Monthly Archives: August 2026

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000790

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred by setting the length of probation at four years instead of two years.

Holding:

Effective January 1, 2021, AB 1950 amended Penal Code section 1203.1 to limit the maximum probation period for felony offenses. Under prior law, the length of felony probation could not exceed five years or the maximum possible sentence of imprisonment, whichever was longer. Now, the statute provides that, with certain exceptions not applicable here, felony probation may continue for a period of time not exceeding two years. Because the trial court imposed a term of probation in excess of section 1203.1’s normal two-year limit, we will reduce the term to comply with that limit.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1(a)

People v. Kite (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 986, 992

People v. Shelly (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 181, 185

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 979 [reducing probationary term to two years to comply with AB 1950, without remand to trial court]

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000789

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude the trial court abused its discretion. It failed to follow the governing statute’s directions. Its conclusion that the defendant posed an unreasonable risk to public safety, as defined by section 1001.36(c)(4), was unsupported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we issue the requested writ of mandate and direct the court to grant the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature enacted section 1001.36 to create a diversion program for criminal defendants with diagnosed mental health disorders. Diversion allows for the suspension of criminal proceedings and potential dismissal of charges upon successful completion of mental health treatment. By its terms, section 1001.36 was designed to encourage trial courts to broadly authorize pretrial mental health diversion, providing treatment for qualifying mental disorders that result in criminal behavior.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 887, 890

Second Holding:

The decision whether to grant diversion is a two-step process. First, the court determines if the defendant satisfies the eligibility requirements set forth in section 1001.36(b). Defendants are eligible if they have been diagnosed with a recognized mental disorder that was a significant factor in the commission of the criminal offense with which they are charged.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(a) – (b)

Third Holding:

Second, the court determines if the defendant is suitable for diversion under the factors set forth in section 1001.36(c). Those factors are: (1) in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s mental disorder would respond to treatment; (2) the defendant agrees to waive their speedy trial rights; (3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment requirements; and (4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as defined in sections 1170.18 and 667(e)(2)(C)(iv).

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(a) and (c)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891

Fourth Holding:

Finally, even when all eligibility and suitability factors are met, courts have discretion to deny mental health diversion. But this residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 895-896

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 888

Fifth Holding:

Our review is for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

Sixth Holding:

Under section 1170.18, the Legislature has narrowly defined an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety to mean an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv). The violent felonies encompassed in this definition are known as super strikes. The super strikes are murder, attempted murder, solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a police officer, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, any serious or violent felony punishable by death or life imprisonment, or any sexually violent offenses or sexual offense committed against minors under the age of 14.

Authority:

PEN 1170.18(c)

People v Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1150-1151

Seventh Holding:

By statute, when determining the risk of danger, t]he court may consider the opinions of the district attorney, the defense, or a qualified mental health expert, and may consider the defendant’s treatment plan, the defendant’s violence and criminal history, the current charged offense, and any other factors that the court deems appropriate. A defendant who seeks diversion is not being sentenced, so the general sentencing objectives set forth in rule 4.410 of the California Rules of Court are inapplicable.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1149

Eighth Holding:

A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.

The trial court expressed that it could not know whether the defendant was going to commit a super strike, and based on his two violent incidents from 2007 and 2010, the trial court concluded that there was a danger that there was a likelihood that the defendant could commit a super strike, thereby permitting the trial court to exercise its residual discretion to deny diversion.

But the court misunderstood what was required. The plain language of the statute requires a finding that a defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike.

The statute does not, as the trial court suggested, require a prediction that a defendant will not, in fact, commit a super strike. The correct analysis thus requires assessing probabilities; not predicting outcomes, as the trial court incorrectly understood.

These are two distinct types of inquiry. Applying the correct standard to the record before us, we conclude the evidence is insubstantial that the defendant is too dangerous to be treated in the community on the ground that he poses an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike.

A trial court abuses its discretion when the factual findings critical to its decision find no support in the evidence.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

People v. Cluff (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 998

Ninth Holding:

The only question that remains is whether further proceedings are required. We conclude they are not. The trial court found that the defendant satisfied all criteria for diversion except the public safety factor, leaving nothing further to be decided. The People do not argue otherwise. Under these circumstances, we will reverse the court’s order with directions to grant the defendant’s motion unless the People present changed circumstances that warrant rehearing.

Authority:

People v. Williams (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 990, 1005

 

Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000788

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The minor was found to have committed assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, carrying a concealed, loaded firearm, evading an officer, and resisting an officer. The juvenile court committed appellant to a Secure Youth Treatment Facility. The juvenile court lacked authority to do so. Remanded for a new disposition hearing.

First Holding:

the juvenile court lacked authority to commit him to a Secure Youth Treatment Facility (SYTF) because the most recent offense for which he was adjudicated was not a qualifying offense under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(b).

Authority:

WIC 875(a)(1)-(2)

Second Holding:

Before the enactment of section 875, our Supreme Court interpreted similar language in section 733(c). Section 733(c) prohibits a ward’s commitment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities [known also as DJJ and DJF] if the ward’s most recent offense alleged in any petition and admitted or found to be true by the court is not described in section 707(b) or Penal Code section 290.008(c).

The court held this language is clear and lends itself to only one reasonable interpretation. The phrase “most recent” describes when the minor committed the offense, not when the petition is adjudicated.

Authority:

In re D.B. (2014) 58 Cal.4th 941, 947

In re B.J. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 646, 648

Third Holding:

The Legislature used language in section 875 substantially similar to language the Supreme Court had already interpreted in section 733(c). We presume, therefore, that the Legislature intended the same construction. Now, instead of DJJ, eligible youth can be committed to a SYTF if their most recent offense is described in section 707(b).

The court did not have authority to impose a SYTF commitment because appellant’s most recently committed offenses occurred four months after the only offense that comes with section 707(b), and are not qualifying offenses. Remand is necessary to allow the court to conduct a new disposition hearing.

Authority:

WIC 875

Moran v. Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson, LLP (2007) 40 Cal.4th 780, 785

Sentencing

Case 000787

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by sentencing the defendant on a count on which the jury acquitted him.

Holding:

The defendant contends, and the People concede, that the 180-day sentence imposed for count 11 must be vacated because the jury acquitted him of that offense. We agree. The sentence imposed on count 11 is therefore unauthorized as it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. We accordingly vacate the sentence on count 11.

Authority:

People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 962

Discretion, Duty of the court, Standard of review

Case 000786

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

By shifting the burden of proof from the People to appellant, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s petition to terminate his duty to register as a sex offender.

First Holding:

Before 2021, if an offender was required to register as a sex offender, they were required to register for life. Beginning on January 1, 2021, SB 384 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) restructured the sex offender registration requirement into three tiers: tier one, registrants must register for at least 10 years; tier two, for at least 20 years; and tier three, for their lifetimes.

Authority:

PEN 290(d)

People v. Franco (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 184, 190

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 432

Second Holding:

Appellant is a tier two registrant who is required to register for at least 20 years. Provided the registrant meets certain criteria, including registering for the required minimum period, a registrant can petition the superior court to terminate the registration requirement.

Authority:

PEN 290.5(a)-(c)

Third Holding:

Upon receiving notice of a petition to terminate registration, the district attorney may object and present evidence demonstrating that community safety would be significantly enhanced by continued registration.

The prosecutor has the burden of producing evidence to establish terminating the registration requirement would considerably raise the threat to society because the defendant is currently likely to reoffend. The trial court’s task is to assess whether the People have carried their burden of producing evidence establishing that requiring continued registration appreciably increases society’s safety.

Authority:

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 433

People v. Franco (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 184, 192

Fourth Holding:

In making this determination, the trial court may consider the following seven factors: [(1)] the nature and facts of the registerable offense; (2) the age and number of victims; (3) whether any victim was a stranger at the time of the offense (known to the offender for less than 24 hours); (4) criminal and relevant noncriminal behavior before and after conviction for the registerable offense; (5) the time period during which the person has not reoffended; (6) successful completion, if any, of a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program; and (7) the person’s current risk of sexual or violent reoffense, including the person’s risk levels on SARATSO static, dynamic, and violence risk assessment instruments, if available.

The trial court may base its determination upon declarations, affidavits, police reports, or any other evidence submitted by the parties which is reliable, material, and relevant.

Authority:

PEN 290.5(a)(3)

Fifth Holding:

The standard of review applied by an appellate court reviewing a trial court’s order on a petition for termination is abuse of discretion. The showing required to establish an abuse of discretion is as follows: To establish an abuse of discretion, the defendant must demonstrate the trial court’s decision fell outside the bounds of reason, i.e., was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.

The abuse of discretion standard is not a unified standard; the deference it calls for varies according to the aspect of a trial court’s ruling under review. The trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious. A trial court abuses its discretion when its factual findings are not supported by the evidence, or its decision is based on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 433

Sixth Holding:

Section 290.5 required the prosecutor to prove that appellant was currently likely to reoffend and that community safety would be significantly enhanced by continued registration. Here, the trial court denied the petition, at least in part, due to the absence of evidence that appellant no longer posed the threat he did when he committed the registrable offenses. Doing so placed the burden on appellant, rather than on the prosecutor, to produce evidence of the current threat, if any, posed by appellant. This was error. We remand for a new hearing.

Authority:

PEN 290.5(a)(2)-(3)

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 432-433

People v. Franco (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 184, 192

Seventh Holding:

(Gary Note: The court proceeded to explain why the error was prejudicial, applying the Watson standard, based on facts specific to this defendant, and the details need not be recited in this summary.)

Authority:

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836