Monthly Archives: August 2026

Fourth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000364

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The police violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by announcing an intent to frisk him without reasonable suspicion. The defendant revealed the presence of the weapon he was carrying only when the officer threatened to frisk him. The threatened frisk was unwarranted and required suppressing certain evidence.

First Holding:

On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we defer to the trial court’s factual findings if supported by substantial evidence but independently apply constitutional principles to those findings.

Authority:

People v. Session (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 723, 730

Second Holding:

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. An officer may briefly detain a person for investigation based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. If the officer further reasonably suspects that the person is armed and presently dangerous, the officer may also frisk him for weapons. A frisk is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly.

Authority:

Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 17, 21, 30

Third Holding:

When the suspected offense is violent or otherwise serious enough, this alone may support a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. But for lesser offenses, like unlawful possession of marijuana, more is needed. Some unusual circumstances—like a suspect’s admission that he is armed, visible signs of a concealed weapon, or suspicious movements—will typically be sufficient even on their own. Knowledge of a suspect’s recent, violent criminal history may also be enough.

Authority:

State v. Valentine (N.J. 1994) 636 A.2d 505, 509

4 LaFave, Search and Seizure (6th ed. 2025) sec. 9.6(a), fns. 57–64 [collecting cases]

People v. Bush (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1052

Fourth Holding:

Penal Code section 1538.5(m), allows a defendant who pleaded guilty to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress the evidence obtained through an allegedly unlawful search or seizure. This includes defendant’s attempt to exclude a statement, in addition to other kinds of evidence.

Authority:

People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896, fn. 6

Fifth Holding:

More mundane circumstances—like the time or location of the stop—may be insufficient on their own, or even in combination with other weak indications. For example, a frisk was not justified where the suspect (1) had no identification, (2) did not consent to a search, (3) was nervous and sweating, and (4) possessed baking powder (which could be used to dilute drugs) in a film canister. Nor was it justified during a late-night detention of robbery suspects, where the officers had no information that the robbery involved weapons and the suspects fully cooperated and made no furtive or unusual movements. Nor following a 1:30 a.m. traffic stop where the suspect had an old arrest for weapons possession.

Authority:

People v. Dickey (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 952, 956

In re Jeremiah S. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 299, 306–307

People v. Pantoja (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 483, 490–491

Abstracts and Minutes

Case: 000363

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect that the two one-year enhancements were stricken rather than stayed.

Holding:

[GARY NOTE: The court cited not authority to support its order for the correction of the abstract of judgment, but there’s law aplenty, which I’ve set out 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

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000362

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The record of conviction does not show as a matter of law that defendant is ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6 on his murder and attempted murder convictions. The jury was instructed on the natural and probable consequence doctrine, and the record does not show the jury necessarily found all elements of murder and attempted murder under current law. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition.

First Holding:

SB 1437, effective in 2019, the Legislature amended sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code to eliminate natural and probable consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting, and to limit the scope of the felony-murder rule. Amended section 188 provides that except as stated in the amended section 189 governing felony murder, in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought. Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime. The bill also added what is now section 1172.6, which creates a procedure for convicted murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief. Relief is potentially available for a person convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime, attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or manslaughter .

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 1172.6

People v. Lee (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1164, 1173

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957

Second Holding:

The section 1172.6 petitioning process begins with the filing of a petition containing a declaration that all requirements for eligibility are met, including that the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to section 188 or 189 . If the petition and record in the case establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief, the trial court may dismiss the petition. A defendant who petitions for resentencing under section 1172.6 is ineligible for resentencing only if the record conclusively establishes every element of the offense. In making that determination a court may give effect to a jury’s factual finding. If the petition survives the prima facie stage, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing at which the People bear the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder or attempted murder under California law as amended by SB 1437.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6.

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 724

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 463, 465

Third Holding:

Under the jury instructions given at defendant’s trial, the defendant could have been found guilty even if not the slayer, because there was a second person who was the slayer. Additionally, the finding defendant personally discharged a firearm and proximately caused great bodily injury and death does not establish the defendant intended to kill or was aware of the danger to life that his act posed. In sum, the jury verdict does not show as a matter of law defendant harbored malice aforethought. Under the trial court’s instructions, the jury could instead have concluded defendant aided and abetted an assault with a firearm the natural and probable consequences of which was murder. Thus, the entire record of conviction does not foreclose that defendant was convicted based on a now invalid theory of murder.

Authority:

People v. Offley (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 588, 598

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 463, 465

Fourth Holding:

Under current law, attempted murder requires intent to kill. We cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that the record of conviction shows defendant harbored intent to kill. The jury finding that the attempted murder was committed willfully and with premeditation and deliberation shows only that the slayer harbored this mental state. The jury does not further identify the slayer. Additionally, the fact defendant intended to discharge a firearm does not show the defendant harbored a particular mental state.

Authority:

People v. Morales (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1120, 1132

People v. Offley (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 588, 598 [explaining that section 12022.53(d) provides that the defendant must have intended to discharge a firearm, but does not refer to an intent to achieve any additional consequence.]

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing

Case: 000361

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After the trial court denied the defendant’s request at the section 1172.75 resentencing hearing to resentence him on one of his nonserious felony counts under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (thus reducing his Three Strikes sentence of 25 years to life on that count to a doubled determinate term), the Supreme Court concluded that the Reform Act does apply, subject to the finding of unreasonable risk to public safety. The matter is remanded for resentencing consideration accordingly.

First Holding:

As a matter of constitutional avoidance, section 1172.75 incorporates section 1170.126’s discretionary public safety override as a condition for nonserious, nonviolent third strike offenders to obtain resentencing under the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act. The case must be remanded for the superior court to determine whether sentencing the defendant under the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. If it is so determined, the superior court must reimpose the indeterminate term. If the superior court does not determine that resentencing the defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, and the defendant is otherwise eligible under the Reform Act, the court shall resentence the defendant pursuant to the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

The superior court did not have the benefit of Guevara, meaning that it was not fully aware of the scope of its discretionary powers when it resentenced the defendant. We remand for resentencing because the record does not clearly indicate that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 425

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000360

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After the trial court denied the defendant’s request at the section 1172.75 resentencing hearing to resentence him under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (thus reducing his Three Strikes sentence of 25 years to life to a doubled determinate term), the Supreme Court concluded that the Reform Act does apply, subject to the finding of unreasonable risk to public safety. The matter is remanded for resentencing consideration accordingly.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 incorporates section 1170.126’s discretionary public safety override as a condition for nonserious, nonviolent third strike offenders to obtain resentencing under the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act. Because section 1172.75 and section 1170.126, thus interpreted, operate harmoniously, the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act may constitutionally apply at a resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

It is unclear from the record as originally filed how the section 1172.75 proceedings had been initiated. Section 1172.75 does not authorize a defendant to seek resentencing on his or her own motion or petition. Rather the process is triggered by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR] identifying a defendant as a person serving a sentence that includes a prior prison term enhancement. On our own motion, we took judicial notice of a CDCR list, which identifies individuals potentially eligible for section 1172.75 relief; defendant’s name appears on that list.

Authority:

People v. Cota (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 318, 332

People v. Newell (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 265, 268

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 382 [Lower and appellate courts lack jurisdiction over a request for section 1172.75 relief brought solely by a defendant)

Third Holding:

Construing the discretionary public safety determination of section 1170.126 as applicable at a section 1172.75 resentencing maintains the integrity of both statutes, such that the two may stand together. The legislative history suggests the voters understood that where a court conducting a resentencing inquiry for Third Strike defendants serving an indeterminate term found relief would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, the defendant would not be entitled to resentencing. Interpreting section 1172.75 as incorporating the discretionary public safety determination of section 1170.126 would honor this concern and thus eliminate constitutional doubt.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 865-866

Fourth Holding:

In exercising this discretion, the voters established that the resentencing court may consider: (1) The petitioner’s criminal conviction history, including the type of crimes committed, the extent of injury to victims, the length of prior prison commitments, and the remoteness of the crimes; (2) The petitioner’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated; and (3) Any other evidence the court, within its discretion, determines to be relevant in deciding whether a new sentence would result in an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 866, fn. 9

Fifth Holding:

The resentencing court is not bound by the prior dangerousness determination associated with the defendant’s section 1170.126 petition. Rather, section 1172.75 requires that the resentencing court makes a new determination as to whether a defendant’s resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety’ as of the present day. A prior finding that a particular defendant poses a risk to public safety under section 1170.126(f) is unquestionably relevant, and will no doubt be given consideration by a court subsequently resolving a resentencing under section 1172.75 involving an indeterminate Three Strikes sentence.

However, given significant passage of time, it is possible that a defendant who once presented a threat to public safety may no longer do so. For instance, not only may defendants present evidence that they have significantly rehabilitated since a prior section 1170.126 proceeding, but serious illness or advanced age may have substantially reduced the danger to public safety they once posed. Realistically assessing such changed circumstances is appropriately left to the trial court on remand.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 878, fn. 17