Monthly Archives: August 2026

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000303

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the trial court to determine that one of the prior serious felony convictions qualified as a strike under the Three Strikes law and for enhancement as a prior serious felony, because AB 333 amended the elements of the crime under section 186.22, and the acts constituting the crime were tried under the former version. The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions that the People be allowed to elect whether to retry appellant, under current law, on the strike and the prior serious felony enhancement. We also remand the matter for a full resentencing.

First Holding:

Current law governs whether defendants prior convictions would also constitute a felony violation of section 186.22 for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements. The current law includes Assembly Bill 333’s redefinition of the elements of gang offenses and enhancements under section 186.22. Thus, Assembly Bill 333 applies to the determination of whether a prior conviction qualifies as a serious or violent felony under section 192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements. There is no indication that defendants’ prior convictions were obtained under Assembly Bill 333’s more stringent requirements. The appropriate remedy is reversal of the findings on these enhancements for retrial under the correct law.

Authority:

AB 333

PEN 186.22

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

PEN 667

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 607-608

Second 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

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000302

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendants are entitled to retrial on the counts for active participation in a criminal street gang in light of AB 333’s retroactive changes to section 186.22. It was error to order Defendant’s 2 and 3 to be jointly responsible for the funeral expenses of the victim killed by Defendant 1. In addition there were several errors in Defendant 1’s consolidated abstract of judgment that need correction.

First Holding:

During the appeal, the Legislature amended section 186.22’s defendant of a criminal street gang. It narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons; it requires that the pattern of criminal activity foundational to a criminal street gang have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang; it also imposed further requirements limiting the offenses on which a pattern of criminal gang activity could be predicated; and it required that for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, any common benefit be more than reputational.

Authority:

AB 333

PEN 186.22

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

Second Holding:

The ameliorative amendments apply retroactively to all cases not yet final as of its effective date.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

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

Third Holding:

The trial court instructed the jury on the then-applicable definition of a criminal street gang, omitting several of the requirements that have now been imposed by AB 333. The jury instruction thus relieved the prosecution of its burden to prove all elements of the crime as now defined.

Authority:

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 742

Fourth Holding:

We apply the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard articulated in Chapman. When a jury instruction has omitted an element of an offense, our task is to determine whether the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the omitted element. The question is not whether there is evidence in the record that would support a jury finding of the missing element, but whether we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same had the jury been instructed on the missing element.

Authority:

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 742-743

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 449

Fifth Holding:

All three defendants will be entitled to a full resentencing upon remand, independent of the prosecution’s election whether to pursue the gang charge or enhancements on remand. The full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant.

Authority:

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

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424–425

Sixth Holding:

We observe, however, that neither Defendant 2 nor Defendant 3 can be ordered to pay restitution for any losses attributable to Defendant 1’s murder of the deceased. Neither of them were charged with any offense involving the deceased, and nothing in the evidence before the jury or the court at sentencing implicated them in his murder. It was accordingly error to make them jointly and severally liable for the deceased’s funeral expenses.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f) [authorizing restitution where a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct]

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [unauthorized sentence cannot be lawfully imposed]

Seventh Holding:

Defendant 1’s consolidated abstract of judgment requires correction. First, in case number A, the abstract of judgment erroneously lists as stayed count 2’s multiple-murder special circumstance when the trial court vacated this finding. In case number B, Defendant 1’s conviction for assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of section 245(a)(4) is described on the abstract as “Asslt w/deadly wpn/force likely to prod GBI.” We agree that an amended abstract should be reworded to avoid confusion between assault with a deadly weapon (sec. 245(a)(1), (2), or (3))—a serious felony under section 1192.7—and assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (sec. 245(a)(4)).

(GARY NOTE–the appellate court did not cite case authority for the correction of the abstract, but it is abundantly clear the court has that authority. I have set forth some below)

Authority:

PEN 1192.7(c) [listing serious felonies]

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1065

[on correction of abstracts]

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000301

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though affirming the trial court’s reimposition of the original sentence (minus the now-invalid enhancements for prior prison terms), it remanded the matter to the trial court to expressly state which fines and fees it was imposing, as it was not clear from the record.

First Holding:

The abstract of judgment lists several fines and fees, some of which are mandatory. The trial court, however, imposed only direct restitution (which is also listed in the abstract). A superior court’s failure to orally impose mandatory fines or assessments results in an unauthorized sentence that the appellate court may correct on appeal. But we do not believe the superior court sufficiently addressed ability to pay. It mentioned ability to pay only in the context of the direct restitution. It sidestepped the issue of ability to pay, treating it as irrelevant to the issue of direct victim restitution. As the court did not orally impose any additional fines or fees, the defendant had no meaningful opportunity to raise his ability to pay with respect to them.

Authority:

People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1153–1157

People v. Pack-Ramirez (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 851, 859 [ability-to-pay principles have not been extended to a victim restitution payment under section 1202.4(f)]

People v. Abrahamian (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 314, 338

People v. Evans (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 771, 777

Second Holding:

By statute, restitution fines and probation restitution fines under section 1202.4(b) and section 1202.45 that exceed the $300 minimum shall account for ability to pay. And because of equal protection principles, a court must consider ability to pay before imposing ancillary assessments under section 1465.8(a)(1) and Government Code section 70373. As to the remaining fine in the defendant’s case, under section 1202.5, the parties do not dispute the fine must be set with ability to pay in mind, but is mandatory if affordable. Given this, we will order a limited remand for the superior court to consider the mandatory fines and assessments omitted from its oral sentencing pronouncements in connection with defendant’s ability to pay.

Authority:

PEN 1202.5

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 30

Third Holding:

Regarding restitution fines, section 1465.9 has recently been amended to provide that, upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to Section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated. At least one Court of Appeal has held a court conducting a section 1172.75 resentencing cannot reimpose a restitution fine that is more than 10 years old and has held, instead, the fine should be stricken. As no restitution fine has been properly imposed, we are in no position to consider striking it, and the superior court can consider these developments on remand.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 601, review granted Mar. 11, 2026, S295038

Fourth Holding:

Walker approved Court of Appeal decisions that viewed section 1385 as calling for holistic balancing with special emphasis on the enumerated mitigating factors. Gonzalez did not create a new rule of law, but rather corrected a superior court’s misunderstanding regarding the term endangerment to public safety in section 1385(c)(2). The statute defines the term as a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others, which does not contemplate a laser-like focus on dangerousness at the time of sentencing. The superior court in Gonzalez had expressly limited its consideration to the defendant’s current dangerousness despite the call of the statute, a mistake not present here.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)(2)

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1036

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 228

Fifth Holding:

We need not, and typically do not, address arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.

Authority:

People v. Dunn (2025) 18 Cal.5th 129, 183, fn. 13

People v. Adir Internat., LLC (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 275, 298

Defenses, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000300

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We order the protective order modified to strike [person x] as a protected person. We reject the defendant’s claim that the trial erred in not sua sponte instruction on the defense of unconsciousness.

First Holding:

Unconsciousness, if not induced by voluntary intoxication, is a complete defense to a criminal charge. For purposes of the defense, unconsciousness need not rise to the level of coma or inability to walk or perform manual movements; it can exist where the subject physically acts but is not, at the time, conscious of acting. The law presumes that a person who appears to be acting in a state of consciousness is conscious. Accordingly, the burden is on a criminal defendant to produce evidence rebutting this presumption of consciousness. If a defendant produces substantial evidence that he or she was unconscious, the trial court is obligated to instruct the jury on the theory; the failure to do so is error. In this case, the defendant did not rebut the presumption of his consciousness, and it was therefore not error for the trial court to fail to instruct the jury on unconsciousness sua sponte.

Authority:

PEN 26

People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 417

People v. James (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 794, 804

Second Holding:

Unconsciousness caused by voluntary intoxication may negate specific intent, but it is not a defense to a general intent crime. Assault with a deadly weapon is a general intent crime. Reckless evasion of a peace officer is a specific intent crime.

Authority:

People v. James (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 794, 805

People v. Rocha (1971) 3 Cal.3d 893, 899

People v. Williams (2001) 26 Cal.4th 779, 788

People v. Taylor (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1195, 1203-1206

Third Holding:

We review de novo whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury.

Authority:

People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 78

Fourth Holding:

A case is not authority for propositions not considered.

Authority:

People v. Chavez (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 477, 480

Fifth Holding:

Where a defendant is convicted of certain defined crimes of domestic violence, the trial may issue a protective order restraining the defendant from any contact with a victim of the crime. Such orders are limited to defendants convicted of crimes that qualify as domestic violence and where the protected person qualifies as a victim of said crimes. The trial court does not have authority to restrain a defendant from contacting a person who was not present during or otherwise suffered harm from the crime.

For instance, a protective order covering children who were present but asleep during a domestic violence incident was found to be improper in Lopez. With respect to the issuance of a legally authorized criminal protective order, we imply all findings necessary to support the judgment, and our review is limited to whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support these implied findings.

The record here contains no substantial evidence from which the trial court reasonably could conclude that [person x] was a victim of the crime subject to protection under section 136.2(i)(1).

Authority:

PEN 136.2,(i)(1)

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 237

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 648

People v. Race (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 211, 217

People v. Delarosarauda (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 205, 212 [absent evidence from which the trial court could reasonably conclude that appellant had harmed or attempted to harm two children, the court lacked authority to issue the no-contact protective order as to the children]

Fines and fees, Jurisdiction, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case: 000299

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On revoking probation, the court added an additional restitution fine to the original restitution fine and modified an eight-month consecutive term to an eight-month concurrent term in the same case, and then a 16-month concurrent term in a second case. On notice from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that the 8-month concurrent term was unauthorized because the the one-third of the middle term clculation applies only to consecutive terms. The trial court then converted the eight-month concurrent term to 16 months concurrent. The second restitution fine was unauthorized and must be stricken. The court had no authority to change the original eight-month consecutive term to either a concurrent eight-month term or a sixteen-month concurrent term, because at the time probation was granted, the court imposed a sentence (two years on the principal count and eight months on the subordinate offense) in that case, with execution suspended pending successful completion of probation. The matter is remanded for resentencing.

First Holding:

A restitution fine imposed at the time probation is granted survives the revocation of probation. Because of this, an additional restitution fine imposed at the time probation is revoked is unauthorized and must be stricken from the judgment.

Authority:

People v. Urke (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 766, 779

People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819

Second Holding:

There is a distinction between a probation grant in which imposition of sentence has been suspended (meaning, no sentence has been declared) and one where sentence has been imposed (meaning, a term has been specified) with the execution of that term suspended during the term of probation. In the former (imposition of sentence suspended), on revocation the court is free to choose whatever sentence options were available had probation never been granted. In the latter, the only choices are to reinstate probation or to revoke probation and order the previously imposed sentence executed.

Authority:

PEN 1203.2(c)

People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081

People v. Scott (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1415, 1424

Third Holding:

The letter from CDCR did not constitute a recommendation for recall of the sentence and resentencing under section 1170.1 that the sentence be modified. It was merely a letter seeking clarification on whether a lawful sentence had been imposed. Thus, the court could not base its resentencing on a response to the notice contemplated by section 1170.1.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 986-987

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 791–792

Fourth Holding:

When the parties negotiate a plea agreement that grants probation incorporating and conditioned upon the service of a specified term in custody, the resulting term of incarceration constitutes a material term of, the parties’ agreement. As such, the term is not subject to subsequent modification without the consent of both parties, and cannot be altered solely on the basis of the trial court’s general statutory authority to modify probation during the probationary period. Further, a plea agreement requiring an unauthorized sentence is not enforceable. On the other hand, once the court approves a plea bargain, it cannot change the agreement without the consent of the parties. When a guilty plea is invalidated the parties are generally restored to the positions they occupied before the plea bargain was entered.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 931, 935

In re Daniel M. Williams (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 936, 945 [the trial court cannot approve a plea bargain that calls for an unlawful sentence]

People v. Aragon (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 749, 756–757

People v. Baries (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 313, 319 [The concurrent sentence was unauthorized and could not have been lawfully imposed. It must be vacated, and the trial court must give the defendant, if she chooses, the opportunity to withdraw her plea since it cannot be honored.]

People v. Griffin (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1119