Monthly Archives: September 2026

Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000936

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court should have stayed the defendant’s eight-month sentence for count 4 under section 654. The sole objective in possessing the firearm (count 3) and the ammunition (count 4) was to have an operable firearm. Accordingly, the possession offenses were part of an indivisible course of conduct and cannot be separately punished. We otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

During the defendant’s sentencing hearing, the court concluded that because the .22-caliber ammunition was not loaded into the .22 rifle, section 654 does not prohibit a separate punishment. And because possession of ammunition increases the ability to use the firearms and the danger, the court imposed sentences of one-third the middle term, or eight months, for each of counts 3 and 4.

Section 654(a) protects against multiple punishment where the crimes arise from either (1) the same act or omission or (2) an indivisible course of conduct united by a single intent and objective. Whether a course of conduct is indivisible depends upon the intent and objective of the actor. If all the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

On the other hand, if the evidence discloses that a defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives that were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for the independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.

A trial court’s implied finding that a defendant harbored a separate intent and objective for each offense will be upheld on appeal if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 551

People v. Blake (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 509, 512

Second Holding:

Courts have found section 654 prohibits punishing a defendant for both being a felon in possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition when all of the ammunition in question was loaded into the firearm or had been fired from it.

Authority:

People v. Broadbent (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 917, 922

Third Holding:

Here, the .22-caliber rifle giving rise to count 3 and the same-caliber ammunition giving rise to count 4 were found in close proximity to each other. The defendant argues the only difference between this case and Broadbent and similar cases is that he safely stored the firearm separately, but in the same room as the ammunition. He contends that this difference is immaterial and does not demonstrate separate intents and objectives. We agree that drawing a distinction on this basis parses the objectives too finely.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 132, 138

Fourth Holding:

Because the record is devoid of evidence to support the court’s implicit finding that the defendant harbored two different objectives in possessing both a rifle and nearby compatible ammunition, we conclude on this record that section 654 precludes multiple punishment for the defendant’s possession of a firearm as well as several rounds of ammunition just feet away.

Although not raised by the parties, section 1170.1(a)’s one-third the middle term rule does not apply to a sentence stayed under section 654. We therefore modify the stayed 8-month consecutive sentence to a stayed middle term of two years.

Authority:

People v. Relkin (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1188, 1197-1198

Defenses, Jury instructions, Jury trial, Standard of review

Case 000935

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by instructing the jury that a person may lose the right to self-defense if he was the initial aggressor or a mutual combatant (CALCRIM No. 3471), or if he contrived the claim as a pretext to assault the victim (CALCRIM No. 3472). Given the evidence in this case, no reasonable jury could find these instructions applicable.

Although the error was harmless as to the instructions on mutual combat and contrived self-defense—as the jury was readily able to see the irrelevance of these instructions—the record reveals a reasonable likelihood that the jury was misled by the initial aggressor instruction. We therefore reverse the defendant’s murder conviction and remand for retrial.

First Holding:

The prosecution argues that the claim was forfeited by lack of objection. The defendant argues the issue is reviewable insofar as the challenged instructions directly undermined his self-defense claim and thus impaired his substantial rights.

Alternatively, he claims defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to fully object to both instructions.

We must address the defendant’s contention on its merits to determine whether there was an impairment of his substantial rights or ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

PEN 1259

People v. Anderson (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 919, 927

Second Holding:

It is settled that in criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, the trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence.

The general principles of law governing the case are those principles closely and openly connected with the facts before the court, and which are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.

The corollary to this mandate is equally well-established: a trial court is not obligated to give an instruction if the evidence presented at trial is such as to preclude a reasonable jury from finding the instruction applicable. Indeed, it is error to give a jury instruction that is legally correct but has no application to the facts of the case.

Authority:

People v. St. Martin (1970) 1 Cal.3d 524, 531

People v. Schultz (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 535, 539

People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129

Third Holding:

Giving an inapplicable instruction is subject to the traditional Watson test for prejudice, under which reversal is required if it is reasonably probable the result would have been more favorable to the defendant had the error not occurred.

Such an error is generally only a technical error that does not constitute ground for reversal because juries are fully capable of analyzing the evidence, determining the facts, and realizing that an instruction does not apply. Juries are routinely told that some of the instructions may not apply, depending on their findings about the facts of the case and are directed to follow the instructions that do apply to the facts as they find them.

That being said, in some cases, the presence of an extraneous instruction may be confusing enough to become prejudicial.

Authority:

People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1130

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

People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 67

People v. Schultz (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 535, 539-540

Fourth Holding:

Regarding the instruction on initial aggressor, there are two problems. First, the paragraph the jury received on sudden escalation was written in terms of a defendant initiating an altercation with nondeadly force, the victim responding with deadly force, and then the defendant using deadly force in return.

But the evidence here suggested a different scenario, in which (arguably) the victim initiated with nondeadly force, the defendant responded with deadly force, the victim subsequently used deadly force, and then the defendant used deadly force in return. In other words, the standard language did not quite fit the facts here.

Second, and more to the point, we agree with the defendant that no reasonable jury could find the initial aggressor concept applicable—even with tailored sudden escalation language—given the timelapse between the two encounters. The reason that a defendant forfeits his claim to self-defense when he initiates a deadly attack is because the victim is then legally justified in using deadly force against the defendant. But no one is justified in using deadly force absent fear of imminent death or great bodily injury. 

(Gary note: The appellate court describes the facts as the defendant initially pointing a gun, then the altercation is over, but an hour later the victim shows up and starts throwing rocks at the defendant, who responds with deadly force. “Accordingly, the defendant’s conduct during the first encounter did not limit his self-defense claim; he did not have a duty to withdraw during the second encounter.”)

On this record, we discern a reasonable likelihood that at least one juror would have accepted that the defendant actually believed he needed to defend himself from imminent death or great bodily injury, but was misled into thinking the defendant lost his right to make that claim since he pulled the gun on the victim an hour earlier, and he did not communicate an intent to stop fighting during the second, fatal encounter.

We therefore conclude that giving the initial aggressor instruction was prejudicial, and accordingly reverse the murder conviction.

Authority:

In re Christian S. (2015) 7 Cal.4th 768, 773, fn. 1 [self-defense and imperfect self-defense may not be invoked by a defendant who, through his own wrongful conduct (e.g., the initiation of a physical assault or the commission of a felony), has created circumstances under which his adversary’s attack or pursuit is legally justified]

People v. Vasquez (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1179–1180 [imperfect self-defense is available when the victim’s use of force against the defendant is unlawful, even when the defendant set in motion the chain of events that led the victim to attack the defendant]

People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082 [for either perfect or imperfect self-defense, the fear must be of imminent harm]

Fifth Holding:

To the extent the prosecution contends that any error in instructing the jury on the limits of self-defense was harmless since the jury found the defendant guilty of first degree murder, we note that killing in self-defense is not necessarily inconsistent with premeditation and deliberation.

Authority:

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 265 (conc. opn. of Liu, J.)

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000934

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It is not clear whether the court intended to run count 2 concurrently or consecutively. The court stated it was to be run concurrently, but when stating the sentence imposed, it appeared to run the counts consecutively. We remand for clarification of the court’s actual intended sentence.

Holding:

In the course of explaining the sentence to be imposed, the trial court stated that, under section 1170.15, but the trial court said that under Woodworth, it had discretion to impose a concurrent sentence (it said a “current” sentence), and that it was doing so.

On all the remaining counts, the court imposed the sentences concurrently. But when the court announced the sentence, the calculation was based on running count 2 full term consecutively. It appears appropriate under these circumstances to reverse the sentence and remand the matter to permit the trial court to clarify its sentence.

Authority:

Pen 1170.15

People v. Woodworth (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1473

People v. Garcia (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 834, 838-839

Duty of the court, Evidence, Sentencing

Case 000933

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing under section 1172.75, it was error to deny the defendant’s motion for discovery of Brady materials that he sought to prepare his case for the recall hearing.

We remand the case for the trial court to review the sought Brady materials to determine whether anything exists that must be provided to the defendant. If so, then it should conduct a new resentencing hearing. If it determines that there is nothing of Brady material nature to be disclosed, it may deny the request, state its reasons, and reinstate the judgment.

Also, the trial court erroneously concluded that a Pitchess motion cannot be made in section 1172.75 proceedings, and denied the motion.

First Holding:

In the course of the proceedings, the district attorney’s office notified the defendant’s attorney that it had requested Brady information from the law enforcement agency involved in the original investigation of the crimes leading to the defendant’s conviction. The officer’s personnel file may contain information that is potentially exculpatory or may be used for impeachment. The defendant then filed a Pitchess motion to obtain the Brady material. The trial court erroneously concluded that a Pitchess motion cannot be made in section 1172.75 proceedings, and denied the motion.

Under Brady and its progeny, the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose to the defense material exculpatory evidence, including potential impeaching evidence. Although Brady is essentially a trial right, courts have acknowledged that the People’s obligations under Brady are ongoing, even postjudgment.

Authority:

Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83

In re Jenkins (2023) 14 Cal.5th 493, 504

People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1058–1059

In re Lawley (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1231, 1246 [Even after a conviction, the prosecutor is bound by the ethics of his office to inform the appropriate authority of information that casts doubt upon the correctness of the conviction]

Canion v. Cole (2005) 210 Ariz. 598, 599 [the state has a continuing Brady duty to disclose evidence that comes to its attention after sentencing] cited with approval in Jenkins, at p. 505

Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531

Second Holding:

In Pitchess, the California Supreme Court recognized that a criminal defendant may, in some circumstances, compel the discovery of evidence in the arresting law enforcement officer’s personnel file that is relevant to the defendant’s ability to defend against a criminal charge. In 1978, the California Legislature codified the privileges and procedures surrounding what had come to be known as ‘Pitchess motions’ through the enactment of Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 and Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1045.

Authority:

PEN 832.7

PEN 832.8

EVID 1043-1045

Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531

People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1052

Third Holding:

A Pitchess motion may be used to obtain Brady material contained in a peace officer’s confidential personnel file.

However, because the Pitchess process operates in parallel with Brady and does not prohibit the disclosure of Brady information, all information that the trial court finds to be exculpatory and material under Brady must be disclosed, notwithstanding the limitations of the Pitchess process.

Authority:

People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1055

People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696, 720

Fourth Holding:

Although the proceeding below was a resentencing hearing, Brady material may have some relevance. Where, as here, section 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing, not simply striking the now-invalidated priors. This entails applying any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(2)

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067, fn. 3

Fifth Holding:

Under the resentencing procedures set forth in section 1172.1(a)(5), the trial court must consider evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice, which may include evidence that the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated in the proceedings related to the conviction or sentence at issue, and any other evidence that undermines the integrity of the underlying conviction or sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1(a)(5)

Sixth Holding:

Further, at a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the trial court may exercise its power under section 1385 and Romero to dismiss a prior strike conviction in furtherance of justice. When exercising this power, the court may consider, among other things, the nature and circumstances of a defendant’s conviction.

Authority:

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 361–364

People v. Shaw (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 582, 586

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000932

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment against the defendant contains a clerical error that must be corrected. It states the trial court imposed a restitution fine of $2,800 under Penal Code section 1202.4(b). The reporter’s transcript of the sentencing court’s oral pronouncement, however, states the fine was $280.

We direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the correct amount.

Holding:

Conflicts between the oral pronouncement of judgment found in the reporter’s transcript and the abstract of judgment found in the clerk’s transcript are generally presumed to be clerical in nature and are resolved in favor of the reporter’s transcript unless the particular circumstances dictate otherwise. An abstract of judgment must reflect a restitution fine a sentencing court has orally imposed under section 1202.4(b). Courts may correct clerical errors at any time.

Authority:

In re P.A. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 23, 30, fn. 4

People v. Gonzalez (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 724, 744

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

People v. Hong (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1080