Monthly Archives: August 2026

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000469

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Where on resentencing under PC 1172.75 the trial court imposed a term of 51 to life instead of the correct 45 years to life, the remedy is for the appellate court to simply modify the judgment to the correct sentence.

First Holding:

When a count is reversed or other part of the sentence is stricken, the sentencing court must, upon remand, be permitted to consider its other discretionary sentencing choices.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

When the defendant first appealed his conviction, this court ordered the sentence reduced from 51 years to life to the correct 45 years to life, as the trial court had miscalculated the term for the Three Strikes sentence. The superior court modified the sentence to 45 years to life in accordance with the remand from the first appeal. Many years later, the defendant came before the court for resentencing under section 1172.75 because his sentence had been enhancement by a now-invalid prior prison term enhancement. Hearing full argument from the defendant at the resentencing hearing, and acknowledging that the court had the authority to reduce the sentence beyond striking that invalid enhancement, it exercised its discretion not to do so. But it reimposed the original sentence of 51 years to life.

Given this, it is unlikely that a remand for full resentencing in light of the error that imposed a longer term would result in a term even shorter than the correction of 45 years to life from the incorrect 51 years to life. We can easily conclude the court “undoubtedly” would not make any choices more favorable to appellant when it is required to impose a shorter mandatory term of 45 years to life. Under the circumstances of this case, modifying the judgment, rather than remanding for full resentencing is appropriate.

Authority:

PEN 1260 [among options available to reviewing court, it may modify judgment or reduce punishment imposed]

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473 [appellate court exercised discretion to modify judgment where the court could determine the sentence that the trial court undoubtedly would have imposed]

Discretion, Elements of crime, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000468

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on the defendant’s petition for mental health diversion, and substantial evidence does not support its ineligibility finding. The court also erred by accepting a guilty to plea to conduct that is not criminal. We reverse defendant’s possession of marijuana conviction, conditionally vacate the remainder of defendant’s guilty pleas, conditionally reverse the judgment, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with section 1001.36 and this opinion.

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 authorizes pretrial diversion for criminal defendants suffering from certain recognized mental disorders. To qualify, criminal defendants must show they are both eligible and suitable for the program. A defendant accused of a qualifying offense is eligible for mental health diversion if, within the last five years, a qualified mental health expert has diagnosed the defendant with a qualifying mental health disorder that was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

A qualifying diagnosis creates a rebuttable presumption that the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense, which may only be overcome if there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating factor, casual factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. For purposes of the diversion statute, a qualified mental health expert includes, but is not limited to, a psychiatrist, psychologist, or a person whose knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education qualifies them as an expert. The statute’s plain language does not limit a qualified mental health expert to a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other medical doctor.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b), (f)

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

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

People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1138, 1141 [appellate court interprets a statute to effectuate the law’s purpose, applying a plain and commonsense meaning to the statute’s text]

Second Holding:

A substance use disorder registered counselor must complete hundreds of hours of classroom education and supervised training regarding addiction counseling, at least over 2,000 hours of work providing counseling services in an alcohol or drug program, and must pass an examination confirming their skill and ability. Under these circumstances, a substance abuse disorder registered counselor possesses the knowledge, skill, experience, training and education to make a substance use disorder diagnosis under the statute.

Authority:

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 9, sec. 13040(a)-(d)

Third Holding:

Where there has been a qualifying diagnosis, it is the People’s burden to overcome by clear and convincing evidence the statutory presumption that the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense. Here, the People did not present any evidence to support a finding that defendant’s substance use disorders were not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to his commission of the charged drug and firearm possession offenses. Argument by counsel is not evidence in the case and cannot be relied upon to support the trial court’s order.

Despite the lack of evidence, the trial court ruled, based on “common sense,” that possession for sale offenses like defendant’s could not be causally connected to a substance use disorder and that the Legislature could not have intended section 1001.36 to apply to possession of narcotics for sale cases because a vast majority of the felony cases before the court involved drugs. In essence, the trial court carved out a wholesale exception to mental health diversion for possession for sale offenses that does not appear in the plain text of the statute. This was error. It is a corollary to fundamental principles of separation of powers that courts must apply the statutes as written unless doing so would yield absurd results.

Authority:

People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485, 491

Fourth Holding:

The absence of evidence showing defendant’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses cannot satisfy the People’s burden to rebut the statutory presumption by clear and convincing evidence.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391,404 [the absence of evidence proving that a petitioner’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses is not substantial evidence supporting a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner’s mental disorder was not a factor in the commission of the offenses]

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 687-689 [By finding the statutory presumption had been overcome by the lack of indication in the police reports that the defendant was suffering from the mental disorder at the time of a robbery, the trial court improperly shifted the burden to the defendant to affirmatively prove that her mental disorder contributed to the offense.]

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s order denying mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true. 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. We presume a trial court’s order is correct and indulge all intendments and reasonable inferences to support it. Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume a trial court knew and applied the law.

Authority:

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

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042

Sixth Holding:

It was error for the court to accept the defendant’s guilty plea to an act that was not criminal. The information alleged that he was in possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. Possession of marijuana is not criminal unless it is of more than 28.5 grams. By accepting defendant’s guilty plea to conduct that is not criminal, and sentencing him for that offense, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction. Accordingly, we shall modify the judgment to vacate defendant’s conviction and sentence on that count.

Authority:

People v. Mutch (1971) 4 Cal.3d 389, 395-396, 399 [conviction for conduct not prohibited by statute is void]

People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781, 784-785 [the defendant could not have been guilty of violating Penal Code section 115 by attempting to file a forged instrument because, as a matter of law, the writing he was charged with and admitted forging, a death certificate, is not an instrument within the meaning of section 115]

Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000467

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court imposed a restitution fine of $400, believing that $400 was the minimum. The appellate court revised the judgment to impose the intended minimum restitution fine of $300.

First Holding:

The minimum restitution fine for a defendant convicted of a felony is $300.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(b)(1)

Second Holding:

We may review an asserted legal error in sentencing for the first time on appeal even if the defendant did not object in the trial court. When sentencing error does not require additional evidence, further fact finding, or further exercise of discretion, the appellate court may modify the judgment appropriately and affirm it as modified.

Authority:

People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 594

People v. Haskin (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1441

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000466

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75 a defendant serving a life term under the original Three Strikes law, the court must resentence the defendant under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 unless it finds that release would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the public as that phrase has been construed under the Reform Act.

First Holding:

The Three Strikes Reform Act and section 1172.75 may be interpreted to operate harmoniously, so that the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act may constitutionally apply at a resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75. Section 1172.75, when applied to Third Strike defendants seeking relief from their indeterminate terms under the Reform Act’s ameliorative provisions, incorporates the substantive requirements of the Reform Act, including the resentencing provisions in section 1170.126. For purposes of resentencing, section 1172.75 incorporates section 1170.126’s discretionary public safety override. Thus, a petitioner such as the defendant who is being resentenced under section 1172.75 is entitled to a full resentencing provided that he can satisfy the substantive eligibility criteria established in section 1170.126 to obtain resentencing pursuant to the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act.

Authority:

PEN 1170.126(f) [a trial court shall resentence an eligible defendant unless the court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety]

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 850, 861-862, 877

Second Holding:

If the superior court determines that resentencing the defendant pursuant to the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, the court shall reimpose an indeterminate term. If the superior court does not determine that resentencing him would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, and the defendant is otherwise eligible under the Reform Act, the court shall resentence him pursuant to the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 878

Third Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

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

Jurisdiction

Case 000465

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(Gary Note: This did not result in any relief but reminds us which appellate court has jurisdiction for  denials of petitions for a finding of factual innocence in misdemeanors or felonies or proceedings in which no accusatory pleading was filed.)

Here, the defendant appealed from a denial of his petition under PC 851.8 to seal and destroy his arrest record with a finding of factual innocence. While the court issued orders short of that finding, it did not make a finding of factual innocence. The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal found it had no jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Appellate Division of the appropriate county superior court.

First Holding:

Section 851.8(a) and (b) govern the process for requesting sealing and destruction of arrest records based on factual innocence in cases in which the person was arrested and no accusatory pleading was filed. Subdivision (a) states that the person arrested may first petition the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense to destroy its records of the arrest. Subdivision (b) provides that in any case in which the law enforcement agency denies or fails to respond to the petition, the person arrested may file a petition in superior court asking to have the records sealed and destroyed. The court may grant the petition based on a finding of factual innocence if it concludes that no reasonable cause exists to believe that the arrestee committed the offense for which the arrest was made.

Authority:

People v. O’Day (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 426, 432

Second Holding:

The appealability of orders made under section 851.8 is governed by subdivision (p), which provides: “A judgment of the court under subdivision (b), (c), (d), or (e) is subject to the following appeal path: (1) In a felony case, appeal is to the court of appeal. (2) In a misdemeanor case, or in a case in which no accusatory pleading was filed, appeal is to the appellate division of the superior court. The record does not show any accusatory pleading was filed in this case, and the pleadings in the record indicate that no charges were ever filed. Thus, no felony was charged. Accordingly, jurisdiction over this appeal belongs with the appellate division of the superior court. We therefore transfer this appeal to the Appellate Division of the [originating county] Superior Court pursuant to Government Code section 68915.

Authority:

People v. Nickerson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 33, 39–41

Third Holding:

No appeal taken to the Supreme Court or to a court of appeal shall be dismissed for the reason only that the same was not taken to the proper court, but the cause shall be transferred to the proper court upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be just, and shall be proceeded with therein, as if regularly appealed thereto.

Authority:

GOV 68915