Monthly Archives: September 2026

Immigration, Plea bargains, Standard of review

Case 001051

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This is an appeal from a denial of a motion under section 1473.7 to vacate the defendant’s conviction because he did not adequately understand the immigration consequences of his plea more than 15 years ago. As neither the court nor the defendant had the benefit of Hernandez when the court ruled on the motion, we remand for the court to hold a proper hearing.

First Holding:

The defendant pleaded no contest to petty theft with prior convictions in violation of section 666. A conviction under section 666 is a crime involving moral turpitude, which is a ground of deportability and inadmissibility. The conviction also renders a noncitizen ineligible to apply for permanent residency, despite his strong ties to U.S. citizens. A crime involving moral turpitude is also a ground of mandatory immigration detention.

Authority:

8 U.S.C. sec. 1227(a)(2)(i)(I)

8 U.S.C. sec. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)

8 U.S.C. sec. 1255(a)

8 U.S.C. sec. 1226(c)(l)(A)

Second Holding:

Section 1473.7 allows a person who is no longer in criminal custody to file a motion to vacate a conviction or sentence. To establish eligibility to withdraw a guilty plea under section 1473.7(a)(1), a defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) error damaging the defendant’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence and (2) that the damage resulted in prejudice.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2026) 20 Cal.5th 598, 613

Third Holding:

On appeal from a denial of a motion under section 1473.7, we independently review the evidence in the record. When the trial court’s findings are based on written materials rather than the court’s observations of the defendant, we do not defer to those findings because we are similarly situated to the trial court when interpreting a cold record.

We may reach a different conclusion from the trial court on an independent examination of the evidence even where the evidence is conflicting and the trial court’s conclusions are based in part on its assessment of the credibility of witnesses it heard and observed.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2026) 20 Cal.5th 598, 613

Fourth Holding:

Hernandez has clarified the analysis courts must apply when evaluating whether there was error damaging the defendant’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence. In determining whether a defendant has established error for purposes of section 1473.7(a)(1), we focus on the defendant’s subjective understanding at the time they entered their guilty plea. The key is the mindset of the defendant and not what an objectively reasonable person would have understood under the circumstances.

Because the error inquiry focuses on the defendant’s subjective understanding, courts evaluating section 1473.7(a)(1) motions must look beyond the record of the plea and consider the totality of the circumstances bearing on the inquiry. Courts must engage in a case-specific examination that involves assessing credibility and weighing circumstantial evidence.

The most direct evidence of a defendant’s subjective understanding consists of the defendant’s own statements to the court when entering the plea and in declarations or testimony given in support of their section 1473.7(a)(1) motion. However, while the focus of the error inquiry is on the defendant’s subjective understanding, a defendant’s bare assertion that they did not understand the immigration consequences or the options available to them to defend against those consequences is insufficient to establish error; the assertion must be corroborated by objective evidence.

(Gary note: The opinion goes on to cite several examples contained in the Hernandez opinion that may corroborate the defendant’s assertions. If you have such a case, Hernandez is a must-read.)

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2026) 20 Cal.5th 598, 614-617

Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001050

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court improperly imposed fines and ancillary costs without considering the defendant’s ability to pay. The ancillary fees imposed on the defendant are vacated, and this matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to consider whether the defendant has the ability to pay the court operations assessment and the court facilities assessment imposed in his sentence.

First Holding:

We review the imposition of fines and assessments for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1043

Second Holding:

The respondent argues that the defendant forfeited the issue regarding his ability to pay because defense counsel did not object to the fines or assessments imposed. The defendant states that he personally objected that he was unable to pay, preserving the issue for appeal, or his counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object.

In light of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits of the defendant’s challenge.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6

Third Holding:

Kopp divided court-ordered payments into three categories: fines, ancillary costs, and victim restitution.

Addressing fines, Kopp held that fines (including restitution fines under section 1202.4) are punitive in nature, that fines should be analyzed under the excessive fines clauses in the United States and California Constitutions, and that courts need not hold a hearing on a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing all fines.

By contrast, Kopp continued, ancillary costs (including court facilities fees under Government Code section 70373 and court operations fees under section 1465.8) are not punitive in nature, and equal protection principles require a rational basis for treating ancillary fees for indigent criminal defendants differently than indigent civil litigants. Finding no such basis, Kopp concluded that, when requested, trial courts must consider a defendant’s ability to pay ancillary costs.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 18-24, 25, 28, 30

Fourth Holding:

Points perfunctorily asserted in briefing on appeal without argument in support are not properly raised.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 206

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation, Vicarious liability

Case 001049

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s petition at the prima facie stage. The jury instructions on aiding and abetting, implied malice, and lying-in-wait murder allowed for the jury to convict him of murder under a theory by which malice was imputed to him based solely on his participation in the crime.

First Holding:

SB 1437 became effective on January 1, 2019. SB 1437 amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

It amended section 188, which defines malice, and section 189, which defines the degrees of murder to address felony-murder liability, and it added what is now section 1172.6, which provides a procedure by which those convicted of murder can seek retroactive relief if the changes in the law would affect their previously sustained convictions.

Accordingly, section 188 now provides that, except as stated in section 189(e), 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 change reflects the Legislature’s intent that a person’s culpability for murder must be premised upon that person’s own actions and subjective mens rea.

Additionally, section 189 previously stated that all murder committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, various specified crimes, is murder of the first degree. SB 1437 amended section 189 to add subdivision (e), which provides that a participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of one of the enumerated feloines in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if:

(1) The person was the actual killer; or

(2) The person was not the actual killer, but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree; or

(3) The person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in section 190.2(d).

Authority:

PEN 188

PEN 189

Second Holding:

Section 1172.6 sets forth procedures on how the court is consider the petitions.

There is a first stage review to determine whether the petition states fact that demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to relief. The court is not permitted to do fact-finding at that stage, but it may review certain portions of the record to determine whether the record establishes that the defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

If a prima facie case appears from the petition, the court must then hold an evidentiary hearing, at which the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty under current law

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971-972

Third Holding:

In SB 775, effective January 1, 2022, the Legislature amended the language of section 1172.6 to expand the scope of the petitioning procedure, in part, by expressly permitting persons convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to petition for relief.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

Fourth Holding:

There has been a split of authority on whether a defendant is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 if the defendant could have raised the the instructional argument in a prior appeal. (Gary note: For the main part, the discussions in the split cases were over the impact of various jury instructions that were given in the original trials, and whether the failure to raise those arguments gave rise to issue preclusion in determining the applicability of section 1172.6. If you are interested in reading the development and evolution of those cases, Lopez might be a good read.)

Lopez resolved the dispute by holding that a defendant is not barred by issue preclusion. The mere fact that a petitioner could have raised an analogous … claim of instructional error at trial or in his original appeal does not render him categorically ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. The primary and overarching purpose of SB 1437’s scheme is to identify and to afford resentencing relief, in qualifying cases, to those who may have been convicted under imputed-malice murder theories.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2026) 19 Cal.5th 639, 658, 661

Fifth Holding:

Resentencing courts should not ignore potentially ambiguous or even openly flawed instructions when evaluating a petitioner’s prima facie allegations merely because these flaws were not raised in a prior appeal. Rather, the section 1172.6 resentencing court should address on the merits the alleged flaws or ambiguities in instructions that may have resulted in conviction under now invalid theories of imputed malice.

After considering Lopez, we now agree with the defendant that the record here does not establish he is categorically ineligible for relief. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition for recall and resentencing at the prima facie stage and remand for the court to issue an order to show cause and hold a hearing pursuant to section 1172.6(d).

Authority:

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

Due process, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 001048

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in resentencing the defendant in his absence (without a valid waiver) in response to a letter from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) indicating an error in the sentencing.

First Holding:

CDCR notified the trial court of errors in sentencing. The court scheduled a resentencing hearing, but did not notify appellant in advance of this hearing. At the hearing, the court explained that the hearing to correct the errors in sentencing, that the prior abstract was incorrect, that the issue concerned improper imposition of sentence on multiple enhancements, and that it would resentence the defendant as if the court had never sentenced him before.

Defense counsel submitted without argument. The court then resentenced appellant to basically the same sentence as before, with the only change being that the indeterminate term of 15 years to life for the section 186.22 gang enhancement was stayed.

The defendant was not present at this hearing and had not properly waived his presence. A criminal defendant’s right to be personally present at trial is guaranteed under the federal Constitution by the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as by section 15 of article I of the California Constitution and by sections 977 and 1043.

Authority:

U.S. Const., Sixth Amend. and Fourteenth Amend.

Calif. Const., art. I

PEN 977

PEN 1043

People v. Concepcion (2008) 45 Cal.4th 77, 81

Second Holding:

This right to be present extends to all critical stages of the criminal prosecution and includes sentencing and resentencing. The right to be present may be waived. However, this waiver must be expressly authorized by the defendant, or the defendant’s counsel must represent to the court the defendant has so waived.

Authority:

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 347–348

Third Holding:

The trial court clearly stated at the start of the hearing that it would resentence appellant as if we never sentenced him before. In a full resentencing, the court would have the option to revisit other portions of the sentence, including the decision to strike the defendant’s other prior strike conviction or make findings in the sentencing triad based on the mitigating circumstances. As in Cutting, we find the court erred in sentencing the defendant in his absence and without a valid waiver of his right to be present.

Authority:

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 348

Fourth Holding:

On the limited record before us, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that his presence at the hearing would not have affected the outcome. The sentence is vacated, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 350 [reversing for a full resentencing under Chapman, noting that “the trial court may or may not have chosen to believe what [the defendant] might have said” regarding mitigating circumstances]

People v. Garcia (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 475, 484 [a defendant’s postconviction behavior and other possible developments are relevant to the trial court’s consideration upon resentencing], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 338, fn. 4

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001047

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially applied the wrong standard when it denied the defendant’s motion for recall of his sentence under section 1172.6. We accordingly reverse the order denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing and remand for a new evidentiary hearing.

First Holding:

To the end of ensuring a person’s sentence is commensurate with the person’s individual criminal culpability, SB 1437 (effective January 1, 2019) limited accomplice liability under the felony-murder rule, eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder, and eliminated convictions for murder based on a theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime.

SB 1437 added section 189(e) (limiting application of the felony-murder rule) and section 188(a)(3) (to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought, and malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime). Under SB 775, effective January 1, 2022, these ameliorative changes to the law expressly apply to attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 986

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 959

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842–843

Second Holding:

SB 1437 also created a procedure, under section 1172.6, for a person convicted of murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter under the former law to be resentenced if the person could no longer be convicted of those crimes under the current law.

A defendant commences that procedure by filing a petition containing a declaration that, among other things, the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of the changes to section 188 or 189 made by SB 1437.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(a)(3)

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 959

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 847

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708

Third Holding:

At the prima facie stage, the trial court takes as true the petitioner’s factual allegations and assesses whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if those allegations were proved. In determining whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief, the trial court may look at the record of conviction, including jury instructions, verdicts and closing argument, to determine readily ascertainable facts such as the crime of conviction.

At the prima facie stage, the trial court does not engage in factfinding that involves the weighing of evidence or exercise of discretion. If a petition establishes a prima facie case for relief, the trial court must appoint counsel if requested, issue an order to show cause, and hold an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(b)(3), (c), and (d)(1)

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 971-972

People v. Duchine (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 798, 815

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 56

Fourth Holding:

A defendant is liable as a direct aider and abettor of express malice murder if the defendant aided or encouraged the murder with knowledge of the perpetrator’s unlawful purpose and with the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the murder’s commission.

Authority:

In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562, 579

People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1122 [direct aiding and abetting is based on participants’ combined actus reus and aider and abettor’s own mens rea]

Fifth Holding:

In contrast, a defendant is liable as a direct aider and abettor of implied malice murder if the defendant, by words or conduct, aids the commission of a life-endangering act, not the act’s result. The direct aider and abettor must know that the perpetrator intended to commit the act, intend to aid the perpetrator in committing the act, know that the act is dangerous to human life, and act in conscious disregard to human life.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 991

Sixth Holding:

Section 1172.6(d)(3) required the trial court to act as an independent factfinder––resolving the disputed facts and determining for itself, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the defendant was guilty of murder under current law—not to ask whether a jury could or would convict him if the matter were retried. The trial court’s statements show it did not perform that role here.

(Gary note: The appellate court then recited comments by the trial court that reflected the trial court’s apparent belief that its role was to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding. The crux of section 1172.6(d)(3) is that the judge reviewing the section 1172.6 petition must determine whether he or she is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence shows that the defendant IS guilty (not “could be found guilty”) of murder under the current elements.)

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(d)(3)

Seventh Holding:

The trial court’s failure to perform the factfinding section 1172.6(d)(3) requires is subject to harmless error review. Reversal is required if it is reasonably probable Lopez would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of the error. We cannot conclude that the error was not prejudicial. The trial court’s order denying the defendant’s section 1172.6 petition is reversed and the matter is remanded for a new evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6(d)

(Gary note: In the course of its discussion on whether the error was prejudicial, the appellate court discussed the various theories potentially arguable as a theory under which the defendant could be guilty of murder as currently defined. It concluded that it is impossible to determine from the trial court’s comments the findings of fact that would support either theory. It stressed that, for the trial court to deny the defendant’s petition for recall, the trial court was required to find facts that led it to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of murder under current law. And it did not do that factfinding.)

Authority:

People v. Vance (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 706, 715–716

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