Monthly Archives: August 2026

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000479

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In this People’s appeal from the order of the juvenile court denying its motion to transfer the juvenile matter to adult court, the order retaining jurisdiction in juvenile court is affirmed, even though the respondent is well over 25 years of age.

First Holding:

We review the juvenile court’s ruling on a transfer motion for abuse of discretion. The court’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. A decision based on insufficient evidence or the court’s erroneous understanding of applicable law is subject to reversal. But we do not reweigh the evidence and we do not substitute our discretion for the discretion exercised by the trial court. We draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court’s findings, not against them. We are concerned only with whether the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings. When evidence reasonably justifies the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.

Authority:

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165, 169

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 187

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 211

Second Holding:

The ultimate question for the juvenile court in a transfer petition is whether a minor is amenable to rehabilitation before the juvenile court’s jurisdiction expires. To order a minor’s transfer to a court of criminal jurisdiction, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which for persons 25 years or older extends for up to two years from the date of disposition. the prosecution bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 607(d) [The court may retain jurisdiction over a person who is 25 years of age or older for a period not to exceed two years from the date of disposition if the person is found to be a person described in Section 602 by reason of the commission of an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707. The court shall exercise jurisdiction in conformance with the objectives of the juvenile court.]

WIC 707(a)(3)

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 416

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 167

Third Holding:

In making that determination, the juvenile court must consider five specific factors. The statute also sets forth a nonexhaustive list of relevant factors for the juvenile court to consider with respect to each of the five criteria. If the juvenile court orders a transfer to criminal court, it must recite the basis for its decision in an order entered upon the minutes, which shall include the reasons supporting the court’s finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(3)

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 212

Fourth Holding:

The language used in a statute or constitutional provision should be given its ordinary meaning, and if the language is clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, nor is it necessary to resort to indicia of the intent of the Legislature (in the case of a statute) or of the voters (in the case of a provision adopted by the voters). Courts generally must accord significance, if possible, to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of the legislative purpose, and a construction making some words surplusage is to be avoided.

The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible. We examine statutory language, not in isolation, but in the context of the statutory framework as a whole to discern its scope and purpose and to harmonize the various parts of the enactment.

Authority:

People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 357

Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735

Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment and Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1387

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 975

Fifth Holding:

Language in a judicial opinion is to be understood in accordance with the facts and issues before the court. An opinion is not authority for propositions not considered. Thus, a decision is authority only for the points actually involved and actually decided.

Authority:

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 154–155

People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 110

Sixth Holding:

Failure to offer reasoned analysis of an issue constitutes a waiver. When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived. The People’s failure to develop a legal analysis that is tethered to the issue they raised and is supported by relevant authority compels rejection of their claim of error. We will not develop that analysis for them.

Authority:

Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) [Each brief must state each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority]

Trinity Risk Management, LLC v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc. (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 995, 1008

Perry v. City of San Diego (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 172, 188, fn. 8 [It is not this court’s role to connect the dots]

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000478

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Before jury selection, the defendant requested mental health diversion. The trial court denied the request as untimely. This was error. The judgment is conditionally reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court to consider defendant’s application for mental health diversion under section 1001.36. If the trial court grants diversion and defendant successfully completes mental health diversion, the court shall dismiss the charges. If the court denies defendant’s application for mental health diversion, or if defendant does not successfully complete diversion, then the court shall reinstate the judgment and sentence.

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 authorizes pretrial mental health diversion for defendants with qualifying mental health disorders. The trial court must find a defendant is both eligible and suitable for diversion.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

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

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s order denying mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. 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.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448-449

Third Holding:

In a jury trial, to be timely, a request for diversion must be made before attachment of jeopardy. The defendant is deemed to have been placed in jeopardy when the jurors have been impaneled and sworn. Here, the jury had not been impaneled or sworn when defendant requested mental health diversion. The trial court abused its discretion in denying his unopposed request for mental health diversion solely on the ground that it was untimely.

Authority:

People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 819

People v. Fields (1996) 13 Cal.4th 289, 299

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000477

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 failed to conduct a full resentencing because it limited resentencing to only one of the several cases consolidated into an aggregate sentence. The defendant had been sentenced in the 1990s in two separate sentencing hearings involving multiple cases. Only one of the cases was enhanced by a now invalid prior prison term enhancement. That case made him eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75. The trial court conducted a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75 on only that single case, and declined to resentence on the others. The trial court should have conducted a full resentencing that reconsidered sentencing choices in all five cases in the late 1995 aggregate sentence.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75(a) provides thatany sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense is legally invalid. Once the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) identifies those persons currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a) to the sentencing court, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. Here, defendant’s sentence was subject to recall and resentencing because the CDCR identified his now invalid prison prior.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(b), (c)

Second Holding:

On recall of his sentence, defendant was entitled to a full resentencing that included all aspects of his aggregate sentence. 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)(2) specifies that the court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

When a sentence is subject to recall, the resentencing court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the sentence, and not just the portion subjected to the recall. Where there are multiple counts and discretionary decisions at play, the trial court may consider the entire sentencing scheme and reconsider all sentencing choices. This includes an aggregate prison term, which is not a series of separate, independent terms, but one term made up of interdependent components. The invalidity of one component infects the entire scheme.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

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

People v. Hill (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 831, 834

People v. Walker (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 198, 206

People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562, 568

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

People v. Marcus (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 201, 214

Third Holding:

Defendant’s sentence is an aggregate prison term comprised of five separate cases. Even though defendant only referenced the one of the 1995 sentences instead of both of the 1995 sentences, the trial court mistakenly believed it was limited to resentencing defendant on the narrow portion of his sentence that included the prison prior. Defendant’s sentence contains interdependent component parts from multiple cases. Therefore, the court erred by treating the portion of the sentence with the invalid prison prior as an independent, separate term, rather than an integral part of the whole and reconsidering every aspect of the sentencing scheme as required. The trial court should have conducted a full resentencing that reconsidered sentencing choices in all five cases in the later 1995 aggregate sentence.

Authority:

People v. Hill (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 831, 834

People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562, 568

People v. Marcus (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 201, 214

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000476

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The imposition of the upper term of imprisonment violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and was unauthorized under section 1170, subdivision (b) as he did not expressly waive the right as to the aggravating circumstances relied on by the sentencing court to justify imposing the upper term nor stipulate to their truth.

First Holding:

The court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only if there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the upper term. The facts underlying those aggravating circumstances must have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

Authority:

PEN 1170

Second Holding:

The Sixth Amendment entitles a defendant to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 755–767

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1086

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490 [Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.]

Third Holding:

An express waiver of a federally-derived jury trial right is required even in cases in which the circumstances make it apparent that all involved—the trial court, the prosecutor, defense counsel, and the defendant—assumed that the defendant had waived or intended to waive the right to a jury trial. That is, the right to a jury trial on aggravating circumstances, which is guaranteed by the federal constitution, may not be forfeited without an express waiver by the defendant.

Authority:

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47

Fourth Holding:

Here, appellant did not expressly waive his right to a jury trial on the aggravating circumstances and therefore has not surrendered his claim. No aggravating circumstances were pled in the complaint; as such, appellant’s plea, and his corresponding waiver of his constitutional rights, did not encompass any aggravating circumstances. A defendant does not waive his right to a jury trial on aggravating sentencing factors by pleading no contest to substantive offenses. Even if forfeiture did apply, we would nevertheless exercise our discretion to reach the issue. Such discretionary review is typical when a forfeited claim involves an important issue of constitutional law or a substantial right.

Authority:

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 50

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party]

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887, fn. 7

Fifth Holding:

We cannot determine from this record beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found every aggravating factor relied on by the trial court properly proven. Several of the factors relied on by the sentencing court were fact-specific, which a reasonable jury could disagree on. Moreover, the sentencing court relied on factual recitations in the police reports, which counsel did not stipulate to admitting into evidence for the purpose of establishing aggravating factors, and which contained hearsay. Additionally, we cannot necessarily assume that the record reflects all of the evidence that would have been presented had aggravating circumstances been submitted to the jury.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 775 [To the extent a potential aggravating circumstance at issue in a particular case rests on a somewhat vague or subjective standard, it may be difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court]

Sixth Holding:

One court has held that the rule 4.421(c) residual clause [which was relied on in part by the trial court here, and lists as a potential factor in aggravation “Any other factors statutorily declared to be circumstances in aggravation or that reasonably relate to the defendant or the circumstances under which the crime was committed” exceeds the legislative delegation in section 1170.3 and thus violates the separation of powers clause of the California Constitution. It reasoned that because the 4.421(c) residual clause specifies no criteria for its use in jury factfinding, it supplies prosecutors unrestricted authority to make fundamental policy decisions on an ad hoc basis by letting prosecutors draft aggravating factors to submit to the jury not based on any statute or rule in order to expose the defendant to increased penalty. The court held that rule 4.421(c) is no longer appropriate under the current determinate sentencing law.

Authority:

Lovelace v. Superior Court (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1099

Sentencing

Case 000475

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We remand to the trial court with directions to clarify its section 654 findings for count 3 (false imprisonment). If the trial court clarifies on remand that section 654 applies, we direct it to modify the judgment to stay the sentence for count 3 and amend the abstract of judgment accordingly. We also direct the court to correct the determination of credit for time served.

First Holding:

Section 654’s applicability is reviewable on appeal even if, as here, the issue was not raised with the trial court.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354, fn. 17

Second Holding:

Section 654(a) protects against multiple punishment where the crimes arise from either (1) the same act or omission or (2) an indivisible course of conduct united by a single intent and objective. In the absence of any reference to PC 654 during sentencing, the fact that the court did not stay the sentence on any count is generally deemed to reflect an implicit determination that each crime had a separate objective subject to substantial evidence review.

Authority:

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335

People v. Tarris (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 612, 626

Third Holding:

The court made comments suggesting a section 654 stay applied to the false imprisonment term at the original sentencing but was silent on the matter at resentencing. The trial court originally sentenced the defendant to a total prison term of more than 20 years. At the sentencing hearing, the court said it would impose and stay the middle-term sentence for count 3 (false imprisonment) primarily based on the fact that all of these facts are essentially running together, that there was some overlap with the other counts, as it viewed the false imprisonment as being somewhat encapsulated in the rape, witness intimidation, and domestic violence.

A few months later, the court recalled the sentence, believing the defendant had been given too harsh a sentence, and resentenced the defendant to nearly five years less. At that resentencing hearing, there was no mention of the applicability of section 654. In light of the uncertainty regarding what the trial court intended regarding a finding under section 654, it appears appropriate under these circumstances to remand the matter to permit the trial court to clarify.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 834, 839

Fourth Holding:

The defendant is entitled to one day additional credit, because the correct calculation must include the date of arrest. Further, it is the trial court’s responsibility to calculate all credit for time served through the date of the resentencing, and the duty cannot be delegated to the custodial facility personnel.

Authority:

eople v. Kennedy (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 385, 394

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29