Monthly Archives: September 2026

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000821

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The sentencing minute order and the abstract of judgment do not accurately reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of the defendant’s sentence. We direct the court to correct the minute order and the abstract of judgment.

Holding:

The court ordered concurrent sentences for the two counts. The sentencing minute order erroneously states that the sentences on the two counts are consecutive. The minute order overstates the length of the determinate term for the enhancement. The abstract of judgment also fails to indicate the sentence that was pronounced for count 1. The court must correct the minute order and abstract of judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement of judgment.

Authority:

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

Eighth Amendment, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000820

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in ordering defendant to pay ancillary costs and to reimburse the police department for the SART [Sexual Assault Response Team] examination costs without considering his ability to pay and while the amount of victim reimbursement had yet to be determined. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

First Holding:

Because defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, our review is limited to issues occurring after entry of the plea that do not affect its validity.

Authority:

PEN 1237.5

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(3)

People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1096

Second Holding:

While this appeal was pending, our Supreme Court decided Kopp, which held that (1) a defendant may challenge the imposition of a punitive fine (e.g., restitution fines under Penal Code section 1202.4) under the excessive fines provisions of the United States and California Constitutions; and (2) equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing ancillary costs (e.g., court facilities fees under Government Code section 70373 and court operations fees under section 1465.8).

Because defendant did not have the benefit of Kopp’s specific reasoning at the time of his sentencing, we conclude he must be afforded the opportunity to assert an excessive fine objection and develop a factual record on the considerations relevant to that claim.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

The touchstone of the excessive fines inquiry is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish.

Four considerations inform that inquiry: (1) the defendant’s culpability; (2) the relationship between the harm and the penalty; (3) the penalties imposed in similar statutes; and (4) the defendant’s ability to pay.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23

People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 707, 728

Fourth Holding:

As for the $30 court operations fee and the $40 court facilities fee, Kopp held that, in light of the Legislature’s provision of fee waivers to indigent civil litigants, equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing ancillary costs in criminal cases.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 31

Fifth Holding:

Here, the trial court erroneously denied defense counsel’s request for an ability to pay hearing. Although some courts have found such error harmless where the record otherwise reflects the defendant’s earning capacity, we decline to do so here, as the People do not contend the record is sufficient to make such a determination in this case.

Furthermore, an ability to pay hearing is also required under section 1203.1h [regarding the cost of medical examinations incurred by law enforcement for the collection and preservation of evidence in sexual assault cases].

Authority:

PEN 1203.1h(b)

People v. Aviles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1075–1077

People v. Johnson (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 134, 139–140

Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000819

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(Gary note: This opinion actually contained no relief for the defendant because there was no harm, therefore no foul. I.e., Harmless error. But I have included for some important principles that the defendant prevailed on, save the need to show prejudice.)

The firearm and great bodily injury findings on the defendant’s murder convictions must be reversed, though it does not affect his sentence because the court did not impose sentence on those enhancements. His counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the dual use of facts at sentencing, but the error was harmless because the court cited and relied on several other properly established factors in aggravation and made it clear that the court intended to impose the upper term.

First Holding:

The jury found the defendant personally inflicted great bodily harm within the meaning of section 12022.7(a) when he committed each of the counts of murder. But section 12022.7 specifically states that it does not apply to the crime of murder. We reverse those findings, but the sentence remains unaffected because the court did not impose punishment for those enhancements.

Authority:

PEN 12022.7(g)

Second Holding:

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. On direct appeal, a finding of deficient performance is warranted where (1) the record affirmatively discloses counsel had no rational tactical purpose for the challenged act or omission, (2) counsel was asked for a reason and failed to provide one, or (3) there simply could be no satisfactory explanation.

Where counsel’s trial tactics or strategic reasons for challenged decisions do not appear on the record, we will not find ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal unless there could be no conceivable reason for counsel’s acts or omissions.

Authority:

People v. Johnsen (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1116, 1165

Third Holding:

A trial court may not impose an upper term by using the fact of any enhancement upon which sentence is imposed under any provision of law.

We agree with the defendant that there is no conceivable reason for his counsel to have failed to raise this point in the trial court.

The law prohibiting the dual use of facts for an enhancement and to aggravate a sentence is clear, and the People do not dispute that it barred the court from relying on the firearm and great bodily injury aggravating circumstances to impose the upper term on count 10. The defendant had nothing to lose by raising this point and could only face a longer sentence by allowing the court to consider more aggravating circumstances than were proper.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(5)

Rules of Court, rule 4.420(g)

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 350

Fourth Holding:

Establishing prejudice for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a defendant to demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

The defendant fails to establish prejudice because the record clearly indicates that the trial court could and would have imposed the same sentence even without the additional aggravating circumstances. A trial court may impose an upper-term sentence based on even a single aggravating factor.

Because the trial court made every possible choice to lengthen the term of the defendant’s sentence, well beyond the limit of what the defendant could be physically capable of serving [more than 200 years], the trial court left no doubt that it would have imposed the same upper term on count 10 even without two of the aggravating circumstances.circumstance.

Authority:

In re Gay (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1059, 1086

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 764

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000818

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court impermissibly and prejudicially relied on aggravating factors not found true by a jury to sentence the defendant to the upper term on the assault count. The defendant is also entitled to conduct credts in addition to his actual presentence time in custody.

First Holding:

The People presented certified documents of five prior felony convictions. The certified documents showed that appellant had served a prison term for the 2002 convictions. The trial court found the People proved two aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt: that appellant’s prior convictions were numerous or of increasing seriousness, and that appellant had served a prior prison term. At sentencing, the trial court relied on these two factors in imposing the upper term on the assault count.

This was error, as the proposed aggravating factors should have been presented to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, if not stipulated to by the defendant.

Under the federal constitution, a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.

When the constitutional right to jury trial is involved, there must be an express waiver. It is undisputed that appellant made no such express waiver in this case. When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review.

Under that standard, a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1086, 1087

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47

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

Second Holding:

With respect to numerosity, appellant was convicted of five offenses over a period of 18 years, with an additional 22 years elapsing between the most recent prior offense and the instant offense. Appellant was [more than 60] years old at the time of trial. We cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found appellant’s prior crimes numerous.

While the evidence may have been sufficient to support a finding that the aggravating factor was true, that is not the proper inquiry when assessing prejudice under Chapman. Instead, we must ask whether any rational fact finder could have come to the opposite conclusion.

Authority:

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 848 [Three robberies in the course of 49 years of life may strike some jurors as an obviously numerous number of convictions, but we are unsure 12 people unanimously would agree with this evaluation beyond a reasonable doubt]

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090

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

Third Holding:

As for increasing seriousness, under current case law, the determination that a defendant’s prior convictions are of increasing seriousness may be made by reference to the range of punishment provided by statute for each offense. Or it may be determined by a comparison of the offenses respective elements.

While a jury certainly could find increasing seriousness, we are not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that they would have, particularly in light of our Supreme Court’s recent caution regarding increasing seriousness that the determination is a comparative and qualitative one. These realities make it difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090

Fourth Holding:

The defendant is entitled to 166 days of presentence conduct credit in addition to the 167 days of actual credit awarded by the trial court.

Authority:

PEN 4019(f)

Racial Justice Act

Case 000817

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though brought as an appeal, the appellate court exercised its discreation and treated the matter as a petition for writ of mandate, the proper vehicle to challenge an order denying the defendant’s motion for discovery under the Racial Justice Act [RJA], as the order was an interlocutory, nonappealable order. We grant the petition.

First Holding:

The petitioner is only authorized to bring an RJA claim by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus because he is incarcerated and his judgment is already final. Petitioner has not filed such a petition.

Authority:

PEN 745

PEN 1473

People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 999–1000

People v. Serrano (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 276, 292–293

In re Montgomery (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1070–1072, review granted Dec. 11, 2024, S287339

Second Holding:

Until recently, appellate courts were divided over whether courts have jurisdiction to rule on a postjudgment RJA discovery motion unattached to a petition for writ of habeas corpus. This dispute, however, was resolved when the Legislature enacted AB 1071 (2025–2026 Reg. Sess.), effective January 1, 2026, which added Penal Code section 1473,(e)(2).

This new provision expressly authorizes a petitioner, or their counsel, to file a discovery motion under section 745(d), upon the prosecution of a petition under this subdivision, or in preparation to file a petition.

Authority:

PEN 745(d)

PEN 1473(e)(2)

People v. Serrano (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 276, 291

Third Holding:

The trial court’s erroneous denial of petitioner’s discovery motion, as an interlocutory order, is not appealable and is challengeable only by petition for writ of mandate. We exercise our discretion to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate, as both parties have thoroughly briefed the merits of the petitioner’s claim of right to discovery under the RJA.

Authority:

People v. Serrano (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 276, 292-293

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 36, 53–54 [Writ review is appropriate in discovery matters where, as here, it is necessary to address questions of first impression that are of general importance to the trial courts and to the legal profession, and where general guidelines can be laid down for future cases.]

Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 401 [treating an appeal as a writ petition is appropriate when an issue under review has been thoroughly briefed and argued, such that dismissing the appeal would be unnecessarily dilatory and circuitous]

Fourth Holding:

A petitioner seeking to pursue an RJA claim must show good cause to obtain discovery in anticipation of filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. This good cause standard is more lenient than the prima facie showing required for obtaining relief under section 745(a). Nonetheless, the statute’s good cause language serves a gatekeeping function.

Authority:

PEN 745(d)

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 166 [whether the allegations underscoring [the petitioner’s racial profiling theory are enough to support a plausible justification that a violation of section 745(a) could or might have occurred in his or her case is an issue for the trial court to assess, exercising its discretion upon an application of the correct legal standard governing good cause]

In re Montgomery (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1075 [review granted Dec. 11, 2024, S287339] (conc. opn. of Kelety, J.) [Nor would an interpretation of section 745(d) that allows habeas corpus petitioners to obtain such discovery trigger a right to unlimited discovery]

People v. Serrano (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 276, 293

Fifth Holding:

In Young, the appellate court concluded that the good cause standard for discovery under the RJA is akin to the good cause standard for Pitchess motions [pertaining to discovery of police personnel records in criminal cases]. It observed that the Pitchess good cause standard includes the requirement for a defendant to establish a plausible factual foundation for officer misconduct.

The Young court concluded that the same standard applies in RJA cases. In order to establish good cause for discovery under the RJA, a defendant is required only to advance a plausible factual foundation, based on specific facts, that a violation of the RJA could or might have occurred in his case.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 158-159

People v. Superior Court (Lalo) (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 707, 712

McDaniel v. Superior Court (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 228, 244

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

Sixth Holding:

Based on the evidence presented by the petitioner in his motion, we conclude that he met the foundational requirement of presenting a plausible justification for discovery under section 745(d).

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 144-145

Seventh Holding:

It has long been the law that a criminal defendant who has established his indigent status is constitutionally entitled to those defense services for which he demonstrates a need, which services may include discovery costs, investigative costs, transcript costs, expert fees, etc.

In this matter, petitioner did not assert in the superior court a right to free copies of discovery materials with a demonstration of his indigent status. Unless or until petitioner does so, he is not entitled to free copies of any material discoverable under the RJA. [it does not offend the Constitution to require a nonindigent defendant to pay reasonable fees for duplicating discovery materials disclosed by the district attorney pursuant to section 1054.1]

Authority:

Schaffer v. Superior Court (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1245 [it does not offend the Constitution to require a nonindigent defendant to pay reasonable fees for duplicating discovery materials disclosed by the district attorney pursuant to section 1054.1]