Monthly Archives: September 2026

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 001016

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to issue protective orders, because the defendant was not convicted of a qualifying offense, and the person for whose benefit order was issued was not a victim of the defendant’s crime.

First Holding:

Section 136.2(i)(1) provides authority for the imposition of postconviction protective orders where a defendant is convicted of a qualifying domestic violence offense.

Authority:

PEN 136.2(i)(1)

People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 901

Second Holding:

Domestic violence is abuse committed against, among other categories of victims, a person with whom the defendant had a dating relationship. Domestic violence is abuse perpetrated against (a) a spouse or former spouse[; (b) a cohabitant or former cohabitant; (c) a person with whom the respondent is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship; (d) a person with whom the respondent has had a child; (e) [a] child of a party; or (f) any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree.

“Abuse” is the intentional or reckless causing or attempting to cause bodily injury, or placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to himself or herself, or another. Section 136(3) defines “victim” as any natural person with respect to whom there is reason to believe that any crime as defined under the laws of this state or any other statute or of the United States is being or has been perpetrated or attempted to be perpetrated.

Thus, a postconviction protective order under section 136.2(i)(1) is authorized if: (1) the defendant has been convicted of one (or more) of the statutorily enumerated crimes; and (2) the protected person qualifies as a victim of said crime(s).

Authority:

PEN 13700

FAM 6211

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 139

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 237

Third Holding:

Courts do not have inherent authority to issue a criminal protective order absent a statute authorizing such an order.

Authority:

People v. Corrales (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 283, 286-287

Fourth Holding:

The defendant was not convicted of a domestic violence or other offense that authorized the court to issue a protective order under section 136.2(i)(1). His conviction did not justify a protective order. Nor was the protected person a victim of his crime.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 901 [where the defendant’s convictions are not domestic violence offenses, the court does not have statutory authority to impose a postconviction protective order, and it must be stricken]

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 648 [the Legislature amended section 136.2(i)(1), in 2018 to specify that a victim is only a victim of the crime the defendant was convicted of committing]

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 143 [if there is no reason to believe that an enumerated section 136.2(i)(1) offense for which the defendant was convicted is being or has been perpetrated or attempted to be perpetrated against a particular person, that person is not a victim and may not seek, or be named as protected party by, a protective order under section 136.2(i)(1)]

Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 001015

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to stay the court facilities assessment and a court operations assessment based on defendant’s inability to pay. We vacate those orders.

Holding:

If a defendant requests such consideration, a trial court must consider the defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under section 1465.8(a)(1), or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1).

Here, however, the trial court at resentencing purported to impose but stay the assessments based on inability to pay, rather than waive them.

Because there appears to be no basis to justify denying criminal defendants a waiver of certain ancillary costs when civil litigants may receive such a waiver, we will modify the judgment to strike the imposed but stayed court facilities assessment and court operations assessment.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 30

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 001014

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Credit for time served should have been recalculated on resentencing following remand in an earlier appeal. There are errors in the abstract of judgment that require correction. We affirm that the defendant’s conduct credit is limited to 15%, even though the court struck the punishment for the enhancements responsible for making the felonies violent felonies.

First Holding:

Any portion of a sentence that a defendant has begun serving based on a judgment that is modified during the imprisonment term must be credited against any sentence the defendant later receives for the same acts.

The sentencing court must recalculate and, in the abstract of judgment, credit against the modified sentence the actual days spent in custody up to that date, plus the conduct credits accrued before the original sentencing.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation then calculates conduct credit for prison time after the original sentencing applying laws specific to persons serving terms in prison.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 673

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23, 33

Second Holding:

Even though on resentencing the court struck the punishment for the enhancements that made the counts of conviction violent felonies as defined in section 667.5(c), the defendant’s conduct credit is still limited to 15% under section 2933.1, which limits conduct credit to 15% to “anyone who is convicted of a felony offense listed in subdivision (c) of section 667.5.”

Authority:

PEN 2933.1

Third Holding:

The definition of the term “convicted” in section 2933.1 is a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo.

Our fundamental task in interpreting a statute is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose. We first examine the statute’s words and give them a plain and commonsense meaning. We consider the language of the entire scheme and related statutes, harmonizing the terms when possible.

If the statutory language is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, we may look to extrinsic aids, including the statute’s ostensible purpose, the legislative history, public policy, administrative interpretation, and the pertinent statutory scheme. We will adopt the construction that is more favorable to the defendant but still aligns with the statutory purpose where the language of the statute is ambiguous.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1138, 1141

People v. Murphy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 136, 142

In re M.M. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 530, 536

In re DeLong (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 562, 568

People v. Manzo (2012) 53 Cal.4th 880, 889

Fourth Holding:

Section 2933.1 does not itself define “convicted,” and the term does not have a uniform meaning in California. It may include the corresponding judgment or refer solely to a verdict or guilty plea—in other words, to the adjudication of guilt. Section 2933.1(b) states the 15 percent limitation applies regardless of under which law the defendant is “sentenced.”

We presume the Legislature did not intend the term “convicted” to refer to a defendant’s “sentence” given its use of the two terms within the same statutory scheme. The court in Pacheco similarly held that striking the punishment associated with an enhancement does not defeat the finding of the truth of the allegation such that the defendant would still be a person “convicted of” a violent felony and subject to the 15 percent limit under section 2933.1. It is the conviction, and not the punishment, that is determinative.

Authority:

People v. Mendoza (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1033

People v. Smith (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 741, 760

In re Pacheco (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1439, 1444-1445

Fifth Holding:

Dismissing or striking an earlier conviction under section 1385 impacts sentencing, but in this case the allegations were not struck or dismissed. Only the punishment was struck.

Authority:

People v. Burke (1956) 47 Cal.2d 45

Sixth Holding:

The minute order and abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and the concurrent term imposed for reckless driving. The minute order and abstract of judgment do not reflect the trial court staying the term on count 6 in its original judgment, and should also reflect a two-year concurrent term on count 36. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.

Authority:

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

Seventh Holding:

The abstract reflects a concurrent one-third the middle term sentence for one of the counts. Concurrent sentences are calculated by using their full terms, not the one-third middle term formula for consecutive sentences. The minute order and abstract of judgment must therefore be corrected to impose a two-year concurrent sentence on count 36.

Authority:

People v. Quintero (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1156, fn. 3

Abstracts and Minutes, Jurisdiction, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 001013

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in revoking the defendant’s probation after the period of probation had expired, because it no longer had jurisdiction once the probation period expired.

First Holding:

A trial court, in the order granting probation, may suspend the imposing or the execution of the sentence and may direct that the suspension may continue for a period of time not exceeding two years.

Revocation is a two-step process. First, when presented with probable cause of a violation, a court may summarily revoke supervision and issue a bench warrant for the defendant’s arrest.

Second, the defendant is entitled to a formal hearing at which the prosecution must prove the violation and a disposition may be made. If the violation is found true, the court may, among other options, terminate supervision and order incarceration in jail, or it may reinstate supervision and modify the conditions, such as by imposing a period of jail incarceration.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1(a)

People v. Braud (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 962, 966

Second Holding:

The revocation, summary or otherwise, shall serve to toll the running of the period of supervision. However, while the trial court has the power to extend the probationary term, tolling at the summary revocation stage does not automatically extend the probationary period but rather preserves the court’s jurisdiction to proceed to the second step, a formal hearing to decide whether there has been a violation during the probation period, after the probation period has expired.

Authority:

PEN 1203.2(a)

People v. Leiva (2013) 56 Cal.4th 498, 504)

People v. Braud (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 962, 968

Third Holding:

The defendant was placed on two years probation. The parties disagree on whether probation expired in April or had been extended to a late August date. Although a minute order of a hearing held on a date in late August stated that it was revoked on a specific date a few weeks before the hearing, the court never stated that probation was revoked at a hearing.

A trial court’s oral pronouncements control over a subsequently entered minute order. Moreover, the minutes from that earlier hearing do not say probation was revoked. There was no reporter at that earlier hearing. Thus, the record does not support the assertion that probation was revoked at that early August hearing.

Instead, the record does reflect that the court purported to revoke probation two months later, in October. But whether probation was set to expire in April (as the defendant claimed) or in August (as the prosecution claimed), both dates had passed before the October hearing.

As the probation expiration date had passed (whether in April or August), the court no longer had jurisdiction to decide whether the defendant had violated probation.

Authority:

People v. Sanchez (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 907, 918–919

People v. Braud (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 962, 968


(Gary note: I recognize that this summary is inartfully worded, a product of my attempt to anonymize the participants. During the defendant’s probation, it was revoked and reinstated a number of times. At some point–whether April or August–probation expired during a period when there was no order revoking probation, summary or otherwise. Had the court timely summarily revoked probation before its term expired, it would have had jurisdiction over the case even after the term expired. By not putting the probation into a “revocation” mode, probation simply terminated when the expiration date arrived. At that point, the court lost jurisdiction to conduct revocation proceedings.)

Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 001012

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erroneously composed the defendant’s eight-year prison sentence.

First Holding:

The parties agree that the trial court erred in imposing the defendant’s eight-year term as a three-year term under Vehicle Code section 10851, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, plus a two-year enhancement pursuant to section 666.5. Section 666.5 is not an enhancement. It is an alternative sentencing scheme. The sentencing triad for section 666.5 is two, three, and four years.

Authority:

PEN 666.5

People v. Lee (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 861, 869

Second Holding:

The parties and the trial court intended and agreed that the defendant would be sentenced to the upper term of four years pursuant to section 666.5, doubled to eight years pursuant to the Three Strikes law if he failed to comply with the conditions of the plea agreement. Because the court made a judicial error in rendering the judgment and not a clerical error, we remand the matter to the trial court to resentence the defendant pursuant to the plea agreement.

Authority:

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 63