Author Archives: Gary McCurdy

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000247

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is not eligible to have a full resentencing under section 1172.75 because no now-invalid prior prison term enhancement had ever been imposed, a pre-condition for invocation of section 1172.75. The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it erroneously indicates that the enhancement for the prior prison term was stayed, when it is clear from the record that the court actually struck the enhancement rather than impose and stay it.

First Holding:

Appellate courts may exercise their authority to correct clerical errors, including correcting an abstract of judgment and may strike statements in the abstract to conform with the court’s oral pronouncement. Because the trial court explicitly stated, “The court is likewise going to strike the 667.5(b) prison prior,” the enhancement should not have been listed in the abstract of judgment, and we have the authority to order the abstract’s correction without requiring an accompanying resentencing. We order that correction accordingly.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts]

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 388

Second Holding:

The question in this case was left open by the Supreme Court in People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1066, footnote 2 and, as is discussed below, is factually distinguishable from the issue to be decided in People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 194 (Espino), review granted October 23, 2024, S286987, which hinges on the “imposition” of a stricken prison prior enhancement’s punishment. Pending briefing before the Supreme Court is limited to the following issue: “Is a defendant entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when the judgment in the defendant’s criminal case includes a prior-prison-term enhancement that was imposed but for which punishment was stricken?” (Espino, S286987, Supreme Ct. Mins., July 30, 2025.)

[Gary Note: Espino was decided by the Supreme Court on July 2, 2026. It did firmly hold that section 1172.75 applies when the punishment for a now-invalid prior prison term enhancement was stricken, not merely stayed as it was in Rhodius. Footnote 1 of the Supreme Court opinion in Espino seems to make it clear that it was not deciding the issue that arose in this Case 000247. Footnote 1: “Our decision in Rhodius also left open whether a prior prison term enhancement is “imposed” (sec. 1172.75(a)) “when an enhancement, not just its associated punishment, [is] stricken” (Rhodius, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1066, fn. 2). As that question is not at issue in this case, we do not address it.”

I can tell you that a petition for review in this case (the one for which this is the summary, 000247) was denied a few months ago, before Espino was decided. It seems it will take a different case to convince the Supreme Court to decide whether a person is eligible for relief under section 1172.75 in cases where the court struck the enhancement itself (and thus had nothing on which to impose and either stay or strike punishment.)]

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1066, footnote 2

People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 194 (review granted 10/23/24, S286987

People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987, decided July 2, 2026)

Sentencing

Case: 000246

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though not entitled to conduct credits because he was convicted under the One Strike Law, the defendant was entitled to credit for actual time in custody. The matter is remanded for the court to determine and award the length of time he was in custody.

First Holding:

The defendant is entitled to presentence custody credits. As there appears to be a factual discrepancy regarding the date of his arrest, we remand this issue to the trial court for a determination of the appropriate amount of presentence custody credit

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Ravaux (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 914, 919

People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954, 958

Second Holding:

A person sentenced under the One Strike Law (section 667.61) is not entitled to pre-sentence conduct credit.

Authority:

People v. Adams (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 170, 182

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1036–1037

People v. Dearborne (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 250, 267–268

Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000245

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Section 654 required the court to stay the punishment for one of his two criminal threat convictions. The record is devoid of any evidence suggesting that the defendant had sufficient time to reflect and renew his intent between his act of sending the first set of text messages giving rise to count 2 and his act of sending the second set of text messages giving rise to count 3. Therefore, we modify the judgment to stay the punishment for one of the counts.

First Holding:

An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. Section 654 protects against multiple punishment, not multiple conviction. To avoid double punishment, a sentencing court applying section 654 will impose the sentence for one offense while staying the imposition of the sentence on the other offense.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 336

People v. Mathis (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 359, 367

Second Holding:

Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an act or omission may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective. We first consider if the different crimes were completed by a single physical act. If so, the defendant may not be punished more than once for that act. Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single intent and objective or multiple intents and objectives.

Authority:

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311–312

People v. Mathis (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 359, 367

Third Holding:

Whether section 654 applies in a given case is a question of fact for the trial court, which is vested with broad latitude in making its determination. The court’s express or implied findings in support of its determination that section 654 does not apply will be upheld on appeal if substantial evidence supports them. The applicability of section 654 to settled facts presents a question of law.

Authority:

People v. Cruz (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 715, 737

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

Fourth Holding:

Where there is a basis for identifying the specific factual basis for a verdict, a trial court cannot find otherwise in applying section 654. However, in the absence of some circumstance foreclosing its sentencing discretion a trial court may base its decision under section 654 on any of the facts that are in evidence at trial, without regard to the verdicts. Indeed, a court may even rely on facts underlying verdicts of acquittal in making sentencing choices.

Authority:

People v. McCoy (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1339-1340

Fifth Holding:

If multiple offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one. However, a course of conduct divisible in time, although directed to one objective, may give rise to multiple violations and punishment. This is particularly so where the offenses are temporally separated in such a way as to afford the defendant opportunity to reflect and to renew his or her intent before committing the next one, thereby aggravating the violation of public security or policy already undertaken.

Authority:

People v. Fuentes (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 670, 680

People v. Gaynor (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 794, 800 [even if a course of conduct is directed to one objective, it may give rise to multiple violations and punishment if it is divisible in time]

People v. Goode (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 484, 492 [If the offenses were committed on different occasions, they may be punished separately]

People v. Gaio (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 919, 935

People v. Louie (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 388, 399 [If the separation in time afforded the defendant an opportunity to reflect and to renew the defendant’s intent before committing the next crime, a new and separate crime is committed.]

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Standard of review

Case: 000244

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred by imposing a probation condition that required the defendant to submit to searches of her computers, recordable media, and electronic devices. The electronic search condition is not reasonably related to criminality. Because we conclude the electronic search condition is unreasonable under the Lent test, we do not consider whether it is unconstitutionally overbroad. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction in part and remand with instructions to strike the electronic search condition and consider whether a more narrowly tailored or alternative condition would be reasonable.

First Holding:

In Lent, the Supreme Court adopted a three-part test to determine whether a probation condition is reasonable and, therefore, statutorily valid. Generally, a condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. This test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term.

Authority:

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

Second Holding:

A probation condition that imposes limitations on a person’s constitutional rights must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad. The essential question in an overbreadth challenge is the closeness of the fit between the legitimate purpose of the restriction and the burden it imposes on the defendant’s constitutional rights—bearing in mind, of course, that perfection in such matters is impossible, and that practical necessity will justify some infringement.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890

People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717, 723

Third Holding:

We review conditions of probation for abuse of discretion. Specifically, we review a probation condition for an indication that the condition is arbitrary or capricious or otherwise exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Juveniles, Retroactivity

Case: 000243

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because of legislation enacted since the disposition hearing, the $100 restitution fine is ordered stricken in this Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 juvenile proceeding.

Holding:

While this appeal was pending, the Legislature amended section 730.6 and removed the requirement that a minor pay a restitution fine. The relevant portion of the statute now states that the court shall not impose a separate and additional restitution fine against a minor found to be a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Because the judgment is not final, the appellant is entitled to the ameliorative benefits of this amendment.

Authority:

WIC 730.6

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000242

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the court failed to update the credits for time served, and awarded only the credits allowed at the original sentencing 12 years earlier. This was error, and the matter is remanded for the trial court to recalculate the proper credits as of the date of the resentencing hearing.

Holding:

When a trial court resentences a defendant on remand, it must credit him with all actual days he spent in custody up to that time, including his time in custody after the original sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Ca1.4th 20, 37 [the trial court, having modified defendant’s sentence on remand, was obliged, in its new abstract of judgment, to credit him with all actual days he had spent in custody]

Fourth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000241

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The officer stopped the defendant’s vehicle for having a nonfunctioning rear license plate light. The detaining officer prolonged the stop without the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify detouring from the traffic stop’s mission. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment, and we remand the matter to allow the defendant to withdraw the guilty plea and with directions to the trial court to enter a new order granting his suppression motion.

First Holding:

In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we defer to that court’s factual findings, express or implied, if they are supported by substantial evidence. We exercise our independent judgment in determining whether, on the facts presented, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. In doing so we do not consider each fact in isolation. Instead, we must consider the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture.

Authority:

PEN 1538.5

People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1043

Second Holding:

A traffic stop that is lawful at its inception can violate the Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes interests protected by the Constitution. A police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures. A seizure for a traffic violation justifies a relatively brief encounter for police investigation of the traffic violation.

Authority:

People v. Gyorgy (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 659, 669–670

Third Holding:

The tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s mission—to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop and attend to related safety concerns. Because addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may last no longer than is necessary to effectuate that purpose. Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.

Authority:

People v. Gyorgy (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 659, 669–670

Fourth Holding:

Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission includes ordinary inquiries incident to the traffic stop. Typically such inquiries involve checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance. The temporary detention may also include a criminal history check, which is done by consulting an in-car computer terminal or radioing dispatch. And although not specifically compelled by law, certain other steps customarily taken as matters of good police practice are no less intimately related to the citation process: for example, the officer will usually discuss the violation with the motorist and listen to any explanation the latter may wish to offer. These tasks are included within the officer’s mission during a traffic stop because they serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly.

Authority:

People v. Gyorgy (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 659, 669–670

Fifth Holding:

An officer may also require a lawfully stopped driver to exit the vehicle for officer safety to complete his traffic stop mission. On-scene investigation into other crimes, however, detours from the traffic stop’s mission. So too do safety precautions taken in order to facilitate such detours. While an officer may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop, the officer may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual.

Authority:

People v. Gyorgy (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 659, 669–670

Duty of counsel, Immigration, Standard of review

Case: 000240

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant entered the United States in 1991 and obtained permanent residency in the mid-2000s. She was convicted by plea in 2009 of grand theft and was ordered to serve one year in the county jail as a condition of probation. At the time of her plea, she was advised under section 1016.5 that conviction may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion of admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization. There was no indication that her then-attorney discussed immigration consequences with her. She was not aware that a jail term of 364 days instead of 365 days would have made a difference regarding her immigration status.

Because service of at least 365 days in custody constitutes an aggravated felony, in 2010 she was notified by immigration authorities that she was subject to removal. She conceded removability and was deported. In 2023, someone she had kept in contact with over the years suggested she contact the public defender. She did, and a petition to vacate her conviction was filed under section 1473.7 Based on our independent review, we conclude the defendant has shown prejudicial error based on the totality of the circumstances. It was error to deny the defendant’s petition under section 1473.7 to vacate her conviction because prejudicial error impaired her ability to understand the immigration consequences of her plea.

First Holding:

Section 1473.7 allows noncitizens who have served their sentences to vacate a conviction if they can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that their conviction is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging their ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence. If the required showings are made, the court must vacate the conviction or sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7(a)(1), (e)(1)

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316

Second Holding:

Appeals from section 1473.7 hearings are subject to independent review. Under this standard, an appellate court exercises its independent judgment to determine whether the facts satisfy the rule of law. We give deference to the trial court’s factual determinations if they are based on the credibility of witnesses the superior court heard and observed. But when the trial court’s findings derive entirely from written declarations and other documents, the trial court and the reviewing court are in the same position, and no deference is owed.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319-320

Third Holding:

Subject to statutory exceptions, a motion to vacate based on immigration consequences shall be deemed timely filed at any time in which the individual filing the motion is no longer in criminal custody. The exceptions state the motion may be deemed untimely filed if it was not filed with reasonable diligence after the later of several events: receipt of a notice to appear in immigration court, notice from immigration authorities asserting adverse consequences from the conviction or sentence, or notice of a final removal order.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7(b)(1) and (b)(2)

Fourth Holding:

The statutory exceptions to timeliness do not apply here. Because the defendant was given notice of immigration consequences before the 2017 effective date of section 1473.7, the test is: What event in her life that occurred after section 1473.7 became effective would have given her a reason to look for the existence of new legal grounds for relief or, at a minimum, put her on notice of the need to investigate? We assess the reasonableness of the petitioner’s diligence from that point forward. In so doing, we must take into account the totality of the circumstances. The record does not suggest some event occurred between the time the legislation became effective in 2017 and her contact with her attorney in 2023 that put her on notice. We conclude the motion was timely.

Authority:

People v. Alatorre (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 747, 762, 765-766

Fifth Holding:

Relief pursuant to section 1473.7 requires that the defendant show prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence. Because the defendant’s conviction of theft with a one-year sentence constituted an aggravated felony, she was subject to mandatory deportation and permanent exclusion from the United States and was also ineligible for cancellation of removal, a form of discretionary relief allowing some deportable aliens to remain in the country.

Authority:

8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G)

8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)

8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(3), (b)(1)(C)

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 15

Sixth Holding:

A defendant seeking section 1473.7 relief must demonstrate that the error is prejudicial, meaning a reasonable probability that the defendant would have rejected the plea if the defendant had correctly understood its actual or potential immigration consequences. This might be based either on the desire to go to trial or on the hope or expectation of negotiating a different bargain without immigration consequences. Relief is available if the defendant establishes he or she would have rejected the existing bargain to accept or attempt to negotiate another.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529

People v. Martinez (2013) 57 Cal.4th 555, 559

Seventh Holding:

Her ignorance of the immigration consequences of her conviction and sentence was an error that damaged her ability to meaningfully understand and knowingly accept those consequences. A showing of ineffective assistance of counsel was not required because the motion was based on the inadequate advisement by the trial court that the conviction may have immigration consequences and the defendant’s own error in not knowing that her plea would subject her to mandatory deportation and permanent exclusion from the United States. There was no indication her attorney considered the immigration consequences of her plea even though a social worker had expressed concern and the defendant had expressed concern to probation. This failure impeded the defendant’s ability to understand the consequences of her plea.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7(a)(1)

People v. Mejia (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 859, 871

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 960–961

Eighth Holding:

Defense counsel has a duty to advise criminal defendant clients of the immigration consequences.

Authority:

PEN 1016.2

PEN 1016.3

Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356, 371

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 17-18

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000239

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Here, where the petition was facially sufficient, it was error to deny the defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage without appointing counsel and without a hearing. The trial court in this case appointed no counsel, conducted no hearing, and did not consider briefing, arguments of either party, or any other portion of the trial record, which necessarily informs the prima facie inquiry. On this record, with multiple participants in the shooting incident, as well as the jury’s instruction on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, a theory of implied malice, we cannot say it would be a waste of judicial resources to send the case back to the trial court to conduct its obligations under section 1172.6.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature eliminated natural and probable consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting, and limited the scope of the felony-murder rule. It also added section 1170.95, now section 1172.6, to provide a procedure for convicted murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief. Thereafter, it expanded the path to resentencing under the law to allow relief for those with attempted murder convictions based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Authority:

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 723-724

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558

Second Holding:

A petition under section 1172.6 that includes a declaration by petitioner that the petitioner is eligible for relief , based on all the requirements of section 1172.6, subdivision (a), the case number and year of the petitioner’s conviction, and whether the petitioner seeks counsel is facially sufficient and entitles the petitioner to counsel.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558-559

Third Holding:

The prima facie inquiry is limited A petitioner’s allegations should be accepted as true, and the court should not make credibility determinations or engage in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion. The record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry, allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless. Indeed, in assessing petitions from individuals convicted after a jury trial, the jury instructions will be critical. The record of conviction also includes documents such as verdict forms. If the record [of conviction, including the court’s own documents, contains facts refuting the allegations made in the petition, then ‘the court is justified in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner. The court may deny the petition at the prima facie stage only if the record of conviction conclusively establishes that the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971, 974

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 720 [factfinding is prohibited at the prima facie stage]

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 731

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 563

People v. Gallardo (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 296, 301

People v. Gaillard (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1206, 1211

People v. Hickman (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1262, 1268

Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000238

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We strike the domestic violence probation fee. The defendant was sentenced to prison.

Holding:

The domestic violation probation fee is imposed only when a defendant is granted probation. It is not applicable when the defendant is sentenced to prison. the unauthorized fee must be stricken.

Authority:

PEN 1203.97(a)(5)

People v. Kirvin (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1520

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354

Duty of counsel, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000237

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The sentencing court erred by considering aggravating circumstances not proven at trial. Because we reverse and remand for resentencing, we need not address the defendant’s contention that the court committed dual use error by relying on same fact—that he was was armed with or used a firearm—to both impose enhancements and sentence him to the upper term. He may raise his dual use argument at resentencing.

First Holding:

The defendant’s attorney did not object to dual use of facts or reliance on factors in aggravation that were not proved at trial. In general, claims not raised in the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal. This includes claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices.

However, an appellate court may decline to apply the forfeiture rule. Where an otherwise forfeited claim presents an important question of constitutional law or a substantial right, the appellate court may exercise discretion to review the claim. Thus, in People v. Gonzalez, this court declined to apply forfeiture to the defendant’s section 1170(b) claim where the defendant did not refer to the statute at sentencing, citing the defendant’s alternative claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and stating the application of amended section 1170(b) implicates a constitutional right.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 326-327

People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562, 568

People v. Denard (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1030, fn. 10

Second Holding:

The court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

Authority:

PEN 1170

Third Holding:

Under the Sixth Amendment 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. Virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty plea). Under the current version of section 1170(b)(2), a Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established.

Authority:

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 834

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768

Fourth Holding:

When a trial court has given both proper and improper reasons for a sentence choice, a reviewing court will set aside the sentence only if it is reasonably probable that the trial court would have chosen a lesser sentence had it known that some of its reasons were improper. When the trial court actually relies on improperly proven aggravating facts to justify an upper term sentence, a Sixth Amendment violation occurs and the Chapman standard of reversal unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt must be satisfied.

Authority:

People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 492

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees

Case: 000236

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstracts of judgment for all of the defendants reflect assessments that were not orally pronounced (in fact, the trial court had found that the defendants did not have the ability to pay the fees) and must be stricken. The People agree. We agree with the parties and will order those assessments stricken from the abstract of judgment.

Holding:

It is well settled that an abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize. When an abstract of judgment does not reflect the actual sentence imposed in the trial judge’s verbal pronouncement, the court has the inherent power to correct such clerical error on appeal, whether on our own motion or upon application of the parties.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89