Monthly Archives: August 2026

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000509

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Three counts of conviction of section 220 were but one crime, and could give rise to only a single conviction.

First Holding:

Section 954 authorizes multiple convictions for different or distinct offenses, but does not permit multiple convictions for a different statement of the same offense when it is based on the same act or course of conduct. Whether multiple convictions are proper under section 954 requires our independent evaluation of the statutes at issue.

Authority:

PEN 954

People v. Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632, 650

People v. Aguayo (2022) 13 Cal.5th 974, 979, 994 fn. 8 [we confirm that the same course of conduct may not form the basis of separate convictions for the same offense]

People v. Rodriguez (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 921, 936

Second Holding:

The jury convicted the defendant of three violations of section 220(a)(1). The charging information and verdict forms for each section 220 violation did not identify separate assaultive acts. Nor did the jury instruction on the crimes. It grouped the three assault charges together, did not require multiple actus rei, and only potentially differentiated between the charges based on the intended sex crime. The jurors, evaluating the evidence, could have reasonably assigned the same act or acts to all three offenses.

Authority:

People v. Aguayo (2022) 13 Cal.5th 974, 982–993 [finding assault with a deadly weapon and force-likely assault different statements of the same offense under section 954]

People v. Frank (1865) 28 Cal. 507, 513 [enumerated series of acts in a single statutory provision constitute but one and the same offense]

People v. Thompson (1896) 111 Cal. 242, 247–250 [same, even when a single statutory provision referenced multiple intents]

AppellateAdvisor Updates

Case 000508

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We agree with the defendant that the court applied an incorrect legal standard when it decided the Romero motion, so we vacate her sentence and remand for the court to reconsider the Romero motion. The court erroneously believed it did not have discretion to dismiss the strike unless mental illness played a substantial part in the crime. The matter is remanded with directions to reconsider the Romero motion and then to resentence the defendant.

First Holding:

Section 1385(a) gives trial courts discretion to strike prior felony conviction allegations in furtherance of justice. The length of the defendant’s sentence is the overarching consideration because the underlying purpose of striking prior strikes is the avoidance of unjust sentences. The court must consider whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of the defendant’s present offense and prior strikes, and the particulars of their background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the spirit of the three strikes law in whole or in part.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 530

People v. Garcia (1999) 20 Cal.4th 490, 500

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161

Second Holding:

We review the ruling on a Romero motion for abuse of discretion. The court abuses its discretion if the record affirmatively shows that the court misunderstood the scope of its discretion or applied the wrong legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376

People v. Lua (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1004, 1020

Third Holding:

The court applied the wrong legal standard when it reasoned that if the defendant’s actions were “due to drugs and alcohol, then that is not a DSM-4 or 5, and the Court is not allowed to strike the strikes.” A person’s drug or alcohol use relates to their background, and whether they were under the influence when they committed an offense relates to the nature and circumstances of the offense.

The defendant’s background and the nature and circumstances of the prior offense are mandatory considerations, according to our Supreme Court. Moreover, a defendant’s substance abuse may be a mitigating factor that supports dismissing the prior strike, regardless of whether there is a mental health diagnosis under the DSM. The court therefore applied an incorrect legal standard and misunderstood the scope of its discretion when it concluded that it was not allowed to dismiss the strikes because they resulted from the defendant’s drug or alcohol use.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161 [courts must consider the nature and circumstances of the prior strike offenses, as well as the defendant’s background, character, and prospects]

People v. Garcia (1999) 20 Cal.4th 490, 494, 503

People v. Avila (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1134, 1143-1144

Fourth Holding:

Moreover, under the information available in the record, there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result but for the court’s error.

Authority:

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

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000507

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was entitled to full resentencing under section 1172.75, even though the now-invalid prior prison enhancement was stayed at the original sentencing.

First Holding:

When a prior conviction pursuant to section 667.5(b) is stricken pursuant to the procedures in section 1172.75, a defendant is entitled to full resentencing under section 1172.75(d).

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

The failure of the People to raise the issue in the trial court forfeits the issue on appeal. The reason for the forfeitur] rule is that it is both unfair and inefficient to permit a claim of error on appeal that, if timely brought to the attention of the trial court, could have been easily corrected or avoided. The forfeiture rule ensures that the opposing party is given an opportunity to address the objection, and it prevents a party from engaging in gamesmanship by choosing not to object, awaiting the outcome, and then claiming error.

Authority:

People v. Sperling (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1101

People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 433-434

Third Holding:

If the appellate court’s order upon remand requires correction as to one part of a sentence but the remand order limits the scope of resentencing, the trial court must adhere to the limits set forth in the remand order. At the hearing upon remand, the trial court addressed only the section 667(a), prior convictions as directed by disposition in the Opinion. While the trial court could have addressed the section 667.5(b) priors and the stayed sentences at that time of remand based on a change of the law, it did not do so and was never asked to consider resentencing on the prior prison terms.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 198, 205

People v. Hargis (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 199, 205-207 [where a change in the law becomes effective after the appellate court’s opinion but before the hearing on the limited remand, the trial court could consider the new law despite the limited remand]

Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Pleading

Case 000506

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Under a convoluted set of circumstances, misdemeanors were alleged in the information that were not shown at the preliminary examination. Conviction on those misdemeanors was reversed.

First Holding:

Section 1009 provides that an indictment or accusation cannot be amended so as to change the offense charged, nor an information so as to charge an offense not shown by the evidence taken at the preliminary examination. No distinction is made between felony offenses and misdemeanor offenses.

Thus, misdemeanors included in an information must be supported by a showing of probable cause at the preliminary hearing. If not, an amendment that results in a conviction of the erroneously added offense is reversible error. Permitting the two misdemeanor counts to proceed to trial as part of a felony information without having been shown at the preliminary hearing was error and requires the reversal of the convictions for counts 1 and 2.

Authority:

PEN 1009

People v. Griffith (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 943, 951

People v. Dominguez (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 858, 867–868 [conviction of improperly added charges is unquestionably prejudicial]

Second Holding:

Both parties agree that the defendant forfeited his claim on appeal by failing to object to the improper amendment before trial, but both ask us to consider the merits to avoid a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We agree the claim was forfeited but exercise our discretion to decide the impact of the errant amendment.

Authority:

People v. Burnett (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 151, 179, 181 [concluding the issue of prosecution for an offense not shown at the preliminary hearing was waived but reversing for prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object with specificity because a superior court lacks authority to try a defendant for a felony charged by information with an offense not previously subjected to a preliminary hearing]

People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593 [neither forfeiture nor application of the forfeiture rule is automatic, and appellate courts have discretion to review otherwise forfeited challenges]

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000505

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the defendant’s sentence, and we remand for the trial court to hold a new sentencing hearing, at which it shall consider whether to exercise its discretion under section 1385 to dismiss the one-year enhancement it imposed under section 12022(b)(1).

First Holding:

During the sentencing of the defendant for second degree murder in which it was found true that he used a knife, the court stated it had no discretion to dismiss the enhancement allegation. Section 1385 governs a trial court’s discretion to dismiss an enhancement. Specifically section 1385(c)(1) states that the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute. In exercising its discretion, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present. Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.

Under section 1385(a), if the court does not find that dismissal would endanger public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.) One enumerated mitigating circumstance is that the current offense is connected to mental illness. The defendant identifies that circumstance as potentially applicable here in light of information developed during the mental competency proceedings in this matter.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1029

Second Holding:

The record establishes the trial court was not aware of its discretion under section 1385 to dismiss the weapon enhancement. Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court. A court that is not aware 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. Where the trial court was not aware of its discretion to dismiss a sentencing allegation under section 1385, it abuses its discretion. We accordingly conclude the trial court abused its discretion because it was not aware of its discretion to dismiss the weapon enhancement.

Authority:

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

Nazir v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 478, 490

Third Holding:

When a court has not exercised its informed discretion, remand is the default 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. Here, we find no indication in the record as to how the trial court would have exercised its discretion had it known it had the discretion to dismiss the enhancement. We will therefore remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion under section 1385 regarding the weapon enhancement imposed under section 12022(b)(1).

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 431