Monthly Archives: August 2026

Abstracts and Minutes, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000399

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is entitled to a new resentencing because the trial court failed to apply relevant provisions of The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 at his resentencing under section 1172.75.

First Holding:

Under the Three Strikes law as originally enacted in 1994, an individual convicted of any felony offense following two prior convictions for serious or violent felonies was subject to an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of no less than 25 years. The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 lessened the prescribed sentence for a third strike defendant whose current offense is not a serious or violent felony. But under the Reform Act, a defendant does not qualify for this ameliorative change if his current offense is one of several specified violations. Even if not convicted of a disqualifying offense, the ameliorative provisions of the Reform Act also do not apply in cases in which the court finds that release of the defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

People v. Conley (2016) 63 Cal.4th 646, 651, 653

Second Holding:

Where a person serving a life term under the original Three Strikes law is before the court for resentencing under section 1172.75 (under which now-invalid prior prison term enhancements must be vacated and the defendant must be fully resentenced to something no greater than the sentence just vacated), the person must be resentenced under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, unless the court finds that release of the defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as that term was contemplated in the Reform Act.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it continues to reflect the five prior prison terms that were stricken by the court under section 1172.75.

[GARY Note: No authority was cited for correcting the abstract, likely because the error and remedy are so obvious, but the there is much authority supporting such orders, such as those I have set forth below.]

Authority:

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

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

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

Immigration, Standard of review

Case: 000398

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals the denial of his motion under Penal Code section 1473.7 to vacate his 1991 drug conviction. We conclude the trial court improperly denied his motion as successive. We will reverse and remand with instructions.

First Holding:

Section 1473.7(a)(1) authorizes a person no longer in criminal custody to file a motion to vacate a conviction or sentence that is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging person’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence. A successful section 1473.7 motion requires a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, of a prejudicial error that affected the defendant’s ability to meaningfully understand the actual or potential immigration consequences of a plea. Prejudicial error means demonstrating a reasonable probability that the defendant would have rejected the plea if the defendant had correctly understood its actual or potential immigration consequences.

Authority:

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 517

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319

Second Holding:

We apply independent review to evaluate whether a defendant has demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea offer had he understood its immigration consequences. Under that standard, an appellate court exercises its independent judgment to determine whether the facts satisfy the rule of law. When the trial court’s findings derive entirely from written declarations and other documents, the trial court and the reviewing court are in the same position, and no deference is owed.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319-320

Third Holding:

Given intervening amendments to section 1473.7 between the defendant’s first and second motions, we agree with the parties that the section motion was not successive of his first. Effective January 1, 2019, Assembly Bill No. 2867 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) made it easier to retroactively challenge convictions based on an inadequate immigration advisement. Significantly, the new law eliminated the need to meet the requirements of Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 (on ineffective assistance of counsel). Section 1473.7 states that a finding of legal invalidity may, but need not, include a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the new law provides a different standard for challenging and prevailing based on immigration advisement errors, the earlier motion did not bar appellant’s later motion.

Authority:

People v. Ruiz (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 1061, 1066

Fourth Holding:

Although the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion as successive, mere judicial error does not establish bias and normally is not a proper ground for disqualification. We find nothing in the record that demonstrates actual bias or the appearance of bias. Thus, we deny the request to appoint a different judicial officer on remand.

Authority:

In re Tuilaepa (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1262, 1283

People v. LaBlanc (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1059, 108

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000397

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the true finding that the defendant suffered a prior strike, in light of the retroactivity of AB 333’s amendments to section 186.22 regarding gang criminal activity. The matter is remanded for further proceedings, which may include retrial of the prior strike allegation.

First Holding:

Any felony defined in section 1172.7(c) is a serious felony, and any serious felony is a strike under section 667 and section 1170.12. section 1172.7(c)(28) defines as a serious felony any conviction of section 186.22 and any felony enhanced under 186.22’s provisions.

Authority:

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

PEN 667(d)(1)

PEN 1170.12(b)(1)

PEN 186.22

People v. Briceno (2004) 34 Cal.4th 451, 462

Second Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature amended section 186.22 with the passage of AB 333. Among other things, AB 333 changed the elements of gang offenses and enhancements by narrowing the definitions of criminal street gang, pattern of criminal activity, and what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang. AB 333 is ameliorative legislation that applies to nonfinal judgments under the rule of Estrada.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740

Third Holding:

Where a defendant has suffered a conviction under the prior version of section 186.22, AB 333 applies to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements. Application of AB 333 in this manner does not unconstitutionally amend any ballot initiative. Thus, the current law applicable to this nonfinal proceeding includes AB 333’s redefinition of the elements of gang offenses and enhancements under section 186.22.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000396

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s petition for recall under section 1172.6 because it applied an incorrect definition of reckless indifference to human life.

First Holding:

The trial court erred in defining reckless indifference as meaning there is a foreseeable risk of death. Reckless indifference requires there be a grave or significant risk of death.

Authority:

In re Scoggins (2020) 9 Cal.5th 667, 677

Second Holding:

In criminal cases an appellate court may take into consideration the judge’s statements as a whole when they disclose an incorrect rather than a correct concept of the relevant law, embodied not merely in secondary remarks but in the court’s basic ruling. In the instant case, the trial court’s understanding of the law is set forth in the trial court’s ruling, as opposed to stray remarks. Accordingly, we will review the trial court’s presentation and application of the law of reckless indifference. Because this is a purely legal issue, we will utilize the independent standard of review.

Authority:

People v. Tessman (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1303

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 988

Third Holding:

Reckless indifference means knowingly engaging in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death. The degree of risk to human life is crucial to the analysis. There must be a significant risk of death. Awareness of no more than the foreseeable risk of death inherent in any violent felony is insufficient. Only knowingly creating a grave risk of death satisfies the statutory requirement. Participation in a garden-variety armed robbery, i.e., one in which the only factor supporting a reckless indifference finding is that a participant was armed with a gun, is insufficient without more to establish reckless indifference.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 883, 884

In re Scoggins (2020) 9 Cal.5th 667, 677

Fourth Holding:

In its ruling, the trial court asserted that recklessness is also determined by an objective standard, namely what a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation. The trial court’s presentation of the law of recklessness failed to include the requirement that there be a significant risk of death, which is a crucial part of the reckless indifference analysis. By omitting a critical part of the law, one can infer that the trial court did not have a full understanding of the meaning of reckless indifference.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 884

Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000395

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the defendant requested the court impose the minimum restitution fine and the court did not consider his ability to pay and imposed fines exceeding the statutory minimum, we reverse and remand solely for reconsideration of imposition of the fines.

First Holding:

Section 1202.4(b) requires trial courts to impose a restitution fine when a defendant is convicted of a felony unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so. For felony convictions, the required fine is not less than $300 and not more than $10,000. A defendant’s inability to pay shall not be considered a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution fine. Inability to pay may be considered only in increasing the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the minimum fine of $300. And for those defendants whose sentence includes a period of parole, the trial court must impose a parole revocation restitution fine in the same amount. The latter fine shall be suspended unless the person’s parole is revoked.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4

PEN 1202.45

Second Holding:

A trial court must conduct an ability to pay hearing before imposing a restitution fine that exceeds the statutory minimum of $300. As in Kopp, the trial court here imposed restitution and parole revocation fines exceeding $300 without conducting an ability to pay hearing. And there is no affirmative evidence indicating that the trial court knew that defendant’s ability to pay was a factor in determining the fine to be imposed. Nor did the trial court indicate that it considered counsel’s objection that the defendant could not afford to pay fines exceeding $300. The trial court only stated that counsel’s “comments are noted for the record.” Thus, we cannot conclude the trial court considered the defendant’s financial wherewithal in deciding to impose more than the minimum fine. We reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct an ability to pay hearing because the imposed fines exceeded the minimum.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1

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