Author Archives: Gary McCurdy

Probation Parole PRCS, Standard of review

Case: 000113

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The condition of probation that prohibits the defendant from “frequenting] any area where gang members are known by him/her to congregate, or areas known by him/her for gang related activity” is overbroad and can be more narrowly tailored by allowing the defendant’s probation officer to specify the areas involving gang-related activity. Accordingly, we modify the condition of probation to read that the defendant “shall not associate with any person known to him/her as a gang member and shall not frequent any areas specified by his probation officer as involving gang-related activity, subject to reasonable exceptions to accommodate family, work, and educational needs as determined by his probation officer.”

First Holding:

The court’s discretion of the court to impose conditions of probation is not boundless. The authority is wholly statutory, and the statute furnishes and limits the measure of authority which the court may exercise. 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. Conversely, a condition of probation that requires or forbids conduct which is not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Cervantes (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 353, 356

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

Second Holding:

The Lent test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term. As such, even if a condition of probation has no relationship to the crime of which a defendant was convicted and involves conduct that is not itself criminal, the condition is valid as long as the condition is reasonably related to preventing future criminality.

Authority:

People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 403

Third Holding:

As to the third prong of Lent, courts may properly base probation conditions upon information in a probation report that raises concerns about future criminality unrelated to a prior offense. But the third prong “contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1122

People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 626 [relying on information in probation report for gang-related condition]

Fourth Holding:

Probation is a privilege and not a right, and adult probationers, in preference to incarceration, validly may consent to limitations upon their constitutional rights.

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 384

Fifth Holding:

A probation condition that infringes a constitutional right is permissible if necessary to serve the dual purpose of rehabilitation and public safety. However, 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:

People v. Burden (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1277, 1281

People v. Salvador (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 57, 62-63

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

In re E.O. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153

Sixth Holding:

In Victor L., the defendant challenged for overbreadth and vagueness a condition of probation ordering him to stay away from areas known by him for gang-related activity. The court distinguished between probation restrictions encompassing areas known for gang related crimes (which other courts had upheld against constitutional challenges) from restrictions involving gang-related activity. Noting the word ‘activity’ is one of surpassing breadth that could banish the defendant from the area in which he lived, worked, or went to school, Victor L. determined that an individualized list of stay away areas, together with any exceptions necessary to reasonably accommodate the defendant’s legitimate work and educational needs was required. Victor L. reasoned a probation officer, rather than the trial court, was in a better position to identify the forbidden areas for each defendant, using either geographic or activity-based limits. Victor L. modified the condition to prohibit the defendant’s presence in areas known by him for gang-related activity (or specified by his probation officer as involving gang-related activity). Other courts have imposed similar gang-area restrictions.

Authority:

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 913-918, 931-932

People v. Barajas (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 748, 754-760 [affirming condition that stated that the defendant was not to visit or remain in any specific location which he knows to be or which the probation officer informs him to be an area of criminal street gang-related activity]

In re H.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1072 [It would be altogether preferable to name the actual geographic area that would be prohibited to the minor and then to except from that certain kinds of travel, that is, to school or to work]

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000112

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in finding the defendant was ineligible for a full resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, because his judgment includes a now-invalid prison prior and thus the court’s order must be reversed. [At the original sentencing, the court had imposed and stayed the one-year prior prison term.]

Holding:

Section 1172.75 entitles a defendant to resentencing if the underlying judgment includes a prior-prison-term enhancement that was imposed before January 1, 2020, regardless of whether the enhancement was then executed or instead stayed.

Authority:

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Jury trial, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case: 000111

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We affirm the judgment of conviction as to defendant A. We reverse defendant B’s count 1 felony murder conviction, and otherwise affirm his judgment. The People concede both abstracts of judgment must be amended; we agree and remand with directions. The People concede and we agree the abstracts of judgment erroneously state that the convictions in counts 2, 4, and 6 are for first degree robbery. Both defendants were charged with second degree robbery, and the juries were instructed only on that theory. There are several other errors in the abstracts of judgment that must be corrected.

First Holding:

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we ask whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the sufficiency of the evidence is ultimately a legal question, we must examine the record independently for substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value that would support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.

Authority:

People v. Navarro (2021) 12 Cal.5th 285, 302

People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60

Second Holding:

Defendant A [the actual killer] contends there was no evidence he aided and abetted Defendant B in the count 6 robbery and count 7 assault. A person who aids and abets a crime is guilty of that crime even if someone else committed some or all of the criminal acts. A person aids and abets the commission of a crime when he or she, (i) with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator, (ii) and with the intent or purpose of committing, facilitating or encouraging commission of the crime, (iii) by act or advice, aids, promotes, encourages or instigates the commission of the crime. Mere presence at the scene of a crime or knowledge of, but failure to prevent the crime, are not sufficient to establish aiding and abetting its commission. However, factors which may be considered to determine aiding and abetting include presence at the scene of the crime, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense.

Authority:

People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1117

People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 851

People v. Campbell (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 402, 409

Third Holding:

Section 189(e) provides that a participant in a specified felony is liable for murder for a death during the commission of the offense only if one of the following is proven: (1) The person was the actual killer. (2) The person, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, or assisted the actual killer. (3) The person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

PEN 189(e)

Fourth Holding:

There are several factors courts should consider in determining whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a defendant was a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life: What role did the defendant have in planning the criminal enterprise that led to one or more deaths? What role did the defendant have in supplying or using lethal weapons? What awareness did the defendant have of particular dangers posed by the nature of the crime, weapons used, or past experience or conduct of the other participants? Was the defendant present at the scene of the killing, in a position to facilitate or prevent the actual murder, and did his or her own actions or inaction play a particular role in the death? What did the defendant do after lethal force was used? Reckless indifference and the element of major participant significantly overlap, for the greater the defendant’s participation in the felony murder, the more likely that he acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 803

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 615

Fifth Holding:

Defendant B was not the actual killer, but was convicted on the basis of felony murder (item (3)). We need not decide whether, under the circumstances of this case, defendant was a major participant because we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support that he exhibited reckless indifference to human life. The actus reus for the felony-murder aider and abettor special circumstance requires more than simply being an aider and abettor of the underlying felony under section 31. The special circumstance requires that the defendant be a major participant in the underlying felony.

Likewise, the mens rea requirement for the felony-murder aider and abettor special circumstance is different from that required for first degree felony murder. The special circumstance requires that the defendant have reckless indifference to human life. A defendant’s knowing participation in a robbery with others who are armed is insufficient, without more, to prove the defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life. Awareness of no more than the foreseeable risk of death inherent in any armed crime is insufficient, because a defendant must knowingly create a grave risk of death through the defendant’s own actions. Reckless indifference encompasses a willingness to kill (or to assist another in killing) to achieve a distinct aim, even if the defendant does not specifically desire that death as the outcome of the defendant’s actions. Reckless indifference to human life has both a subjective and an objective element.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 615-617

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 794, 807-810

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 706

In re Scoggins (2020) 9 Cal.5th 667, 677

Sixth Holding:

In committing the count 1 felony robbery, Defendant A entered the convenience store alone, and therefore Defendant B had no opportunity to restrain him, or to aid the victim. The evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant B was aware, when they left the third convenience store, that Defendant A had killed the victim. This factor weighs against a finding of reckless indifference. Defendant B had no meaningful opportunity to aid the victim before the shooting.

However contemptible the court may find a defendant’s conduct following a killing, the governing standard is not satisfied by evidence that the defendant was generally indifferent to the fact that someone has been killed. It requires evidence that, at the time of the shooting, the defendant acted with indifference toward the grave risk that someone could be killed. Though the former may be evidence of the latter, it is insufficient, standing alone, to support murder liability. While it is true a defendant’s willingness to engage in an armed robbery with individuals known to him to use lethal force may give rise to the inference that the defendant disregarded a grave risk of death, no evidence was presented at trial that Defendant A was known to have a propensity for violence, let alone evidence indicating that Defendant B was aware of such a propensity.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 894-895

Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137, 157

Seventh Holding:

The abstracts of judgment contain several errors that must be corrected. The abstracts of judgment erroneously state that the convictions in three counts are for first degree robbery. The verdict forms do not specify the degree of the robberies. But under California law, upon the failure of the jury or the court to determine the degree of the crime of which the defendant is guilty, it shall be deemed to be of the lesser degree. Therefore, we conclude that the robberies in the three counts are in the second degree.

The jury convicted both defendants of being a felon in possession of a firearm and not a “convicted felon and narcotic” as stated in the abstracts of judgment. As to Defendant A, the abstract of judgment shows the court imposed a consecutive full term of three years for one of the counts. However, the court orally stated, “Under [that count], the court is going to use one-third the midterm for that charge of one year, and that will run consecutive to the determinate terms under [two other counts].” Given this discrepancy, the oral pronouncement of judgment controls.

Authority:

PEN 1157

People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1222, fn. 14.

Appellate Principles

Case: 000110

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

[Gary note: This appeal was dismissed as moot, and there was no “victory,” even in my very broad definition. But it contains a decent discussion on mootness that might provide some insight into the appellate process.] The defendant complains of terms set on his mandatory supervision. But he has completed his term of mandatory supervision. Because we conclude that the issue raised by the defendant is capable of being reviewed in other cases and any ruling in this case would fail to provide the defendant with any relief, his appeal challenging the term of mandatory supervision is moot. We will therefore dismiss it.

First Holding:

A case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief. Consequently, when, pending an appeal from the judgment of a lower court, and without any fault of the opposing party, an event occurs which renders it impossible for the court, if it should decide the case in favor of the defendant, to grant him any effectual relief whatever, the court will not proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal as moot.

Authority:

People v. Rish (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1380

People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 645

Second Holding:

Where a defendant has completed a sentence, their claims of error as to that sentence are moot because a reviewing court’s resolution of the issues could offer no relief regarding the time he spent on mandatory supervision or in custody. A defendant must demonstrate sufficiently concrete consequences to avoid a finding of mootness. Speculative consequences do not support the conclusion that a legally sufficient controversy exists. Complaining of stigma alone is insufficient to sustain an appeal. The stigma must be paired with some effect on the legal status that is capable of being redressed by a favorable court decision. The moral stigma of a judgment which no longer affects legal rights does not present a case or controversy for appellate review.

Authority:

People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 645, 646, fn. 2

In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 277

People v. Armas (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 350, 357

Third Holding:

The defendant urges us to consider the merits of his appeal despite its mootness, because the issue raised is likely to recur, might otherwise evade appellate review given the “relatively fleeting nature of mandatory supervision,” and is of continuing public interest, within the meaning of Morales. We decline to do so. Many published California cases have shown varying terms of supervision, many of which cannot be characterized as fleeting. Because we conclude that the issue raised by the defendant is capable of being reviewed in other cases and any ruling in this case would fail to provide appellant with any relief, his appeal challenging the term of mandatory supervision is moot.

Authority:

People v. Morales (2016) 63 Cal.4th 399, 409

People v. Nixon (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 947, 950 [five years of mandatory supervision]

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 988 [three years of mandatory supervision]

People v. Martinez (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 885, 890 [two years eight months of mandatory supervision]

People v. Conatser (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 1223, 1225 [six years of mandatory supervision]

People v. Mendoza (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1044, 1050 [four years of mandatory supervision]

People v. Samuels (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 962, 965 [five years of mandatory supervision]

People v. Millan (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 450, 452 [five years of mandatory supervision]

People v. Bollaert (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 699, 704 [10 years of mandatory supervision]

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

Case: 000109

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was charged with first degree murder under two theories–deliberation and premeditation, and lying in wait. The jury was not required to agree unanimously on the theory. He was convicted of first degree murder, along with a count of attempted murder with premeditation and deliberation. We conclude that insufficient evidence supports the finding of lying in wait. One of the elements of lying in wait, namely, “a substantial period of watching and waiting for an opportune time to act,” is not supported by substantial evidence. That conclusion requires us to reverse the finding on the lying-in-wait special circumstance, but it does not require a reversal of the first degree murder convictions, as they are supported by the alternative theory of premeditation and deliberation.

First Holding:

The lying-in-wait special circumstance requires an intentional murder, committed under circumstances that include (1) a concealment of purpose, (2) a substantial period of watching and waiting for an opportune time to act, and (3) a surprise attack on an unsuspecting victim from a position of advantage It includes the elements of first degree lying-in-wait murder but requires the additional element that the killing was intentional, not merely committed with implied malice.

Authority:

PEN 190.2(a)(15)

People v. Flinner (2020) 10 Cal.5th 686, 74

Second Holding:

To support a finding of concealment of purpose, it is not required that a defendant be literally concealed from view before he attacks the victim. Rather, it is sufficient that a defendant’s true intent and purpose were concealed by his actions or conduct. The concealment, in that sense, is that which puts the defendant in a position of advantage, from which the factfinder can infer that lying-in-wait was part of the defendant’s plan to take the victim by surprise. Concealment of purpose inhibits detection, defeats self-defense, and may betray at least some level of trust, making it more blameworthy than premeditated murder that does not involve surprise.

The lying-in-wait special circumstance requires no fixed, quantitative minimum time, but the lying in wait must continue for long enough to premeditate and deliberate, conceal one’s purpose, and wait and watch for an opportune moment to attack. To distinguish the circumstance from ordinary premeditation and deliberation, a distinct period of watchful waiting is required. “Watchful” does not require actual watching; it can include being alert and vigilant in anticipation of the victim’s arrival to take him or her by surprise.

Authority:

People v. Barrett (2025) 17 Cal.5th 897, 966–967

People v. Duong (2020) 10 Cal.5th 36, 67

People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 204

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 629

People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, 551

People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 247

Third Holding:

In assessing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The same standard applies when examining the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a special circumstance finding. “Substantial evidence” includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.

Authority:

People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 57

Fourth Holding:

A first degree murder verdict will be upheld if there is sufficient evidence as to at least one of the theories on which the jury is instructed, absent an affirmative indication in the record that the verdict actually did rest on the inadequate ground. The appellate court should affirm the judgment unless a review of the entire record affirmatively demonstrates a reasonable probability that the jury in fact found the defendant guilty solely on the unsupported theory. In making that determination, we examine the entire record, including the facts and the instructions, the arguments of counsel, any communications from the jury during deliberations, and the entire verdict.

The defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of premeditation and deliberation. Thus, our inquiry is whether there is a reasonable probability that the jury returned a verdict of first degree murder based solely on lying in wait, rather than also on premeditation and deliberation. The jury’s express findings in connection with the attempted murder in count 2 preclude any reasonable probability the jury relied solely on lying in wait as the theory for first degree murder.

Authority:

People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, 552 [affirming first degree murder based on sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation despite insufficient evidence to support lying in wait]

People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1130

Fifth Holding:

The court committed harmless error under Chapman in declining the defendant’s request to instruct the jury on the theory of imperfect self-defense. Under the doctrine of imperfect self-defense. if a person kills in the unreasonable but good faith belief in having to act in self-defense, the belief negates what would otherwise be malice, and that person is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, not murder.

Authority:

People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 561

People v. Rios (2000) 23 Cal.4th 450, 461

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 243

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

Sixth Holding:

The trial court was required to instruct on imperfect self-defense if there was substantial evidence to support the theory. “Substantial evidence” is evidence from which a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter was committed, but does not include evidence that is speculative, minimal, or insubstantial.

Authority:

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 253

People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 132

Seventh Holding:

We review de novo a trial court’s decision not to give an imperfect self-defense instruction. When the record contains substantial evidence of imperfect self-defense, the trial court’s failure to instruct on that theory amounts to constitutional error and is thus subject to review under the federal Chapman standard. Under the Chapman standard, reversal is required unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. Though there was insufficient evidence of the watchful waiting to support a finding of lying in wait, the jury returned a finding that the murder was committed by lying in wait.

There was sufficient evidence of the aspects of lying in wait other than watchful waiting. Because of its true finding on lying in wait, the jury could not have found an imperfect self-defense in which the defendant used deadly force against the victim because he unreasonably believed that doing so was necessary to defend himself.

Authority:

People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 133

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 243

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

People v. Cruz (2008) 44 Cal.4th 636, 665 [a jury’s true finding on a lying-in-wait special circumstance negated any possibility that defendant was prejudiced from the failure to instruct on unreasonable self-defense theories of manslaughter]

Discretion, Elements of crime, Probation Parole PRCS

Case: 000108

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court revoked the defendant’s probation and sentenced him to six years in prison. Because we conclude no substantial evidence supports a finding that the defendant willfully failed to appear at the January 1998 hearing and because the September 1998 offense occurred after his probation had ended, we reverse.

First Holding:

When a court summarily revokes a defendant’s probation, the revocation, summary or otherwise, shall serve to toll the running of the period of supervision. However, the tolling provision preserves the trial court’s authority to adjudicate, in a subsequent formal probation violation hearing, whether the probationer violated probation during, but not after, the court-imposed probationary period. In other words, because the defendant’s three-year probation term ended in July 1998, the court could adjudicate after July 1998 whether acts he committed between July 1995 and July 1998 violated his probation, but could not adjudicate whether acts committed after July 1998 violated his probation.

Authority:

PEN 1203.2(a)

People v. Leiva (2013) 56 Cal.4th 498, 502

Second Holding:

Revocation of probation rests in the sound discretion of the court. Although that discretion is very broad, the court may not act arbitrarily or capriciously; its determination must be based upon the facts before it.

Authority:

People v. Zaring (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 362, 378

Third Holding:

A court abuses its discretion in finding a defendant violated a condition of probation unless the evidence supports the conclusion that the conduct constituted a willful violation of that condition.

Authority:

People v. Leiva (2013) 56 Cal.4th 498, 379

People v. Galvan (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 978, 982

Fourth Holding:

The facts supporting revocation of probation may be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. However, the evidence must support a conclusion the probationer’s conduct constituted a willful violation of the terms and conditions of probation.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 439

People v. Sem (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1188 [a willful violation is a prerequisite to revoking probation]

Elements of crime, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000107

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals his conviction of violating Penal Code section 422. We reverse the judgment because there was no substantial evidence that the victim of the crime experienced sustained fear.

First Holding:

Elements of section 422 include: that the threat actually caused the person threatened to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, and that the threatened person’s fear was reasonable under the circumstances.

Authority:

PEN 422(a)

People v. Toledo (2001) 26 Cal.4th 221, 227–228

Second Holding:

Sustained fear must occur over a period of time that extends beyond what is momentary, fleeting, or transitory. Ordinarily, sustained fear lasts beyond the moments of the encounter.

Authority:

People v. Roles (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 935, 942

In re Ricky T. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1132, 1140

Third Holding:

Courts have held that 15 minutes satisfies the sustained fear requirement.

Authority:

People v. Roles (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 935, 942

People v. Wilson (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 193, 201

People v. Allen (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1156

Fourth Holding:

Under circumstances not applicable here a shorter duration of fear, or fear confined to the length of the encounter, may be sufficient. A victim may experience sustained fear even though the fear exists only during the incident itself. In Brugman, the incident was a drawn-out ordeal. Similarly, if the circumstances are extreme enough—such as when a person believes they will be killed imminently—even one minute can be enough time for fear to be sustained.

Authority:

People v. Brugman (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 608, 634

People v. Fierro (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1349

Fifth Holding:

In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In determining whether the record is sufficient the appellate court can give credit only to substantial evidence, i.e., evidence that reasonably inspires confidence and is of solid value. Reasonableness is the ultimate standard under the substantial evidence rule.

Authority:

People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 307

People v. Kunkin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 245, 250

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000106

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court modified the defendant’s sentence only to the extent required under sections 1172.75 and 1170.18, but otherwise left the balance intact, finding that the defendant remained a danger to the public. The case is remanded for the trial court to calculate the days of actual custody and to correct the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

Because the sentence was modified under PC 1172.75, the trial court erred in not calculating the actual days in custody.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37

Second Holding:

We review the trial court’s finding that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety under the clear and convincing evidence standard.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(1)

Third Holding:

The clear and convincing evidence standard requires the party with the burden of proof to convince the trier of fact that it is highly probable the facts which he asserts are true.

Authority:

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998

Fourth Holding:

The narrow definition of danger to public safety under PC 1170.18 does not apply to the undefined term of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. [GARY NOTE: after the opinion in this case 000106 was filed, the Supreme Court ruled in Guevara that it was constitutionally necessary to apply the Three Strikes Reform Act’s understanding of the term “unreasonable risk to public safety” within the meaning of section 1170.126 (enacted by initiative) in order to reconcile the application of section 1172.75 (enacted by the Legislature) to those who would otherwise qualify but are serving a sentence under the Three Strikes Law (an initiative provision).]

Authority:

People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 374, 374-375

[People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838]

Fifth Holding:

The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects a determinate term of 14 years instead of 10 years, and it must be corrected. [GARY NOTE: The court did not cite authority, most likely because the error and solution are obvious. There are many relevant cases supporting this holding, some of which I have set out below.]

Authority:

People v. Hamed (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 928, 937–938

People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 242

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

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

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000105

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The section 12022.7(a) enhancement, which was stayed at sentencing, must instead be stricken under subdivision (g) of the statute because infliction of great bodily injury is an element of battery with serious bodily injury; and the trial court improperly limited the defendant’s presentence conduct credits to 15 percent of actual days served.

First Holding:

A sentence cannot be enhanced by section 12022.7 for infliction of bodily injury if that is an element of the underlying offense.

Authority:

PEN 12022.7(g)

Second Holding:

Great bodily injury is an element of battery with serious bodily injury.

Authority:

People v. Hawkins (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1375–1376

People v. Otterstein (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1548, 1550

People v. Johnson (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 384, 391

People v. Arnett (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1609, 1616

People v. Hawkins (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 527, 531

People v. Beltran (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 693, 696–697

Third Holding:

Serious bodily injury is the essential equivalent of great bodily injury.

Authority:

People v. Burroughs (1984) 35 Cal.3d 824, 831

People v. Sloan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 110, 117 [noting that a true finding on a great bodily injury enhancement would effectively establish the elements of the charged battery with serious bodily injury]

Fourth Holding:

Section 246 is not a violent felony per se so section 2833.1 does not limit behavior credit to 15 percent.

Authority:

In re Cabrera (2023) 14 Cal.5th 476, 491E

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000104

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Under section 654, the trial court should have stayed the sentence imposed on either of two counts, each of which was based on the same assault and committed with the same intent and objective.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 654 prohibits punishment under more than one provision for any act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law. This section applies not only where there was but one act in the ordinary sense, but also where there was a course of conduct which violated more than one statute but nevertheless constituted an indivisible transaction. Whether a course of conduct is indivisible depends upon the intent and objective of the actor. If all the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 309

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 551

Second Holding:

Whether a defendant possessed a single intent and objective is a factual question subject to substantial evidence review on appeal. However, where the facts are undisputed, whether Penal Code section 654 precludes multiple punishment is a legal question, subject to de novo review.

Authority:

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 552, fn. 5

People v. Moseley (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1598, 1603

People v. Goode (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 484, 493

People v. Pitts (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1547, 1552, 1560 [multiple punishment precluded where mayhem and assault convictions were based on a course of conduct in which the defendant threw the victim down, punched her, took a box cutter that she tried to use to defend herself, and used the weapon to slash the victim]

Third Holding:

A course of conduct divisible in time, although directed to one objective, may give rise to multiple violations and punishment.

Authority:

People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 639, fn. 11

People v. Kwok (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1253

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000103

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude the concurrent sentences on two counts constitute multiple punishment proscribed by section 654. Accordingly, we modify the judgment to stay the sentence on the second of those two 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. An acquittal or conviction and sentence under any one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other. Section 654 proscribes multiple punishment for crimes arising from a single act. This statutory protection has also been extended to proscribe punishment for multiple crimes arising from an indivisible course of conduct.

Authority:

PEN 654

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

Second Holding:

Errors in the applicability of section 654 are corrected on appeal regardless of whether the point was raised by objection in the trial court or assigned as error on appeal. This is an exception to the general rule that only those claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal. This exception is not required by the language of section 654, but rather by case law holding that a court acts in excess of its jurisdiction and imposes an unauthorized sentence when it fails to stay execution of a sentence under section 654.

Authority:

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295

Third Holding:

The accepted procedure where section 654 applies is to sentence defendant for each count and stay execution of sentence on certain of the convictions to which section 654 is applicable. Accordingly, the sentence for either of the two counts should be stayed instead of running concurrent as the court did here.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 353

Fourth Holding:

An appellate court has the discretion to modify a judgment to stay sentences that should have been stayed. An appellate court may reverse, affirm, or modify a judgment, or may remand for further proceedings as may be just under the circumstances.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473

Abstracts and Minutes, Plea bargains

Case: 000102

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Our independent review of the record discloses that the trial court inadvertently failed to dismiss one of the charged counts after accepting the defendant’s no contest plea to the remaining counts. We shall modify the judgment to reflect dismissal of that count. The abstract of judgment contained several errors that must be corrected.

First Holding:

Because the court may not proceed as to the plea other than as specified in the approved plea, the court’s silence at the sentencing hearing regarding dismissal of a count was not an exercise of judicial discretion but rather a clerical error in the record of judgment.

Authority:

PEN 1192.5

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

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 80 [parties must abide by the terms of the plea agreement, including the dismissal of other counts]

Second Holding:

The record of the oral pronouncement of the court controls over the clerk’s minute order, which may not modify the judgment it purports to digest.

Authority:

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

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