Author Archives: Gary McCurdy

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000897

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On remand following the defendant’s earlier appeal, the trial court imposed an upper term based on impermissible aggravating recidivism factors.

Holding:

Under the Sixth Amendment, 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.

Here, the court imposed the upper term based on the aggravating facts that the defendant’s prior convictions were numerous and of increasing seriousness and his performance on probation was unsatisfactory.

Because the defendant did not stipulate to these facts, which go beyond the bare fact of his prior convictions and their elements, he was entitled to a jury trial on them. That he did not receive one renders the sentence unauthorized.

Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand the matter to give the People an opportunity to retry the aggravating facts.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1086, 1091

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 776 [proper remedy where aggravating facts were not tried to a jury is to remand and give the People an opportunity to retry the aggravating facts]

 

Second Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Sentencing

Case 000896

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant’s 10-year prison terms constitute ex post facto punishment. We reverse the judgment and remand for a new sentencing hearing.

First Holding:

The trial court instructed the jurors that the offenses charged in counts 1 through 4 allegedly occurred sometime between a specific date in 2007 and a specific date in 2015.

The jurors made no specific finding about the dates of the acts on which they convicted the defendant for counts 1 through 4. The jury made no finding that the offenses in counts 1 through 4 occurred before the Legislature increased the sentencing triad from 3-6-8 years to 5-8-10 yearson September 9, 2010. In addition, the record does not establish that the jury must have based its verdicts on acts occurring after that date.

Thus, we conclude the trial court violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws by imposing 10-year terms for the defendant’s convictions on counts 1 through 4.

Authority:

People v. Hiscox (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 253, 257–262

Second Holding:

As to the remedy for the ex post facto violation, we exercise our discretion to vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand the matter for full resentencing. On remand, the trial court should impose prison terms on counts 1 through 4 in accordance with the triad in effect prior to September 9, 2010.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Hiscox (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 253, 262

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

Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Sentencing

Case 000895

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We remand solely as to the fines and ancillary costs ordered in this case on appeal.

First Holding:

Kopp allows challenges based on the excessive fines and equal protection clauses of the federal or state Constitutions.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

Kopp addresses the proper means by which a criminal defendant may challenge the various court ordered payments imposed at criminal sentencings. Those payments fall into three broad categories: fines, ancillary costs, and victim restitution. As to fines, such as restitution and parole revocation payments under Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45, there is no due process requirement to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine. Instead, excessive fines analysis, which includes consideration of ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines under either the federal or state Constitutions.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 17, 23

Third Holding:

As to ancillary costs, under Penal Code section 1465.8 and Government Code section 70373, Kopp explains an equal protection analysis is appropriate and holds that equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment.

(Gary note: This stems from the recognition that in civil cases, the same fees are due, but the superior court may waive them for civil litigants. Kopp concludes that criminal defendants must be given the same consideration, as there is no legitimate reason to discriminate between civil cases and criminal cases for administrative assessments that go toward support of the court system and are not punitive in nature.)

Authority:

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

Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000894

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The record discloses that the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence by imposing a fine without specifying the basis of the penalty assessments.

(Gary note: This was not a victory in the purest sense, as it changed nothing for the defendant, whom the trial court found had the ability to pay. I have included this summary for its authority that the court must specify the breakdown of the fine with its various penalty assessments. In the case, the appellate court reversed the imposition of the fine and directed the trial court to reimpose it but specifying the authority for the various assessments that turned the $300 fine into $1170.)

First Holding:

Section 290.3 provides in pertinent part, that every person who is convicted of any offense specified in section 290(c) shall, in addition to any imprisonment or fine, or both, imposed for violation of the underlying offense, be punished by a fine of $300 upon the first conviction or a fine of $500 upon the second and each subsequent conviction, unless the court determines that the defendant does not have the ability to pay the fine.

Authority:

PEN 290.3(a)

Second Holding:

The imposition of a section 290.3 fine in the total amount of $1,170 or the imposition of a $300 base fine plus $870 in penalty assessments without citing the statutory basis for the penalty assessments are both unauthorized sentences. An unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time even if there was no objection in the trial court. Such an unauthorized sentence may be corrected even when raised for the first time on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Valenzuela, (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1248-1249 [The fine imposed in this case constituted an unauthorized sentence]

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 886,

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 854

Third Holding:

The trial court imposed the sex offender fine in the amount of $1,170 as set forth in the probation report. We construe the court’s statement to mean that it intended to impose the section 290.3 fine and the corresponding penalty assessments, which are listed in the probation report, but erroneously failed to list each penalty assessment and their respective corresponding amounts at sentencing.

We shall therefore modify the judgment to include a $300 section 290.3 fine and penalty assessments in the following amounts: a $60.00 Court Surcharge (sec. 1465.7), a $150.00 State Court Facilities Construction Fund Fee (Gov. Code, sec. 70372(a)), a $300.00 State Penalty Assessment (sec. 1464), a $210.00 County Penalty Assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 76000), a $30.00 DNA Identification Fund Fee (Gov. Code, sec. 76104.6), and a $120.00 DNA Identification Fund fee (Gov. Code, sec. 76104.7).

Authority:

PEN 290.3

PEN 1465.7

GOV 70372(a)

PEN 1464

GOV 76000

GOV 76104.6

GOV 76104.7

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000893

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the judge to stay the section 12022.1 enhancement under section 1385(b)(1). An enhancement may be stricken or imposed, unless there is some other legal reason it must be stayed rather than imposed.

First Holding:

Ordinarily, an enhancement must be either imposed or stricken in furtherance of justice under section 1385. Section 1385(b)(1) adds that, if the court has the authority pursuant to subdivision (a) to strike or dismiss an enhancement, the court may instead strike the additional punishment for that enhancement in the furtherance of justice in compliance with subdivision (a).

The trial court has no authority to stay an enhancement, rather than strike it—not, at least, when the only basis for doing either is its own discretionary sense of justice.

There are exceptions to this rule that permit courts to stay the punishment imposed for an enhancement, for example section 654 and rule 4.447 of the California Rules of Court. These exceptions are not discretionary; they are limited to the situation in which an enhancement that otherwise would have to be either imposed or stricken is barred by an overriding statutory prohibition. In that situation—and that situation only—the trial court can and should stay the enhancement.

Authority:

PEN 1385(b)(1)

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 355, 364

Second Holding:

According to the transcript of the sentencing hearing, the trial court here relied on section 1385(b)(1) when it purported to stay the section 12022.1 enhancement. It does not appear that any overriding statute prohibits imposition of the enhancement in this case.

As a result, the court lacked the authority to stay the enhancement. In general, we presume a trial court knew and followed the law. Based on the statutory provision cited by the court, we conclude the court intended to strike the punishment for the enhancement rather than imposing an unauthorized stayed sentence.

The minute order from the sentencing hearing supports this conclusion by indicating that the court struck the enhancement, though it suggests the court did so at a prior hearing, which is not supported by the transcript. We will modify the judgment accordingly.

Authority:

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000892

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant a full resentencing at the hearing held under section 1172.75. At the initial hearing, the defendant agreed that the court could proceed with striking the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement with the judge’s assurance that the defendant could seek a full resentencing at a later date.

First Holding:

When the defendant did request the full resentencing, the trial court denied it based on the Tang decision, which held that a defendant was not eligible for resentencing because his prior conviction had previously been stricken and he was not serving a sentence under which that prior conviction was a component.

But Tang was not applicable. In Tang, the prior conviction enhancement was stricken on direct appeal a full decade before Tang sought resentencing under section 1172.75.

Here, the enhancement was stricken as part of a single proceeding under section 1172.5 held on two dates. Moreover, the defendant only consented to bifurcating that one proceeding based on the court’s assurance it would later conduct a full resentencing hearing, and it was improper for the court to later render that promise meaningless.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Tang (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1003

(Gary note: the court did not expressly cite any authority for the recognition that a defendant eligible for relief under section 1172.75 is entitled to a full resentencing. The courts have interpreted section 1172.75 as, by its plain terms, requiring a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements. I have set forth two cases as a convenience for the reader that support that principle, though Buycks was addressing a different statute.)

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402 [By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements]

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [when part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing `a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances]

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000891

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing on the petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6, the court should have stricken the restitution fine, as it was more than 10 years old.

Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9 was amended to state that upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated. Here, the trial court imposed the $200 restitution fine more than 10 years before denying the defendant’s resentencing petition. As the People concede, that fine must therefore be vacated

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000890

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in imposing the upper term based on aggravating factors that were not presented to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

Section 1170(b)(1) provides that when a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the statute specifies three possible terms, the court shall, in its sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2).

Section 1170(b)(2) 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.

Rule 4.421 of the California Rules of Court provides a list of aggravating circumstances that must be stipulated to by the defendant or determined beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

Notwithstanding section 1170(b)(1) and (2), the court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(2) and (3)

Rules of Court, rule 4.421

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 748, 759-760

Second Holding:

These provisions are subject to constitutional limitations under the Sixth Amendment. Specifically, 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.

For example, the Wiley court held that the defendant was entitled to have a jury determine whether his prior convictions were of increasing seriousness and whether he had performed unsatisfactorily on probation, before the court could rely on those aggravating facts to find justification for an upper term sentence.

Under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the federal Constitution, a judge may do no more than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.

The burden is on the People to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the facts relied on to justify an upper term sentence. If those facts are properly proven, the court may take them into account and exercise its discretion under section 1170(b) to determine what sentence to impose

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1076, 1085-1086

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 838

Third Holding:

A defendant may waive his right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors, provided he does so personally and expressly. To be valid, the record must show the defendant’s waivers of the right to a jury are knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. In making such a determination, we examine the totality of the circumstances unique to each case.

In this case, we determine that the colloquy between the court and the defendant did not adequately inform him of what the aggravating factors were. Without a clear explanation that defendant was entitled to have a jury decide the truth of the specific aggravating factors that the court intended to use against him, or even notice of those aggravating factors, it cannot be said that he knowingly or intelligently waived his right to have a jury decide the truth of those specific aggravating factors, of which he was never made aware.

Authority:

People v. Collins (2001) 26 Cal.4th 297, 308

People v. Morelos (2022) 13 Cal.5th 722, 753

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166

People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 990, 991 [a reviewing court satisfies itself of a legitimate waiver only when the record affirmatively demonstrates it was knowing and intelligent]

Fourth Holding:

Because defendant was deprived of a jury trial on the aggravating facts used to justify imposition of the upper term sentence, and there was no knowing or intelligent waiver, we must determine whether he was prejudiced by that error under the Chapman standard.

(Gary note: the court then reviewed the specific facts of the defendant’s criminal record and performance on probation or parole, details of which are case specific and would not add to this summary of an unpublished opinion that cannot be cited.)

Since we cannot conclude the lack of a jury trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to every aggravating fact the trial court used to justify the upper term sentence, defendant is entitled to a reversal and remand for resentencing.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 775

Sentencing

Case 000889

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is entitled to one additional day of credit for time served.

Holding:

A defendant is entitled to actual custody credit for ‘all days of custody’ in county jail and residential treatment facilities, including partial days. He is also entitled to conduct credits at a rate of 50 percent of actual time served.

But, if the defendant’s offense is statutorily defined as violent, section 2933.1(c) limits the presentence conduct credit to 15 percent of actual time served before sentencing.

The defendant was convicted of rape, a violent felony under section 667.5(c)(3). He is therefore entitled to a 15 percent presentence conduct credit. The trial court correctly awarded him 101 days of actual custody credit but only awarded him 14 days, rather than 15 days, of presentence conduct credit Accordingly, the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect one additional day of conduct credit.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

PEN 4019

PEN 2933.1

People v. Rajanayagam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 42, 48

People v. Nunez (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 761, 764

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000888

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage. There could be no rational tactical reason for defense counsel to concede that the defendant was ineligible.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature amended the definition of felony murder in section 189 to restrict culpability for murder to actual killers, aiders and abettors, and anyone who was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life unless the victim was a peace officer.

At the same time, the Legislature added section 1170.95, later renumbered to section 1172.6, which allows a person convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, to file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts, if, among other things, the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder because of the changes to the law wrought by SB 1437. I

f the petition makes a prima facie case for relief the court must hold an evidentiary hearing. At this hearing, the People have the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is guilty of murder under the law as it exists now, with the trial judge sitting as factfinder.

Authority:

PEN 189

PEN 1172.6

Second Holding:

When conducting a prima facie review, the court takes the petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.

If the record of conviction does not conclusively demonstrate that the defendant engaged in the requisite acts and had the requisite intent to be convicted on a theory of murder that remains valid, denying relief at the prima facie stage is improper.

A preliminary hearing transcript is part of the record of conviction for these purposes, and courts may rely on them when reviewing petitions at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

People v. Eynon (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 967, 975

People v. Barboza (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 955, 965-966

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 568 [there is no dispute that the record of conviction the parties may consult at the prima facie stage includes a preliminary hearing transcript preceding a guilty plea.]

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s decision at the prima facie stage de novo. Reviewing de novo, we therefore find that the defendant established a prima facie case for relief, and the trial court should not have denied his petition for failing to do so.

Authority:

People v. Bodely (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1193, 1200

Fourth Holding:

At the hearing, the defendant’s counsel stated that he was appointed to determine eligibility pursuant to 1172.6, and concluded the defendant was not eligible.

The defendant’s counsel cited cases involving defendants who made a prima facie showing for the proposition that a guilty plea is a judicial admission. That it’s an admission that he was, in fact, the killer, and therefore the defendant could not state a prima facie case for relief. Based on this, the court summarily denied the defndant’s petition.

Contrary to the court’s and counsel’s understanding below, a guilty plea (without more) is not an admission to any particular theory of guilt, and therefore cannot render a defendant ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

Moreover, the record of conviction, including the preliminary hearing transcript, does not contain any facts definitively foreclosing the defendant’s eligibility for relief. It is undisputed that the defendant was not the sole participant in either the burglary or murder of the victim.

Nor is there any clear evidence the defendant was the actual killer—indeed, the only evidence presented suggests that the co-defendant, not not the defendant, was the actual killer.

Authority:

People v. Eynon (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 967, 977 [By pleading guilty, the defendant admitted every element of the charged offense but the defendant did not admit facts supporting liability on any particular theory. Accordingly, the guilty plea did not constitute an admission that the defendant acted with malice.]

Fifth Holding:

The People assert the doctrine of invited error. The doctrine of invited error is an application of the estoppel principle and applies when a party invites the court or the jury to commit error.

Under the doctrine of invited error, when a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on appeal that the judgment should be reversed because of that error. It is designed to prevent an accused from gaining a reversal on appeal because of an error made by the trial court at his behest.

However, for the doctrine to apply, it must be clear that counsel acted for tactical reasons and not out of ignorance or mistake. In order to apply the doctrine, the record must show only that counsel made a conscious, deliberate tactical choice, it need not additionally show counsel correctly understood all the legal implications of the tactical choice.

In other words, the invited error doctrine applies so long as counsel made a conscious, tactical choice even if such choice was based on a misunderstanding of the law.  We conclude that on this record defense counsel’s decision to concede that the defendant is ineligible for relief was not a deliberate tactical choice.

Put simply, there was no possible tactical purpose for counsel’s decision to concede the matter. The defendant did not stand to receive any possible benefit from this concession, and therefore the decision to concede could only have been a genuine mistake.

Authority:

People v. Midell (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1060, 1072

Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 212

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 225

People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 83

People v. Duncan (1991) 53 Cal.3d 955, 970

People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 658

Sixth Holding:

Even if the invited error doctrine did apply, we would still reach the merits.

Because a deliberate tactical choice by counsel may be an incompetent one, courts have recognized that defendants barred from raising error under the invited error doctrine may instead claim they received ineffective assistance of counsel.

However, courts may also address the merits of an otherwise procedurally barred claim in order to avert any claim of inadequate assistance of counsel. T

hus, even if we concluded the defendant had invited the error he now complains of, we would exercise our discretion to reach the merits anyway to avoid the same result obtaining through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

We reverse the order denying the defendant’s section 1172.6 petition and remand. On remand, we direct the trial court to issue an order to show cause and to conduct further proceedings as required under section 1172.6.

Authority:

People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610,

People v. Yarbrough (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 303, 310

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000887

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In this appeal from denial of resentencing under section 1172.75, we find that the court erred in concluding that he was not entitled to resentencing because the prior prison term enhancement had not been imposed.

First Holding:

In Rhodius, the court held that 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.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

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

Second Holding:

In Espino, the court expanded on Rhodius to hold that an enhancement is imposed for purposes of section 1172.75 where the sentencing court strikes the punishment for the enhancement but not the allegation itself. The court explained that imposing a sentence on a criminal defendant has legal effect, and a true finding on a prior prison term allegation is a part of the sentencing order, even when the associated punishment is stricken.

It follows that, as a matter of ordinary usage, an enhancement included in the sentence in a criminal case may be imposed even if the punishment for that enhancement is stricken.

Here, because the jury’s true finding was neither stricken nor dismissed, it remained imposed within the meaning of section 1172.75. The order denying the defendant’s motion for resentencing is reversed and the matter is remanded for a full resentencing under section 1172.75(d), as well as for proceedings on any motion for relief under section 1465.9(d), which states that restitution fines greater than 10 years old must be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

PEN 1465.9(d)

People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57

People v. Fuentes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 218, 225, [striking the punishment for an enhancement merely serves to prohibit a certain purpose for which the allegation may be used; it does not operate to defeat the factual finding of the truth of the allegation]

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000886

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

1n 1991, for a crime committed in 1989, the defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). When his case came up for resentencing under section 1172.75 in 2025, the court believed its only discretion was to impose less than the upper term on the determinate portion of his sentence. Defense counsel agreed. This was error. The court also erred in its calculation of credit for time served. And the restitution fine must be struck.

First Holding:

Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5(b) required trial courts to impose a sentence enhancement of one additional year for each of a defendant’s prior prison or jail terms. Section 1172.75(a) now provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, under section 667.5(b) is legally invalid.

Section 1172.75(b) and (c) mandate that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identify eligible individuals whose sentences include now-invalidated section 667.5 enhancements, and that the trial court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

While conducting the resentencing, section 1172.75(d)(2), provides the express instruction that the court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and 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

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1054

Second Holding:

Section 190.2(a) provides that where there has been a finding of certain enumerated special circumstances in connection with a defendant who has been found guilty of first degree murder, the penalty is death or LWOP. Section 1385 previously provided the trial court with the discretion to strike or dismiss the special circumstances.

Although the statute only authorizes such relief upon motion of the court or application of the prosecution, the defendant nevertheless has the right to invite the court to exercise its power by an application to strike a count.

Failure by a defendant to make such a request under section 1385 results in forfeiture of the issue. In the interests of justice, and in consideration of defendant’s alternative argument of ineffective assistance of counsel, we exercise our discretion to reach a question that has not been preserved for review by a party.

Authority:

PEN 190.2(a)

PEN 1385

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141, 1144

People v. Coleman (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 709, 724

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6

Third Holding:

Contrary to Section 1385, however, section 1385.1 provides that a judge shall not strike or dismiss any special circumstance which is admitted by a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or is found by a jury or court as provided in Sections 190.1 to 190.5, inclusive. The section was enacted as of June 6, 1990, via voter initiative Proposition 115. The dispute here centers around whether section 1385.1 serves as a bar to the trial court’s discretion to strike section 190.2 special circumstances when the court is resentencing a defendant pursuant to section 1172.75 for a pre-June 6, 1990, crime.

Authority:

PEN 1385.1

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141

Fourth Holding:

Ordinarily, we review the trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. However, defendant argues pursuant to McDavid that the trial court necessarily abused its discretion when it failed to strike his special circumstances because it was unaware that it had any discretion to do so.

We therefore examine whether the trial court had any discretion in this regard, which is a question of statutory interpretation to be reviewed de novo.

Authority:

People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 757

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1023

Fifth Holding:

The Nguyen court noted that section 1385.1 operates only prospectively, therefore, a trial court may dismiss a special circumstance allegation attached to any murders committed before June 6, 1990, the date that section 1385.1 became effective. Nguyen specifically relied upon Tapia.

In Tapia, Proposition 115 took effect while the defendant was in the process of being prosecuted for first degree murder. The defendant challenged the trial court’s decision to conduct voir dire pursuant to the new Proposition 115 procedures.

In examining whether Proposition 115’s provisions could be applied to crimes committed prior to its effective date after consideration of ex post facto concerns, the Supreme Court separated the provisions into four separate categories depending on their impact upon defendants.

Relevant to this inquiry, the high court expressly categorized section 1385.1 as falling within the category of provisions that change the legal consequences of criminal behavior to the detriment of defendants and therefore cannot be applied to crimes committed before the measure’s effective date.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141

Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 286-287, 297

Sixth Holding:

The mandate in section 1172.75(d)(2), that the trial court apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion” evidences a legislative intent that defendants are to be treated with more leniency, not less, when being resentenced pursuant to this statute. Because the trial court clearly expressed more than once its belief that it did not have any discretion with respect to the LWOP sentence on Count 1, we deem the court to have abused its discretion and reverse.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(2)

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1023 [A court acting while unaware of the full scope of its discretion is deemed to have abused it.]

Seventh Holding:

The court court failed to award the defendant 2 days of credit for time served, and we modify the judgment accordingly.

(Gary note: The court did not cite any authority, but it seems obvious that the court has the power to modify the credit for time served to the correct number. I have cited authority the court could have relied on. The issue does not seem so much a matter of the trial court refusing to award credit; rather, it was a mathematical error. I speculate that perhaps the court did not award credit for the first day in custody. Counting days is different than determining the number of days between dates. From January 1 through January 31 is 31 days, counting. But if you subtract January 1 from January 31, you will realize only 30 days.  For credit for time served, the correct number is the counting number–31 in my example.)

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

Eighth Holding:

As part of defendant’s original 1991 sentencing, the court ordered him to pay $10,000 to the state Restitution Fund pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4 (formerly Govt. Code sec. 13967(a).) In light of section 1465.9, which compels that restitution fines older than 10 years be vacated, we vacate that fine. In Salstrom, the court determined that the reference to 10 years is from the date the restitution fine was originally ordered.

Resentencing does not reset the 10-year limitation. Applying section 1465.9 to reduce defendant’s sentence as part of a section 1172.75 resentencing hearing gives effect to both statutes.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 652-653 [detailing the history of the restitution statutes]

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 599-601, review granted on unrelated issues, March 11, 2026, S295038

Mejia v. Reed (2000) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663 [when two codes are to be construed, they must be read together and so construed as to give effect, when possible, to all the provisions thereof]