by the defendant. The judgment is affirmed subject to the clerk correcting the abstract of judgment upon remand to award the defendant [more than 13,000] days of custody credit.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 41

Second Holding:

(Gary’s second note: It is not a win for the defendant, but there was another abstract of judgment error, this time understating the sentence that was imposed.

(The court ordered that, in addition to reflecting the revised credit for time served calculation, the abstract must reflect that the sentence was enhancement by two years for a firearm use enhancement that was omitted from the calculation of the sentence. The error omitting the enhancement was merely a repeat of the erroneous abstract more than 30 years earlier, which also failed to reflect the enhancement despite the court’s oral imposition of it.

(Though not a win for the defendant, I’m including this information because it once again demonstrates the importance of checking abstracts of judgment. While this one favored the defendant until the Court of Appeal spotted the error, many, many errors in abstracts reflect harsher treatment of the defendant than actually imposed by the court. Also, the court cited no authority for correction of the abstract, but I have listed several cases here that the court could have cited.)

Authority:

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324

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

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–388

People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000724

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The victim restitution award for expenses paid by the Victim Compensation Board violates the defendant’s right to due process and is reversed because the prosecution did not present bills to establish the amount paid as required pursuant to section 1202.4(f)(4)(B). The matter is remanded for the court to hold a new restitution hearing. Additionally, The abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the defendant was sentenced to 40 years to life (rather than 50 years to life).

First Holding:

The only evidence presented at the restitution hearing was the set of California Victim Compensation Board forms submitted by the prosecution, over the objection of counsel. No certified copies of the bills were introduced, nor was a declaration under penalty of perjury by the custodian of records. Restitution for expenses paid by the California Victim Compensation Board requires proof established by copies of bills submitted to the Board, reflecting the amount paid, pursuant to section 1202.4(f)(4)(B).

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)(4)(B)

Second Holding:

In California, crime victims have the right to receive restitution for losses attributable to the defendant’s actions. Indeed, in every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court.

Section 1202.4 does not, by its terms, require any particular kind of proof. However, the trial court is entitled to consider the probation report, and, as prima facie evidence of loss, may accept a property owner’s statement made in the probation report about the value of stolen or damaged property. This is so because a hearing to establish the amount of restitution does not require the formalities of other phases of a criminal prosecution.

When the probation report includes information on the amount of the victim’s loss and a recommendation as to the amount of restitution, the defendant must come forward with contrary information to challenge that amount.

Authority:

Cal. Const. art. I, sec 28(b)(13)(B)

PEN 1202.4(a)(1)

People v. Lockwood (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 91, 96

People v. Holmberg (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1320

Third Holding:

However, section 1202.4(f)(4) includes special provisions that are applicable when, as here, state funds are used to provide assistance to or on behalf of a victim.

The amount of assistance provided by the Restitution Fund shall be established by copies of bills submitted to the California Victim Compensation Board reflecting the amount paid by the board and whether the services for which payment was made were for medical or dental expenses, funeral or burial expenses, mental health counseling, wage or support losses, or rehabilitation.

Certified copies of these bills provided by the board and redacted to protect the privacy and safety of the victim or any legal privilege, together with a statement made under penalty of perjury by the custodian of records that those bills were submitted to and were paid by the board, shall be sufficient to meet this requirement.

The section 1202.4(f)(4)(B) restitution order lacks the necessary evidentiary support and must be vacated and the case remanded for a new restitution hearing.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)(4)

People v. Lockwood (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 91, 96

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment states defendant was sentenced to a term of 50 years to life on count 1. It also reflects defendant was sentenced to 25 years on the section 12022.53(d) enhancement. However, defendant was sentenced to 15 years to life on count 1 and 25 years to life for the section 12022.53(d) firearm enhancement.

When an abstract of judgment does not reflect the actual sentence imposed in the trial judge’s verbal pronouncement, this court has the inherent power to correct such clerical error on appeal, whether on our own motion or upon application of the parties. On remand, the trial court is instructed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89

Amelioration, Gary Musings, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000723

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court was required to revisit whether the gang enhancement attached to the felony assault charge was still valid in light of changes to the gang criminal activity statutes under AB 333. When asked to strike the enhancement, the trial court stated that it did not have discretion to relitigate the facts underlying the gang enhancement. This was error.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 rendered legally invalid any prior prison term enhancement imposed before January 1, 2020 (unless the enhancement was imposed for a prior sexually violent conviction), and it created a resentencing procedure for defendants who are currently serving sentences that include such an enhancement. Section 1172.75(c) requires a court to strike any now-invalid prior prison term enhancement and recall the defendant’s sentence.

Section 1172.75(d) provides instructions for resentencing. Among other things, the provision requires the court to resentence the defendant under current law, including any changes in law that reduce sentences.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily and capriciously, relies on improper matters, or is unaware of the scope of its discretion such that it does not exercise its discretion at all. We independently review questions of statutory interpretation implicated by the trial court’s decisions.

Authority:

People v. Knowles (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 757, 765

People v. Mathis (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 359, 366

Third Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 333 made several changes to the law governing the gang enhancement.

First, AB 333 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, it changed the requirement that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity to now require that any such pattern be collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, it narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal gang activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date of the currently charged offense; (2) the pattern offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the pattern offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) none of the pattern offenses is the same as the currently charged offense.

Finally, 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. Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational, under the amended provision, include, but are not limited to, financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting a perceived or actual gang rival, or intimidation or silencing of a potential current or previous witness or informant.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

Fourth Holding:

AB 333’s amendments to section 186.22 apply retroactively to the defendant’s case because they are ameliorative changes and the defendant’s case became nonfinal when the court vacated and recalled his sentence under section 1172.75.

Authority:

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

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 163

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 396–400

Fifth Holding:

In Stamps, the Supreme Court held that a trial court may not modify a plea agreement because a plea agreement is, in essence, a contract between the defendant and the prosecutor to which the court consents to be bound. But, as the Supreme Court explained in Doe v. Harris, the terms of the plea agreement can be affected by changes in the law. By implementing such changes, the trial court is not altering the terms of the plea bargain.

Thus, under Doe, the defendant’s 2016 plea agreement is deemed to incorporate the Legislature’s subsequent enactment of AB 333. Consequently, requiring the parties compliance with changes to section 186.22 made retroactive to the defendant does not violate the terms of the plea agreement. We therefore conclude that the gang-related enhancement findings must be vacated and the matter remanded to give the People the opportunity to prove the applicability of the enhancements under the amendments to section 186.22.

Authority:

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 701

Doe v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 64, 73-74

People v. Harrell (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 161, 168

People v. Lopez (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 327, 346

Extensive Gary Note, NOT In The Opinion:

Gary note: I think I first noted this in my summary for Case 000532. But effective 1/1/2025, section 1171 provides that a resentencing under any ameliorative provisions cannot result in an order to set aside a plea bargain in which the sentence was specified. In other words, section 1171 appears to have overturned the Stamps decision with respect to allowing the lower court or the prosecution to set aside a plea bargain if the ameliorative provisions apply to change the sentence in a way that the prosecutor or court do not like.

This question was granted review in a case that originally issued a published opinion in 2024 (100 Cal.App.5th 768), where it defined the issue as “Is the prosecution entitled to rescind a plea agreement when a defendant receives a full resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728) and the trial court intends to reduce the sentence beyond eliminating the prior prison term enhancements?”

On 12/18/2024, the Supreme Court transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal on the People’s motion for the Court of Appeal to vacate its earlier decision [which, in fact, concluded that the prosecutor could NOT rescind the agreement] and reconsider its opinion in light of the passage of AB 2483, which enacted section 1171. It also ordered the Court of Appeal’s original opinion to be depublished.

On remand, the Court of Appeal set aside its earlier opinion and issued a new opinion in which it said, “At the hearing, Montgomery may seek relief under any provision of section 1172.75, and neither the prosecutor nor the court may rescind the plea agreement due to a resulting sentence reduction.”

The original Court of Appeal opinion was published, and it provides an analysis of why a review of the legislative history of AB 483 (which enacted section 1172.75)–including uncodified portions of AB 483– compelled it to conclude that Stamps did not apply. But the subsequent opinion following the Supreme Court’s transfer relied solely on section 1171, and the opinion was not published.  As I stated, the “published” opinion also was wiped off the books when the Supreme Court ordered it depublished.

In the recent decision People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, the Supreme Court indicated its awareness of section 1171–as it obviously did when it transferred the Montgomery case–but declined to apply it where the case was a direct appeal from the judgment itself, in which the appellant challenged the stipulated sentence–in which he agreed to and received an upper term before section 1170 was amended to require jury findings for upper terms.

See Mitchell’s footnote 9. Keep in mind that section 1171 was created to guide courts in the handling of newly enacted ameliorative legislation. The Supreme Court in Mitchell seems to have left open the question where the appeal is from the original judgment itself, rather than an appeal from an attempt at securing relief from ameliorative statutes. Its footnote 9 ends, “We decline to consider this argument because we have concluded that Mitchell is entitled to a remand under our established precedent in Stamps. We express no view on the applicability of section 1171 to this case or how it might affect the options described above. Mitchell may raise this issue in the Court of Appeal or the trial court in the first instance.”

And for the rest of the story, the Court of Appeal has since, in an unpublished sentence, remanded the matter to the trial court to permit the defendant to seek relief under the ameliorative provisions.  At that time, the defendant may present the argument that section 1171 bars the prosecution or the court from seeking that the plea agreement be set aside if either the prosecutor or the court is not satisfied with any resulting modification of the sentence.

Authority:

Gary has no authority, just musings.

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000722

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A jury found the defendant guilty of selling cocaine base and possessing cocaine base for sale. Under section 654, it was error to sentence the defendant on each, to run concurrently. The sentence on one of the counts must be stayed.

First Holding:

Section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for the same act or indivisible course of conduct. Before 2022, when a single act or omission was punishable under multiple provisions, the court was required to impose sentence under the provision carrying the longest potential term. Effective January 1, 2022, Assembly Bill No. 518 amended section 654 to afford trial courts discretion to impose punishment under either applicable provision.

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294

Second Holding:

Multiple punishments violate section 654 because the defendant’s possession of cocaine base for sale and the sale of cocaine base arose from an indivisible course of conduct with a single objective. Under the amended statute, the trial court has discretion to impose the sentence on either count 1 or count 2, including the option of selecting the shorter term.

Authority:

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379

Fourth Amendment

Case 000721

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A police officer’s observation of a driver’s red, glossy eyes and strong odor of cologne, without more, did not provide a reasonable suspicion to conduct a DUI investigation after instigating a traffic stop. We affirm the trial court’s granting of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

(Gary note: This is a long summary. In short, the defendant showed no signs of driving under the influence, and the only reason the officer conducted a search was he perceived the defendant’s eyes as red and glossy and he smelled cologne. I have chosen to set forth the main principles relied on by the Court of Appeal in affirming the trial court’s grant of the suppression motion, which had been overturned by the appellate division of the superior court before the Court of Appeal transferred the matter to itself on the defendant’s petition.)

First Holding:

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. As such, a defendant may move to suppress evidence on the grounds that the search or seizure without a warrant was unreasonable. The burden to show proper justification for a warrantless search and seizure] rests on the prosecution.

Authority:

U.S. Const. 4th Amend.

PEN 1538.5(a)(1)(A)

People v. Gale (1973) 9 Cal.3d 788, 795

Second Holding:

A seizure occurs for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when an officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, restricts a person’s liberty. A detention is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, provide some objective manifestation that the person detained may be involved in criminal activity.

Authority:

Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 19, fn. 16

People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 231

Third Holding:

A reasonable suspicion to detain requires a lesser showing than probable cause to arrest. Not only can reasonable suspicion be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause, but also reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause.

Authority:

People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 230-231,

Alabama v. White (1990) 496 U.S. 325, 330

Fourth Holding:

Ordinary traffic stops are treated as investigatory detentions for which the officer must be able to articulate specific facts justifying the suspicion that a crime is being committed. Thus, a seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation.

The tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s mission—to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop and attend to related safety concerns. Because addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may last no longer than is necessary to effectuate that purpose. Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.

Authority:

People v. Suff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1013, 1053–1054

Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 354

Fifth Holding:

An officer’s mission during a traffic stop includes addressing the traffic violation; checking the driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance; and determining whether the driver has outstanding warrants—all of which serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly.

Authority:

Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 355

Sixth Holding:

Under certain circumstances, an officer conducting a traffic stop may also investigate a suspected crime unrelated to the infraction that initially prompted the stop. However, the officer may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual. An articulable and reasonable suspicion that a person is driving while impaired is required to extend a routine traffic stop to involve a more intrusive DUI investigation requiring the driver to exit his or her vehicle to perform field sobriety tests [FSTs].

Authority:

Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 355

People v. Ayon (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 926, 940-941 [the Fourth Amendment requires officers to diligently pursue a means of investigation reasonably designed to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly]

People v. Evans (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 735, 742 [an officer’s subjective beliefs are generally irrelevant to the lawfulness of a search and seizure]

Seventh Holding:

Here, the trial court found that the officer’s prolonging the traffic stop in order to investigate defendant for a DUI by having him exit the vehicle to undergo field sobriety tests was not independently supported by individualized, reasonable suspicion. We agree with this conclusion.

In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we defer to that court’s factual findings, express or implied, if they are supported by substantial evidence. On appeal, we draw all inferences from the record in favor of the trial court’s ruling and defer to the trial court’s factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence.

We exercise our independent judgment in determining whether, on the facts presented, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. In doing so we do not consider each fact in isolation. Instead, we must consider the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture.

Authority:

People v. Silveria and Travis (2020) 10 Cal.5th 195, 232

People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1043

People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362

People v. Linn (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 46, 56 [when a misdemeanor appeal is certified for transfer to the appellate court, the Court of Appeal’s review is as if the parties directly appealed from the trial court ruling on defendant’s suppression motion]

Eighth Holding:

The officer testified that he suspected defendant may have been intoxicated and, therefore, decided to conduct a DUI investigation based on two factors: defendant had red, glossy eyes and smelled strongly of cologne. These factors are not enough to provide reasonable suspicion of a DUI crime.

Authority:

People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1045 [mere presence in a known narcotics area is not enough to warrant suspicion]

People v. Ayon (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 926, 940 [finding no substantial evidence to support the officer’s claim that the defendant appeared intoxicated when the defendant did not display any conduct demonstrating insobriety, such as slurred or irregular speech, an inability to walk or stand normally, confusion, or any other mental incapacity, and he was not acting any more nervously than a typical person in a traffic stop]

Ninth Holding:

A mere deviation from perceived social convention does not automatically signal criminal behavior. The particular conduct relied upon must, when considered in the totality of circumstances, support a reasonable suspicion that the person to be detained is, or is about to be, engaged in activity ‘relating to crime.

Authority:

People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1045

In re L.G. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 818, 822 [Nervousness, an unrelated arrest, and a gang companion did not create reasonable suspicion L.G. was at that moment committing a crime]

Tenth Holding:

While officers may draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences, they cannot rely on mere hunches.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2008) 45 Cal.4th 295, 299