Daily Archives: September 11, 2026

Duty of counsel, Duty of the court, Immigration, Plea bargains, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000994

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea conviction under section 1473.7, because the defendant demonstrated entitlement to relief.

First Holding:

In response to the absence of a legal remedy for individuals who are no longer in custody but find themselves facing unanticipated immigration consequences resulting from a guilty or no contest plea entered years earlier, the Legislature added section 1473.7 to the Penal Code, effective January 1, 2017. The statute was subsequently amended to broaden eligibility for relief beyond the entry of a plea.

In relevant part, the statute now provides that individuals may file a motion for relief from a conviction or sentence on the basis that the conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence. Relief is not contingent upon establishing ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7(a)

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 522-523

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 12-13

Second Holding:

A defendant must satisfy three statutory requirements to be eligible to seek relief from a legally invalid conviction or sentence under section 1473.7(a)(1). The movant must show he is no longer in criminal custody, and the conviction or sentence being challenged is currently causing or has the potential to cause removal or the denial of an application for an immigration benefit, lawful status, or naturalization. The motion must also be timely.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 13

Third Holding:

To prevail under section 1473.7, a defendant must demonstrate that his conviction is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging his or her ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence.

The defendant must first show that he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea.

Next, the defendant must show that his misunderstanding constituted prejudicial error.

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

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529

Fourth Holding:

We evaluate prejudicial error under the totality of the circumstances.

Factors particularly relevant to this inquiry include the defendant’s ties to the United States, the importance the defendant placed on avoiding deportation, the defendant’s priorities in seeking a plea bargain, and whether the defendant had reason to believe an immigration-neutral negotiated disposition was possible.

The defendant’s probability of obtaining a more favorable outcome if he had rejected the plea and the difference between the bargained-for term and the likely term if he were convicted at trial are also relevant.

These factors are not exhaustive, and no single type of evidence is a prerequisite to relief.

A defendant must provide objective evidence to corroborate factual assertions. Objective evidence includes facts provided by declarations, contemporaneous documentation of the defendant’s immigration concerns or interactions with counsel, and evidence of the charges the defendant faced.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 320-321

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529-530

People v. Martinez (2013) 57 Cal.4th 555, 564

Lee v. United States (2017) 582 U.S. 357, 358

Fifth Holding:

On appeal, 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.

We exercise independent judgment to determine whether the facts satisfy the rule of law, and defer to the trial court’s factual determinations if they are based on the credibility of witnesses the superior court heard and observed.

However, when, as in this case, 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

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 527-528

Sixth Holding:

The focus of this inquiry is the defendant’s own error. Thus, the key is the mindset of the defendant and not what an objectively reasonable person would have understood under the circumstances.

The defendant is the only one with direct access to his state of mind, but a defendant’s assertion as to his or her state of mind is not accepted at face value by courts evaluating a section 1473.7 motion. Such assertions must be corroborated with objective evidence.

A party seeking relief under section 1473.7 is not required to provide the declaration of plea counsel.

Authority:

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 16-17

People v. Mejia (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 859, 871

People v. Alatorre (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 747, 769

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 325

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 962

Seventh Holding:

The standard section 1016.5 advisement—given to all criminal defendants in California who plead guilty to any offense other than an infraction—that his or her criminal conviction may have adverse immigration consequences does not bar a defendant from seeking relief from his plea on grounds of mistake or ignorance based on immigration consequences. Thus, the fact the superior court advised defendant pursuant to section 1016.5 does not resolve the matter against defendant.

Authority:

People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 889, 895

People v. Lopez (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 561, 577-578

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

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 962

Eighth Holding:

Prior to Padilla, there was no Sixth Amendment obligation on the part of defense counsel to affirmatively advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of a conviction. Rather, most courts had determined that no such duty existed.

As a general rule, a failure to anticipate changes in the law is not considered ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Gary note:  I think we all know what the court means by “Prior to Padilla, there was no Sixth Amendment obligation ….”  But I think a more accurate statement would be something like, “Padilla was the first pronouncement by the United States Supreme Court recognizing that the Sixth Amendment places an obligation on the part of defense counsel to ….”  The Sixth Amendment was certainly not amended to add any provision generating a new obligation.  The Sixth Amendment has been around for centuries, unchanged.  It was only its import that hadn’t been seen in the past, at least by the High Court.

(The court’s phrasing as I’ve set out in the Ninth Holding tracks what I’m saying.

(I mention this because I think sometimes it is important to argue that something is NOT new law, and that it has BEEN the law all along, notwithstanding that it had not previously been understood to be the law.  Why is that important?  It can make the difference in whether a court recognizes that your client’s rights were violated, even though it was only through a later appellate analysis that the nature of the violation was discovered.  We don’t want the court to assume that, because no court had seen it before, your client is not entitled to its benefit.

(There have been decisions, of course, that decline to revisit cases where, had the law been understood at the time, there would have been a different result.  But that is generally related to the principle of finality of judgment and the jurisdiction of the court to act on the case.  While not directly the same, think of the Estrada presumption of retroactivity of ameliorative changes in the law to those whose judgments are not final, in the absence of clear intent that the change was to be applied prospectively only.  

(Just sayin’.

(Of course, with respect to Padilla, the practical effect is that yes, the Sixth Amendment imposes the obligation on the attorney to provide the advice, but the failure to do so prior to Padilla is not tantamount to ineffective assistance of counsel as that principle has been described in the past.  As the court in this case said, relying on In re Grinder, “As a general rule, a failure to anticipate changes in the law is not considered ineffective assistance of counsel.”

(Was there a change in the law?  Or simply a change in the understanding of the Sixth Amendment?  Of course, the opposition might argue that court pronouncements dictate what is the law, and therefore they represent the law, and thererfore it wasn’t until Padilla that the Sixth Amendment created the obligation.  An interesting debate, or not, but for another time.)  

Authority:

Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356

Chaidez v. United States (2013) 568 U.S. 342, 353

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 17

In re Grinder (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 845, 872

Ninth Holding:

Here, defendant entered his plea 15 years before the United States Supreme Court held in Padilla that the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to provide affirmative and competent advice to noncitizen defendants regarding the potential immigration consequences of their criminal cases. As such, defendant’s attestation that his attorney did not advise him about the immigration consequences of his plea is consistent with the state of the law at that time.

(Gary note: The appellate court examined and analyzed extensively many facts in the record from which it concluded that, based primarily on the principles I have extracted in this summary, the defendant was entitled to relief because his plea was not entered knowingly and intelligently within the contemplation of section 1473.7. I have omitted those details, some of which included citations to other cases apparently relevant to those details. Since this was an unpublished decision and cannot be cited for comparison, and since this is supposed to be a summary and not a copy of the entire decision, I have to stop about here.)

Authority:

PEN 1016.2

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 18

People v. Rodriguez (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 301, 307–312

 

Duty of the court, Jury trial, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000993

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court failed to properly advise the defendant of his right to a jury trial on certain aggravating factors, and that his admissions to those factors were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Accordingly, we vacate appellant’s sentence and remand the matter for a full resentencing.

Before the matter was submitted to the jury, appellant admitted the allegations of circumstances in aggravation under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2) through (5). During the admission colloquy, the trial court advised appellant that he only had the right to a court trial on the truth of the allegations. We agree with the defendant that this advisement was incorrect, and that the record does not establish that his admissions were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

The factors in question under rule 4.421(b) are, in essence:
(2) The defendant’s prior convictions are numerous and of increasing seriousness;
(3) The defendant has served prior terms in prison;
(4) The defendant was on probation or parole when he committed the alleged offenses; and
(5) The defendant’s prior performance on probation and parole was unsatisfactory.

First Holding:

A criminal defendant has the right to a jury trial on the facts underlying aggravating factors used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence under section 1170(b). That right is not merely a state law entitlement, but is constitutionally required for all aggravating facts.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 757

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078

Second Holding:

Section 1170(b)(3) provides a limited exception for prior convictions, permitting the court to consider them based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Our Supreme Court has clarified, however, that the exception is narrowly limited to the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements.

Applying this principle, Wiley held that jury findings were required for aggravating factors based on increasingly serious prior convictions and unsatisfactory prior performance on probation or parole.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082

Third Holding:

Because the Sixth Amendment affords a defendant the right to a jury trial on alleged aggravating factors, a valid admission to those factors requires the same advisements and waivers required for a stipulation to a prior conviction.

This includes advisement and waiver of the defendant’s Boykin-Tahl rights: the right to a jury trial, the right to confront adverse witnesses, and the privilege against self-incrimination.  A defendant must also be advised of the penal consequences of the admission.

If the trial court fails to properly advise the defendant of these rights or consequences, reversal is required unless the record affirmatively shows, under the totality of the circumstances, that the admission was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Authority:

People v. Kinnear (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1116, 1127

People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, 745–746

Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238

In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122

People v. Cross (2015) 61 Cal.4th 164, 170

People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 361–365

Due process, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000992

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We find sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the defendant violated the conditions of his probation. But in light of the materially inaccurate information that appears to have influenced the defendant’s sentence, we cannot conclude that the superior court exercised informed discretion in imposing his sentence. Remanded for resentencing.

First Holding:

A probation violation is provable by a preponderance of the evidence. We review factual findings in this respect for substantial evidence. Under that standard, our review is limited to the determination of whether, upon review of the entire record, there is substantial evidence of solid value, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the trial court’s decision. In conducting this inquiry, we give full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 441

People v. Butcher (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 310, 318

People v. Kurey (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 840, 848

People v. Mumin (2023) 15 Cal.5th 176, 198

Second Holding:

There may be situations in which a prisoner is entitled to a new sentencing hearing, but only where he shows that: (1) material false information was (2) relied upon by the sentencing judge, and (3) the defendant had no opportunity at the time of sentencing to correct such false information. The probation officer’s report stated that the defendant was found in violation of probation for, among other things, using illicit drugs. In fact, he was not found to have used drugs, and he was not found in violation for using drugs.

The record here reflects that the court relied on that materially false information. When defense counsel attempted to bring it to the court’s attention that the statement was untrue, the court gave no feedback or acknowledgement and simply proceeded with sentencing, in contrast to an earlier correction on a different misunderstanding brought to the court’s attention by the prosecutor, whom the court thanked for bringing the correction to the court’s attention.

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court. On this record, which appears to show that the sentencing court believed that the drug-use allegations had been proven, we cannot be confident that the court exercised informed discretion.

Authority:

In re Beal (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 94, 99–100

People v. Belmontes (1983) 34 Cal.3d 335, 348, fn. 8

Third Holding:

A court’s alleged reliance on inaccurate information that appears to have contributed to the defendant’s sentence implicates the federal constitutional guarantee of due process. We evaluate such claims under the standard set forth in Chapman. This stricter standard of review requires reversal unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Eckley (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1080

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 251

Fourth Holding:

In revoking and terminating probation, trial court is entitled to consider defendant’s performance on probation from the time it was originally granted until it was reinstated for the final time.

Authority:

People v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 145, 151

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

Case 000991

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Insufficient evidence supported the jury’s gang predicate offense findings, and we therefore reverse the true findings on the gang and gang firearm enhancements, as well as the gang special circumstance. We reject the defendant’s other arguments.

First Holding:

The role of the reviewing court in evaluating sufficiency of the evidence claims is a limited one. We review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The standard of review is the same in cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence. Although it is the duty of the jury to acquit a defendant if it finds that circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court, that must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.

When there are two possible grounds for the jury’s verdict, one unreasonable and the other reasonable, we will assume, absent a contrary indication in the record, that the jury based its verdict on the reasonable ground.

Authority:

People v. Ghobrial (2018) 5 Cal.5th 250, 277–278

Second Holding:

To prove the gang allegations true beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution had to show (1) the defendant committed the murder for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang, and (2) with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members.

A criminal street gang is defined as (1) an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, (2) having as one of its primary activities the commission of one or more of the enumerated criminal acts, (3) having a common name or common identifying sign or symbol, and (4) whose members collectively engage in, or have engaged in, a pattern of criminal gang activity.

A pattern of criminal gang activity means (1) the commission of or conviction of, two or more enumerated criminal acts, (2) provided at least one of these offenses occurred after September 26, 1988, and the last of those offenses occurred within three years of the prior offense and within three years of the date the current offense is alleged to have been committed, (3) the offenses were committed on separate occasions by two or more members, (4) the offenses commonly benefited a criminal street gang, and (5) the common benefit from the offenses is more than reputational.

The acts making up the pattern of gang activity are commonly referred to as predicate offenses.

Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational may include, but are not limited to, financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting a perceived or actual gang rival, or intimidation or silencing of a potential[,] current or previous witness or informant. The charged offenses cannot be used to satisfy the gang allegation requirements.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(b)(1), (e)(1), (e)(2), (f)

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 460

People v. Shively (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 460, 465-466

(Gary note:

(Gary note: The balance of this aspect of the opinion deals with the specifics of the evidence and inferences to be drawn, and the appellate court determined that the evidence in support of two of the three predicate offenses alleged by the prosecution were not supported by sufficient evidence. The court then reversed the jury’s true finding on the special circumstance gang allegation under section 190.2(a)(22) and the true findings on the gang enhancements charged under sections 186.22 (b)(1)(C) and 12022.53(d) and (e). It remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing.

(The defendant unsuccessfully raised many other issues. I have included several as holdings (Third through Eighth) because they do state important legal principles even though unrelated to the sufficiency of evidence successful argument.)

Third Holding:

Advocates are given significant leeway in discussing the legal and factual merits of a case during argument. Prosecutors have wide latitude to present vigorous arguments so long as they are a fair comment on the evidence, including reasonable inferences and deductions from it. When attacking the prosecutor’s remarks to the jury, the defendant must show that, in the context of the whole argument and the instructions, there was a reasonable likelihood the jury understood or applied the complained-of comments in an improper or erroneous manner. In conducting this inquiry, we do not lightly infer that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor’s statements.

A prosecutor’s conduct violates a defendant’s constitutional rights when the behavior comprises a pattern of conduct so egregious that it infects ‘ “the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. Even if the behavior does not reach that level of egregiousness, it may still violate California law if it involves the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods when attempting to persuade either the trial court or the jury, and it is reasonably probable that without such misconduct, an outcome more favorable to the defendant would have resulted. he focus of the inquiry is on the effect of the prosecutor’s action on the defendant, not on the intent or bad faith of the prosecutor.

Authority:

People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 666

People v. Leon (2015) 61 Cal.4th 569, 606

People v. Sanchez (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528

Fourth Holding:

A claim of prosecutorial misconduct is ordinarily preserved for appeal only if the defendant made a timely and specific objection at trial and requested an admonition. The primary purpose of the requirement that a defendant object at trial to argument constituting prosecutorial misconduct is to give the trial court an opportunity, through admonition of the jury, to correct any error and mitigate any prejudice. Consistent with that purpose, a court will excuse a defendant’s failure to object only if an objection would have been futile, or if an admonition would not have mitigated the harm caused by the misconduct.

Authority:

People v. Daveggio and Michaud (2018) 4 Cal.5th 790, 853

Fifth Holding:

The trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the essential elements of the charged offense. In criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, a trial court must instruct on general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case. However, the trial court should only give instructions supported by substantial evidence.

Evidence is substantial’ for this purpose if it is sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury, that is, evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive. At the same time, instructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given. It is error to give an instruction which, while correctly stating a principle of law, has no application to the facts of the case.

Authority:

People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824

People v. Townsel (2016) 63 Cal.4th 25, 58

People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1049-1950

Sixth Holding:

In criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, a trial court must instruct on general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case. A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. We independently review the wording of a jury instruction to assess whether the instruction accurately states the law. The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the charge in a manner that violated the defendant’s rights.

Further, the correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction. Moreover, any theoretical possibility of confusion may be diminished by the parties’ closing arguments. Jurors are presumed to be intelligent, capable of understanding instructions and applying them to the facts of the case.

Authority:

People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953

People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210

People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218

People v. Davison (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 206, 212

People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1220, overruled on another ground in People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192

Seventh Holding:

The Watson standard of prejudice (i.e., the error is reversible when there is a reasonable probability defendant would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of the error) applies to an instruction that misdirects the jury, including incorrect, ambiguous, conflicting, or wrongly omitted instructions. In contrast, the Chapman standard of review (i.e., error is harmless only when it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained) applies when an instruction improperly describes or omits an element of the offense.

Authority:

People v. Campbell (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 463, 493

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836

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

Eighth Holding:

When a trial court orally misstates instructions that are legally correct in written form, the jury is presumed to be guided by the written instructions based upon copies of the instructions received for deliberations.

Authority:

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 687

People v. Mills (2010) 48 Cal.4th 158, 200–201 [written instructions control over verbal instructions]

People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803 [same]

People v. Mills (2012) 55 Cal.4th 663, 680 [we view the record as a whole, and consider the instructions in context]

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

Case 000990

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court did not orally pronounce any fines or fees at sentencing, but the minute order and abstract of judgment reflect the imposition of a restitution fine, a stayed parole revocation fine, a court operations assessment, and a criminal conviction assessment. The abstract of judgment must be corrected.

First Holding:

Where there is a discrepancy between the oral imposition of sentence on the one hand and the minutes and abstract of judgment on the other, the oral judgment controls. An abstract of judgment must be corrected if it does not reflect the oral judgment accurately.

Authority:

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

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385, 387-389

Second Holding:

The court did not orally pronounce any fines or fees at sentencing, but the minute order and abstract of judgment reflect the imposition of a $300 restitution fine, a $300 stayed parole revocation fine, a $40 court operations assessment, and a $30 criminal conviction assessment.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4

PEN 1202.45

PEN 1465.8

GOV 70373

Third Holding:

We decline to remand the matter because no party objected to the trial court’s failure to impose fines and fees at sentencing. All claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices’ raised for the first time on appeal are not subject to review. Appellate courts may not correct a discretionary sentencing choice if the People failed to object at sentencing.

A restitution fine under section 1202.4 is a discretionary sentencing choice. And by waiving any objection to the restitution fine, the People also effectively waive any objection to the parole revocation fine, because the parole revocation fine must match the restitution fine as a matter of law.

As to the court operations assessment and the criminal conviction assessment, neither party asserts that the trial court’s failure to impose these fees was unauthorized or reflects an obvious legal error at sentencing that is correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings.

Absent such an argument, we decline to disturb the judgment.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852-853

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

People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 303

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [sentence is unauthorized if it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case]

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 30 [equal protection principles permit trial courts to waive fees under sec. 1465.8 and Gov. Code, sec. 70373, upon request, where defendant lacks ability to pay]

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE