Author Archives: Gary McCurdy

Equal protection, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000194

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Defendant appeals the trial court’s written order vacating its prior order appointing counsel and scheduling a Franklin hearing to preserve mitigating evidence for use in a future youthful offender parole hearing. Defendant asks this court to remand the matter so he may present additional argument to the trial court. The People do not oppose giving defendant an opportunity to establish his eligibility for a Franklin hearing. We accept the People’s concession and will reverse and remand the matter.

First Holding:

As of January 1, 2020, defendants who committed crimes when they were 25 years old or younger are generally eligible for a youth offender parole hearing after specified periods, depending on their sentence. However, the statute excludes those defendants who, like defendant here, were sentenced to LWOP for crimes they committed when they were 18 to 25 years old.

[GARY NOTE: A defendant who is eligible for future consideration of parole as a youthful offender may make a record in the superior court to preserve facts that may be persuasive in a future hearing on whether to grant parole.]

Authority:

PEN 3051

PEN 1203.1

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Second Holding:

Although Hardin rejected an equal protection challenge to section 3051 by an offender sentenced to LWOP for special circumstance murder, it did not foreclose other as-applied challenges to the statute based on particular special circumstances or the factual circumstances of individual cases.

Authority:

People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834

People v. Briscoe (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 479, 484-495 [the defendant successfully raised an as-applied challenge to section 3051’s exclusion of young adult offenders convicted of special circumstance murder under section 190.2(d)]

Third Holding:

There are cases with possibly similar crimes by possibly equally culpable offenders who would now be eligible for parole while the defendant is not. Although these authorities do not conclusively establish any violation of defendant’s right to equal protection, they do allow for the possibility that he might be able to develop such an argument under Harden.

Authority:

People v. Carter (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 831

People v. Mulqueen (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 532

People v. Fortman (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 45

Fourth Holding:

Some states have constitutions that prohibit imposing an LWOP sentence on youthful offenders. While these authorities do not conclusively establish that section 3051’s exclusion of young adult offenders constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the California Constitution, they allow for the possibility that defendant might be able to develop such an argument.

Authority:

Commonwealth v. Mattis (2024) 493 Mass. 216, 234-235

Eighth Amendment

Case: 000193

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This petition arises from a matter where the trial court denied bail on appeal without state reasons for the denial. The petition is granted, and the respondent court is ordered to provide a brief written statement of reasons to explain why the defendant’s requests for release pending appeal were denied.

Holding:

This petition arises from a matter where the trial court denied bail on appeal without state reasons for the denial. The petition is granted, and the respondent court is ordered to provide a brief written statement of reasons to explain why the defendant’s requests for release pending appeal were denied.

Authority:

PEN 1272.1

PEN 1272(c) [though referred to in 1272.1 as 1272(3)]

Trivia by Gary:

[Gary note: Section 1272.1 starts out with “Release on bail pending appeal under subdivision (3) of Section 1272 shall be ordered ….” In its final paragraph, it starts out with “In making its decision on whether to grant defendants’ motions for bail under subdivision (3) of Section 1272 ….” If you look at section 1272, however, there is no subdivision (3). Section 1272 does have subdivisions (a), (b), and (c). Here’s the explanation: Prior to January 1, 2024, section 1272 DID have subdivisions by number (1, 2, and 3). Effective that date, however, the section was amended in two respects. The substantive change was that it added the language I have bracketed here, which did not exist in previous versions: “After conviction of an offense not punishable with death [or life without the possibility of parole], … In other words, one sentenced to LWOP on or after that date can no longer apply for bail under section 1272 as of that date. The nonsubstantive change was the redesignation of the subdivisions as (a), (b), and (c) in place of the numbers. As of the present date, section 1272.1 has not been “cleaned up,” so to speak, to change its reference to the (a), (b), (c) designated subdivisions of section 1272. The substance of section 1272, subdivision 3 did not change when it was redesignated as subdivision (c). See? We learn something new every day!]

 

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Fines and fees

Case: 000192

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment contains a clerical error regarding the imposed fines. The defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence on some counts and a determinate sentence of others. Two different forms are used–one is the abstract for the indeterminate sentence, the other for the determinate sentence. Though the court imposed only one restitution fine and one parole revocation restitution fine, both fines appear on both forms. While not necessarily improper, it can lead to an ambiguity. In an abundance of caution, and because we agree the duplicate reference could possibly lead to confusion, we direct the clerk of the court issue an amended determinate abstract of judgment, leaving the restitution fine and parole revocation restitution fine reflected only on the indeterminate abstract of judgment, form CR-292.

First Holding:

Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. The abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction and it cannot add to or modify the judgment which it purports to digest or summarize. Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts that have properly assumed jurisdiction can order correction of abstracts of judgment that do not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324

People v. Caudillo (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 122, 126

Second Holding:

A trial court must accurately set forth all fines and fees in the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 [If the abstract does not specify the amount of each fine, the Department of Corrections cannot fulfill its statutory duty to collect and forward deductions from prisoner wages to the appropriate agency]

Third Holding:

The court has authority to order correction of abstracts of judgment to avoid ambiguity.

Authority:

People v. Frey (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 139, 142 [finding ambiguity between the court’s order and the statement on the abstract of judgment form required correction]

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000191

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is entitled to sentencing relief under section 1172.75 for prior prison term enhancements which were imposed and stayed. Absent a valid waiver of his presence, defendant is entitled to be present at his resentencing hearing on remand.

First Holding:

Any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b), except for enhancements for certain sexually violent offenses, is legally invalid. If a prior prison term enhancement becomes invalid under the section, a trial court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant, and, in doing so, shall apply 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

Second Holding:

Section 1172.75(a) applies to enhancements that were imposed as part of the defendant’s original judgment, regardless of whether the enhancement was stayed or executed. If the enhancement is no longer authorized under the current version of section 667.5(b), section 1172.75(a) renders the enhancement invalid. And the retroactive invalidation of the previously imposed enhancements in turn mandates resentencing under section 1172.75, according to the procedures set forth therein.

[Gary note: This opinion was filed before Espino was decided. It is not applicable here because the prior conviction was stayed. But I think it is important to know the current complete state of the law. Rhodius dealt solely with prior convictions whose punishment was stayed, deferring the question whether section 1172.75 applies to prior convictions that were stricken. On July 2, 2026, the Supreme Court answered that question in People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987). It held that section 1172.75 applies to those prior convictions that were stricken at time of sentencing. This is not discussed in the summary above because the trial court had relied the prior conviction having been stayed, not stricken, which was directly addressed by Rhodius.]

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1068

[People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987)]

Third Holding:

By its own terms, section 1172.75 ensures the defendant’s right to be present, represented by counsel, and present evidence at the hearing.

Authority:

People v. Velasco (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 663, 673-674

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing

Case: 000190

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the court reduced his mandatory assessments due to his inability to pay. We direct the trial court to correct its resentencing minute order and to amend the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

A trial court must accurately set forth all fines and fees in the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 [If the abstract does not specify the amount of each fine, the Department of Corrections cannot fulfill its statutory duty to collect and forward deductions from prisoner wages to the appropriate agency]

Second Holding:

Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. We have the inherent power to correct clerical errors so as to make records such as abstracts of judgment or minute orders conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Thus, we are directing the court to amend the abstract of judgment to conform to its oral pronouncement of judgment.

Authority:

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

In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705

Discretion, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000189

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by reimposing the upper term sentences based on aggravating factors that were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury as required under section 1170(b)(2). This error violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court failed to exercise its discretion under AB 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (regarding the choice of sentences to impose when section 654 permits sentencing on only one of the counts it applies to) at the resentencing hearing. The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the correct sentencing date and number of custody credits.

First Holding:

Under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by a jury, not a judge, and established beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 1170(b)(2) similarly provides that the trial court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when circumstances in aggravation of the crime justify imposition of an upper term sentence, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt’ at a jury or court trial. This jury trial right is not merely a state law entitlement, but is constitutionally required for all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction, relied upon to justify an upper term sentence.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

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. Lack of a jury trial is not harmless under Chapman if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.

Authority:

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

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

Third Holding:

Section 654 prohibits a court from punishing a defendant more than once for the same act or course of conduct. Prior to 2022, the statute required that an act or omission punishable in different ways by different statutes be punished under the provision that provided the longest potential term of imprisonment. (Former sec. 654(a).) AB 518 amended section 654 effective January 1, 2022, to grant a court discretion to punish such an act under either of such provisions. The trial court erroneously failed to exercise its discretion under Assembly Bill 518 at the resentencing hearing. Since we are again remanding this matter for resentencing under Senate Bill 567, the trial court should conduct a full resentencing as to all counts based on the law and circumstances that apply when resentencing occurs, including the amendments to section 654 under AB 518.

Authority:

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment will need to be corrected to reflect the correct sentencing date and number of custody credits.

[Gary note: The court did not cite authority for this obviously required order. There are many cases it could have cited. I have listed some of them below.]

Authority:

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

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

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

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000188

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court denied the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion under section 1001.36, and placed him on probation. The evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that his undisputed mental health disorders were not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor in his involvement in the crime. We will reverse the probation order due to insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s finding of ineligibility for mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36(b)(2). We will remand the matter for the trial court to exercise its discretion under Penal Code section 1001.36(c) regarding defendant’s suitability for mental health diversion.

First Holding:

Since 2018, Penal Code section 1001.36 has afforded trial courts discretion to grant criminal defendants suffering from certain recognized mental disorders pretrial diversion to receive mental health treatment. Diversion allows for the suspension of criminal proceedings and potential dismissal of charges upon successful completion of mental health treatment. The express purpose of the legislation was to increase diversion of eligible individuals, and later amendments have only confirmed the Legislature’s desire to expand mental health treatment through diversion. As currently enacted, a defendant accused of a qualifying offense is eligible for mental health diversion if the defendant has been diagnosed with a qualifying mental health disorder which was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense. A qualifying diagnosis creates a rebuttable presumption that the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense. The presumption can be overcome if there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113, 119

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 890

Second Holding:

We review for substantial evidence a decision that a qualifying mental health disorder (which the trial court found to exist here) was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor in the charged conduct—a finding that must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Given that standard, on appeal we must determine whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true. We also must view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.

Even considering the record in the light most favorable to the challenged ruling, we conclude it does not contain substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found it highly probable that defendant’s mental disorders were not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor in his involvement in the crime. A qualifying diagnosis creates a presumption that the defendant’s mental condition contributed to his criminal behavior. And the prosecution can only rebut this presumption by producing clear and convincing evidence that there was no causal connection. he statutory presumption is not overcome simply by the absence of evidence that the mental disorder was a motivating factor, or the absence of evidence that the defendant was actively experiencing symptoms while committing the crime. The statutory presumption is not overcome simply by the absence of evidence that the mental disorder was a motivating factor, or the absence of evidence that the defendant was actively experiencing symptoms while committing the crime.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401, 404

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 995–996

People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485

Equal protection, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000187

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant contends on this appeal that the trial court erroneously found he was not entitled to a Franklin hearing in his petition for writ of habeas corpus and erred in denying his Franklin motion as successive. In 2018, the defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting a Franklin hearing.

(The Franklin court had held that a defendant seeking to preserve evidence following a final judgment should be given an opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his youth offender parole hearing.. Franklin authorized trial courts to receive any documents, evaluations or testimony that may be relevant at an eventual youth offender parole hearing.)

That court (in 2018) denied that petition on the basis that he was not eligible for a youth offender parole hearing because he would already be released before reaching the 15 years’ threshold for youth offender parole. In 2024, the defendant filed a motion for a Franklin hearing under section 1203.01. The trial court denied that motion on the grounds that it was a successive motion. The People agree with defendant that the court erred when it denied his motion as successive. We conclude the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for a Franklin hearing as successive. We reverse the court’s order and remand for the court to consider defendant’s motion under Penal Code section 1203.01.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2014, SB 260 (2013–2014 Reg. Sess.) enacted sections 3051, 3046(c), and 4801(c) to provide a parole eligibility mechanism for youthful offenders. Defendants who were 25 years old or younger at the time they committed the offense and were convicted of a determinate term are entitled to a youth offender parole hearing during their 15th year of incarceration. The Franklin court had held that a defendant seeking to preserve evidence following a final judgment should be given an opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his youth offender parole hearing.. Franklin authorized trial courts to receive any documents, evaluations or testimony that may be relevant at an eventual youth offender parole hearing. For defendants whose judgments were final, the proper procedure to obtain a Franklin hearing is to file a motion in superior court under the original caption and case number, citing the authority of section 1203.01 and the Cook decision.

Authority:

PEN 1203.01

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261,283-284

People v. Perez (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 612, 618

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Second Holding:

There is no express bar to successive motions or requests for a Franklin hearing under section 1203.01. The defendant’s section 1203.01 motion should not have been denied as successive.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Third Holding:

The trial court’s order denying a defendant’s Franklin motion is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. In deciding whether the court abused its discretion we ask whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether its rulings of law are correct, and whether its application of the law to the facts was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Critical to the resolution of this case, we note that when a trial court’s decision rests on an error of law, that decision is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 459

People v. Benzler (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 743, 749

People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) (2008) 43 Cal.4th 737, 746

Fourth Holding:

Although defendant originally sought a Franklin hearing by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, as Cook explained, habeas corpus was not the proper procedure in the first instance. Accordingly, the court’s order denying the habeas petition did not bar the court from ruling on defendant’s subsequent Franklin motion, which was properly raised under section 1203.01 and Cook. As such, the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s Franklin motion on the sole basis he had already sought a Franklin hearing by filing a habeas petition. Therefore, the court abused its discretion when it denied defendant’s Franklin motion as successive.

Authority:

ADIn re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 457-458

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000186

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant—whom a jury convicted of first degree murder in 1992—appeals the trial court’s order denying his Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage. He contends he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his petition because the jury might have convicted him as a mere participant—rather than as the actual killer—under a felony murder theory of liability. The record of conviction, however, reveals no path permitting the jury to convict him as anything other than the actual killer. And he puts forth no specific facts that identify someone else as the direct perpetrator. Nor does he challenge any other elements of his conviction. We therefore conclude the court properly denied the petition, but we remand to give the defendant the opportunity to file an amended petition to address its current deficiencies.

Holding:

The record of conviction reveals no path permitting the jury to convict the defendant as anything but the actual killer. Out of an abundance of caution, however, we grant his request for an opportunity on remand to plead additional relevant facts in support of his petition. Accordingly, we conditionally affirm.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 567

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 462

People v. Glass (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 922, 925

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000185

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant’s Penal Code section 1172.75 petition for resentencing asked the trial court to strike certain sentencing enhancements that were no longer valid under current law and to exercise its discretion to strike other enhancements and prior strike convictions. The trial court held a resentencing hearing, struck the invalid enhancements, but declined to further reduce defendant’s sentence. We reverse for some certain conceded errors in the pronouncement of sentence, including with respect to custody credits, but otherwise affirm.

First Holding:

A trial court conducting a resentencing under section 1172.75 has discretion to dismiss a “strike” allegation under the Three Strikes law. There was no abuse of discretion here.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 504

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

Second Holding:

The trial court calculated certain elements of the defendant’s sentence by subtracting the one-year prior prison term enhancements from his original sentence as opposed to the later sentence imposed on remand following a determination that it was error to sentence on two–rather than just one–of the counts because of Penal Code section 654. There was some further ambiguity in the sentence imposed at the section 1172.75 hearing. The matter must be remanded to the trial court to strike the prior prison term enhancements on Counts Two and Three, to clarify the sentence on Count Three remains stayed, and to clarify the status of the prior serious felony enhancement on Count Two.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

The trial court improperly delegated calculation of his custody credits to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Authority:

PC 2900.1

PC 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23-24

Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

000184

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A jury found the defendant guilty of felony reckless evasion of a police officer. There were evidentiary conflicts. Under the highly deferential substantial evidence review standard, we conclude the conflicting trial evidence nonetheless supports his conviction. These evidentiary conflicts were sufficient, however, to raise a substantial question about whether all the elements of reckless evasion were present, warranting an instruction on the lesser included offense of simple evasion. We conclude failure to give this instruction was prejudicial error.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment with the direction that if the People do not timely elect to retry the defendant for reckless evasion, then the judgment shall be modified to reflect a conviction for simple evasion and the trial court shall resentence the defendant.

First Holding:

It is undisputed that misdemeanor simple evasion (Veh. Code, sec. 2800.1) is a lesser included offense of felony reckless evasion (Veh. Code, sec. 2800.2) and that the only distinction between the two crimes is that the greater offense requires proof of the additional element that the defendant drove the pursued vehicle in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. The greater offense’s additional element can be established by proving that during the evasion the defendant committed three or more violations that are assigned a traffic violation point count under section 12810.

Authority:

VEH 2800.1

VEH 2800.2

People v. Springfield (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1674, 1680

People v. Diaz (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1486

Second Holding:

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not determine the facts ourselves. Rather, we examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence — evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value — such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact. Moreover, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a convictionIf the circumstances reasonably justify the findings made by the trier of fact, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.

Authority:

People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1215

People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756, 819–820

People v. Ramirez (2022) 13 Cal.5th 997, 1118

People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 638, 639

Third Holding:

California law has long provided that even absent a request, and over any party’s objection, a trial court must instruct a criminal jury on any lesser offense necessarily included in the charged offense, if there is substantial evidence that only the lesser crime was committed. This venerable instructional rule ensures that the jury may consider all supportable crimes necessarily included within the charge itself, thus encouraging the most accurate verdict permitted by the pleadings and the evidence. The rule prevents either party, whether by design or inadvertence, from forcing an all-or-nothing choice between conviction of the stated offense on the one hand, or complete acquittal on the other.

Thus, a trial court errs if it fails to instruct, sua sponte, on all theories of a lesser included offense which find substantial support in the evidence. On the other hand, the court is not obliged to instruct on theories that have no such evidentiary support. In this context, substantial evidence is not any evidence, no matter how weak; it is evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive. If there is no proof, other than an unexplainable rejection of the prosecution’s evidence, that the offense was less than that charged, such instructions shall not be given. Although we concluded above that substantial evidence supports the finding that the defendant committed at least three qualifying Vehicle Code violations during the pursuit, there is also substantial evidence that he did not commit at least three qualifying violations. Accordingly, the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte regarding this lesser included offense.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 239–240

People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154

People v. Williams (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1244, 1263

People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1063

Fourth Holding:

We apply the generally applicable California test for harmless error under which we deem an error harmless unless it is reasonably probable the outcome would have been different in the absence of the error. Other than in cases involving the unique relationship between murder and voluntary manslaughter, the general rule is that the failure to instruct on other forms of lesser included offenses in noncapital cases is an error of state law. A reasonable probability in this context does not mean more likely than not, but merely a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility. In assessing prejudice, we consider both the magnitude of the error and the closeness of the case. Applying this standard, we find the error here prejudicial.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Hendrix (2022) 13 Cal.5th 933, 944

People v. Vasquez (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 786, 798

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000183

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court denied the defendant’s petition for recall filed under Penal Code section 1172.6 his attempted murder conviction. His guilty plea did not conclusively establish his ineligibility for resentencing as a matter of law and the court improperly engaged in factfinding to determine his eligibility for relief. We conclude the court erred in denying the petition at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause. Because the record does not conclusively show that the defendant acted with the specific intent to kill, it cannot establish ineligibility for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law. At minimum, the petition raised a factual question requiring further inquiry, and the trial court was not permitted to resolve that question against him at the prima facie stage.

First Holding:

When evaluating a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, the trial court must determine at the prima facie stage whether the petitioner made a showing entitling them to relief. Although the court may consult the record of conviction to assess eligibility, it is prohibited from engaging in factfinding, weighing the evidence, or exercising its own discretion. The court generally must accept the petitioner’s factual allegations as true unless they are conclusively refuted by the record of conviction.

A court may deny a petition at the prima facie stage only if the record of conviction demonstrates, incontrovertibly and as a matter of law, that the petitioner is ineligible for relief. Unless the record “conclusively establishes” that the defendant committed the acts and harbored the mental state required for liability under a still-valid theory, the allegations of the petition may not be disregarded. And if the petitioner could, at an evidentiary hearing, present evidence rebutting the record, the matter necessarily involves factual determinations that cannot be resolved at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

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

People v. Ervin (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 90, 101

People v. Rivera (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 217, 230

People v. Estrada (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 328, 339

Second Holding:

Applying these principles, we independently review the trial court’s denial of resentencing. We review factual findings for substantial evidence but evaluate the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo. Under this standard, the record of conviction does not conclusively establish that the defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

Authority:

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52

People v. Arnold (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 376, 383

Third Holding:

Before SB 1437 and 775, a defendant could be convicted of attempted murder either by directly aiding and abetting with the intent to kill or under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Following those statutory amendments, liability based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine is no longer valid for attempted murder, but direct aiding and abetting with intent to kill remains a valid theory. A petitioner is therefore eligible for resentencing only if the conviction could have been based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Because the defendant’s plea is fully consistent with both theories—(1) direct aiding and abetting with intent to kill, and (2) aiding another offense whose natural and probable consequence was attempted murder—the record does not foreclose the latter, invalid theory. The absence of any explicit admission of intent to kill is critical. A defendant’s guilty plea to attempted murder does not, by itself, establish that he personally harbored express malice; defendants routinely plead to charges for reasons unrelated to their precise mental state, including the reasonable belief that a jury might convict under an at-the-time valid imputed-malice theory.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 451, 456–457

People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 546, 548