Daily Archives: September 7, 2026

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000955

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the court should have stricken the restitution fine, as it was more than 10 years old.

Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), providing that any portion of a restitution fine under section 1465.9 not paid within 10 years must be vacated. 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.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

In re Mattison (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1066

Appellate Principles, Due process, Duty of the court, Standard of review

Case 000954

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in by using the wrong standard in ruling on the defendant’s motion to modify the verdict pursuant to Penal Code section 1181(6). We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for reconsideration of appellant’s motion to modify the verdict.

First Holding:

The defendant’s claim that the prosecution engaged in misconduct during oral argument is forfeited because there was no objection. Generally, a defendant must make a timely objection and a request that the jury be admonished to disregard the impropriety, unless the objection would have been futile or the error could not be cured by an admonition.

Authority:

People v. Aguirre (2025) 18 Cal.5th 629, 705

Second Holding:

It is true that a prosecutor may violate a defendant’s constitutional rights when the prosecutor engages in a course of conduct so egregious that it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process. The claimed misconduct here was not so egregious as to result in a denial of due process.

Authority:

Miller v. Pate (1967) 386 U.S. 1, 7 [multiple misrepresentations of fact]

Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 [withholding of exculpatory evidence]

Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [the prosecutor’s argument prejudices a specific right, such as the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination]

Third Holding:

After the jury returned the verdict, the defendant brought a motion to modify the verdict pursuant to section 1181(6) on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction for first degree murder. The defendant asked the court to review and reweigh the evidence presented at trial and modify the verdict to a finding of second-degree murder or manslaughter. The court applied the wrong standard in considering and denying the motion. It stated that had the judge been on the jury, he likely wuold have had a different decision, but he was not the jury, and he was required to honor the sanctity of the jury.

This is an inaccurate statement of the correct standard. The court conflated a sufficiency of the evidence review, in which the verdict is upheld if there is any evidence to support it, with its duty to independently determine whether the element of premeditation had been proven. Under the correct standard, in considering a motion under section 1181(6), the trial judge independently weighs the evidence, rather than applying the substantial evidence rule and determining legal sufficiency.

Authority:

People v. Veitch (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 460, 468

Fourth Holding:

Section 1181(6) provides in relevant part that the court may grant a new trial when the verdict or finding is contrary to law or evidence, but if the evidence shows the defendant to be not guilty of the degree of the crime of which he was convicted, but guilty of a lesser degree thereof, the court may modify the verdict or judgment accordingly without granting or ordering a new trial.

Authority:

PEN 1181(6)

Fifth Holding:

In considering a motion under section 1181(6), the court extends no evidentiary deference in ruling on the motion. Instead, it independently examines all the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to prove each required element beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge, who sits, in effect, as a 13th juror. It is the trial court’s function to determine independently whether it is satisfied that there is sufficient credible evidence to sustain the verdict.

Authority:

Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 133

People v. Dickens (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1254

Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000953

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in setting the maximum confinement time for the minor to life imprisonment, because it did not make a finding that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated.

First Holding:

When committing a juvenile to a secure youth treatment facility as in the case here, the court must set a maximum term of confinement. The maximum term of confinement shall not exceed the middle term of imprisonment that can be imposed upon an adult convicted of the same offense or offenses.

Authority:

WIC 975(c)(1)

Second Holding:

Attempted murder is generally punishable by five, seven or nine years in state prison. However, if the attempted murder is willful, deliberate, and premeditated, and that fact is charged in the accusatory pleading and found true by the trier of fact, the crime is punishable by life in prison with the possibility of parole.

Authority:

PEN 664(a), 190

Third Holding:

A reading of the transcript of the proceedings reveal that neither the prosecution nor the court believed that the charge contained the language invoking a life term for the conviction of attempted murder. The trial court’s statement that “the intent to kill is clear” is insufficient because the mere intent to kill is not the equivalent of a deliberate and premeditated intent to kill.

The trial court never found, whether expressly or impliedly, that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. The seven-year-to-life maximum term of confinement for count 1 is therefore unauthorized. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new disposition hearing.

(Gary note: The court did not cite additional authority for its reversal and remand order; likely, none was necessary. The court did cite Boatman, but that was on the point that intent to kill is not the equivalent of deliberated and premeditated intent to kill. Much of the court’s reasoning consisted of analysis of the comments at the disposition hearing, where the prosecution and court seemed to be under the impression that the charging document did not invoke the life term provisions, even though, in fact, the charging document did.

(But the oral pronouncements of the court strongly imply that it specifically did not conclude that the act was “willful, deliberate, and premeditated,” and that an underlying crime was planned, but the shooting was not. Hence, even though the charging document alleged it, the life term cannot be imposed/set as a maximum in the absence of a true finding on the necessary elements.)

Authority:

People v. Boatman (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1264

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000952

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in pronouncing judgment regarding custody credits. Though the court announced the actual and conduct amounts separately and correctly, the court announced an incorrect total of the two. We modify the judgment accordingly.

Holding:

the trial court awarded the defendant 98 days of actual credit and 98 days of conduct credit (sec. 4019), but made a mathematical error in announcing the defendant’s total credit as 180 days rather than 196 days. The abstract of judgment already reflects the proper total and need not be corrected, but we modify the judgment to reflect the correct total.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [judgment is the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment; an abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction and does not control if different from the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment]

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case 000951

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On remand from the Supreme Court, we reconsider our earlier decision denying relief on the defendant’s appeal from the denial of his petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6. We reverse the lower court’s denial and remand for the court to conduct a full evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6.

(Gary note: The Court of Appeal earlier had concluded that the defendant is not eligible to petition for relief under section 1172.6, because he could have raised the issue on direct appeal. The Supreme Court granted review and held it pending its opinion in People v. Lopez. Once that was decided–holding in a case with a similar procedural posture that Lopez was not ineligible despite not raising the issue on his direct appeal–it returned this case to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings consistent with the Lopez decision.)

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature passed SB 1437, effective January 1, 2019, which among other things amended the definition of felony murder in section 189. This amended felony-murder rule restricted culpability for murder to actual killers, aiders and abettors, and anyone who was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life unless the victim was a peace officer.

SB 1437 also added section 1170.95, later renumbered to section 1172.6, which allows a person convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts, if, among other things, the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder because of the changes to the law wrought by SB 1437.

SB 775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) amended section 1172.6 further to expand eligibility for resentencing to persons convicted of murder pursuant to a theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

We review the trial court’s decision at the prima facie stage de novo.

Authority:

People v. Bodely (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1193, 1200

Third Holding:

The jury instructions permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty by imputing malice to him as an accomplice rather than finding that he shared the principal’s intent and therefore independently harbored malice. The ambiguous instruction couches direct aiding and abetting liability in terms of the aider and abettor knowing the perpetrator intended to commit the crime, and the aider and abettor of implied malice murder need not intend the commission of the crime of murder. It conveyed that the defendant need only intend the commission of the perpetrator’s act, the natural and probable consequences of which are dangerous to human life, intentionally aid in the commission of that act and do so with conscious disregard for human life.

(Gary note: Presumably because the appellate court had gone through the review of the case law in the proceedings before it went up to the Supreme Court and came back down, there was little full discussion of the problem with the instruction. Powell, relied on by the court, does address the aiding and abetting issue, and Reyes (whose citation I listed below but was not cited in this opinion) approved the reasoning of Powell that, for aiding and abetting murder liability, the relevant act is the act that proximately causes death.

(The court remanded to the lower court to hold an evidentiary hearing, at which it will be determined whether the defendant can be found guilty under current law.)

Authority:

People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 714

People v. Lopez (2026) 19 Cal.5th 639, 658-668

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990-992