Author Archives: Gary McCurdy

Sentencing

Case 000030

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence in count 1 when it sentenced the defendant as a third-striker, because assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury is not a serious or violent felony.

First Holding:

Assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury is not a serious or violent felony.

Authority:

People v. Leng (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1, 9 [A violation of former section 245(a)(1) is a serious felony only if the prosecution properly pleads and proves that the defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice, or personally used a firearm or a dangerous or deadly weapon]

Second Holding:

When a defendant with two or more convictions for serious and/or violent felonies within the meaning of the Three Strikes law is convicted of a non-strike offense, the defendant must be sentenced as a second-striker with respect to that offense.

Authority:

People v. Johnson (2015) 61 Cal.4th 674

People v. Lynn (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 594

Third Holding:

Because the sentence was unauthorized, we remand the matter to the trial court for a full resentencing hearing.

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000029

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Rhodius resolved a split of authority among the Courts of Appeal regarding resentencing eligibility when a defendant’s sentence for a prior prison enhancement (see former § 667.5(b)) was stayed and never executed. Rhodius held that defendants whose enhanced prison prior term or terms were stayed at sentencing are eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75. Pursuant to Rhodius, we therefore reverse the trial court’s order denying defendant a resentencing hearing, and remand for the court to hold that hearing.

Holding:

A defendant is eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 where the now-invalid conviction had been imposed but was stayed or stricken.

Authority:

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

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000028

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Substantial evidence does not support the true finding on the prior strike allegation. At trial, the prosecution introduced documentary evidence that the defendant was convicted in 2019 of violating section 246.3(a) along with another offense, and the defendant admitted the convictions. The evidence did not prove whether he violated section 246.3(a) by personally using a firearm, or instead if his guilt was based on his vicarious liability as an aider and abettor. The prosecution therefore failed to introduce substantial evidence that his conviction for violating section 246.3(a) constituted a strike as defined by Penal Code section 1192.7.

First Holding:

The evidence was insufficient to prove personal use, so the prior conviction was not proved as a strike.

Authority:

People v. Watts (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 589, 596

Second Holding:

Penal Code section 246.3 is a strike under as any felony in which the defendant personally uses a firearm or as any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon.

Authority:

PEN 1192.7(c)(8)

PEN 1192.7(c)(23

Third Holding:

Section 246.3 can be used as a strike only if the defendant personally used the firearm.

Authority:

People v. Golde (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 101, 111-112

Fourth Holding:

Where the prior conviction is for an offense that can be committed in multiple ways, one or more of which would not qualify it as a strike, and if it cannot be determined from the record that the offense was committed in a way that would make it a strike, a reviewing court must presume the offense was not a strike.

Authority:

People v. Watts (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 589

Fifth Holding:

On reversal for insufficiency of evidence of a prior conviction, the issue may be retried.

Authority:

People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 239

Abstracts and Minutes, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case 000027

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court struck the name of the minor’s mother from the criminal protective order because she was not a victim of defendant’s crimes. The court also granted an additional credit of five days for time served, correcting a calculation error. There were errors in the abstract of judgment that the court ordered be corrected.

First Holding:

A protective order cannot be issued to cover those not a victim of defendant’s crime.

Authority:

PEN 136.2(i)(1)

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 236-237

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

Second Holding:

We have the inherent power to correct clerical errors so that the record reflects the true facts.

Authority:

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

Duty of the court, Jury instructions

Case 000026

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because of error in instructing the jury with CALCRIM 361, we reverse the convictions and remand for further proceedings. The trial court erred by instructing the jurors with CALCRIM No. 361 because the defendant’s testimony did not represent a complete failure to explain or deny incriminating evidence, nor did he claim a lack of knowledge about something incriminating that he could reasonably be expected to have known.

First Holding:

It is error to instruct on failure to explain or deny where defendant did not fail to explain or deny.

Authority:

People v. Cortez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 101

Second Holding:

We review a claim of instructional error de novo.

Authority:

People v. Parker (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1, 66

People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1217

Third Holding:

That there was a prior hung jury may be persuasive on the question of the prejudice from the error.

Authority:

People v. Soojian (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 491, 520

Duty of the court

Case 000025

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation notified the court that the defendant was entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75. He contends the court did not comply with the requirements of section 1385(c), as amended. We agree. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand the matter for further proceedings. There was no discussion at the resentencing hearing in this case of whether dismissal of one or more of the firearm enhancements would endanger public safety.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c) requires the court to give great weight to listed factors.

Authority:

PEN 1385

Second Holding:

“Endanger public safety” means there is a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)(2)

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000024

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

GARY note: The winning issue was relatively simple, but in affirming the overall conviction, the court shared several principles I thought worthy of reporting, even though many did not bear on the dual use of enhancements.

For the attempted murder of the victim in count 3, the trial court should have stayed the three-year enhancement for great bodily injury under section 12022.7 because it also imposed a term of 25 years to life under section 12022.53, subdivision (d), for personally and proximately causing great bodily injury with a firearm. We will modify the judgment so that it accords with the law.

First Holding:

Where multiple prison terms are improperly imposed as in this case, the reviewing court may modify the sentence to stay imposition of the sentence

Authority:

People v. Hunter (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1531, 1537

Second Holding:

It is improper to impose the enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.7 in addition to enhancement under section 12022.53(d), and it must be stayed.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 941, 949

People v. Hunter (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1531, 1537

Third Holding:

If an error violates a defendant’s federal constitutional rights, reversal is required unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2011) 51 Cal.4th 733, 745

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

People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591, 615

People v. Concha (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1087

Fourth Holding:

A harmless error analysis may include consideration of implausible defense testimony and closing argument to the jury.

Authority:

People v. Fayed (2020) 9 Cal.5th 147, 195

People v. Zambrano (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 228, 243

People v. Flores (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 855, 881

Fifth Holding:

With respect to errors alleged regarding the conviction of the murder, the error can be found to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt even under the Chapman standard, as the court concludes in this instance.

Authority:

People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 983-984

People v. Garcia (2001) 25 Cal.4th 744, 755

Wright v. West (1992) 505 U.S. 277, 296

Hanrahan v. Thieret (7th Cir. 1991) 933 F.2d 1328, 1340

Phelps v. Duckworth (7th Cir. 1985) 772 F.2d 1410, 1413-1414

Sixth Holding:

The standard of review on sufficiency of evidence is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime or special circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution.

Authority:

People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357

Seventh Holding:

Substantial evidence is evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value.

Authority:

People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357

Eighth Holding:

A conviction for attempted murder requires proof that the defendant intended to kill the victim and proof of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing that goal. But a finding of willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation requires more than a showing of an intent to kill.

Authority:

People v. Medina (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 146, 153

People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 282

Ninth Holding:

When reviewing a claim the trial court erred in denying a motion for a judgment of acquittal (sec. 1118.1) that was made at the close of the prosecution’s case-in-chief, the appellate court considers the evidence as it stood at that point,

Authority:

People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1212-1213

Tenth Holding:

It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error based on the appellate record and with meaningful legal analysis with adequate citation to the record.

Authority:

People v. Dauterman (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 603, 609

Eleventh Holding:

Arguments not raised below are forfeited.

Authority:

People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1022-1023

Twelfth Holding:

The court conducts de novo review to detemine if jury miscontrued or misapplied the law.

Authority:

People v. Shaw (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 833, 838

Thirteenth Holding:

Error in failing to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense is harmless when the jury necessarily decides the factual questions posed by the omitted instructions adversely to defendant under other properly given instructions.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 646

Fourteenth Holding:

Errors in the abstract of judgment may be corrected.

Authority:

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

 

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000023

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Defendants whose enhanced prison prior term or terms were stayed at sentencing are eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75.

Holding:

The Legislature declared legally invalid any prior-prison-term enhancements imposed before January 1, 2020, except those arising from convictions for sexually violent offenses, and provided for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75. Defendants whose enhanced prison prior term or terms were stayed at sentencing are eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

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

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000022

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed an improper burden on the defendant to demonstrate his mental disorder was a significant factor in the charged offense by reversing the statutory presumption in his favor on this issue. Because of this error, the court found defendant failed to prove he was eligible for mental health diversion as provided under Penal Code section 1001.36. Because the court did indeed use an erroneous standard, we will reverse and remand to allow the court to reevaluate the diversion request with a correct understanding of the law.

First Holding:

The prosecution bears burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that mental health diagnosis was not a causal factor in the crime.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485, 490

Second Holding:

The court reviews the trial court’s denial of a request for mental health diversion for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

Negron v. Superior Court (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1016

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448–449

Third Holding:

Diversion is discretionary, even if eligibility and suitability are present.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892–893

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 888

Fourth Holding:

If eligibility is established, the trial court must then consider whether a particular individual is suitable, by rendering a positive finding on each of four factors: (1) that in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder would respond to mental health treatment; (2) that the defendant consent to diversion and waive speedy trial rights; (3) that the defendant will agree to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and (4) that the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, which is defined as the likelihood the defendant would commit a new violent felony from a limited subset of particularly violent crimes, colloquially referred to as a “super strike.”

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892–893

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000021

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The timing of the defendant’s plea does not preclude him relief under section 1172.6 because, at the time of his plea, he could have been convicted under invalidated theories of attempted murder. We also find his admissions, including his admission to acting with an intent to kill, did not establish all the elements of a valid theory of attempted murder under current law. Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of his petition and remand for further proceedings.

First Holding:

Where a petition states eligibility on its face, and the court examines the record of the conviction suggesting otherwise, the defendant must be given an opportunity to file an amended petition.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill 1437 amended the felony murder rule and eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

SB 1437

SB 775

PEN 1172.6
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959

Third Holding:

At the prima facie hearing, the trial court may examine the record of conviction to assess whether it refutes a defendant’s claim of eligibility.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

It is only where the record of conviction establishes the petition lacks merit as a matter of law that the court may deny the petition without a hearing

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 566, 576

Fifth Holding:

When the defendant’s conviction resulted from a guilty plea rather than a trial, the record of conviction includes the facts the defendant admitted as the factual basis for a guilty plea and the defendant’s express admissions at the plea colloquy.

Authority:

People v. Gaillard (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1206, 1211–1212

People v. Fisher (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1022, 1029

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

Sixth Holding:

If the trial court denies the petition without issuing an order to show cause, it must state its reasons.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(c)

Seventh Holding:

We independently review a summary denial of a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing.

Authority:

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

Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000020

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Following a revocation of probation, the defendant was sentenced to state prison. The trial court erred in not obtaining a probation report before sentencing him. The error was prejudicial. We reverse.

First Holding:

Absent written stipulation (or oral if in open court), the court must refer the matter to probation after probation has been revoked. The preparation of the report of the consideration of the report by the court may be waived only by a written stipulation of the prosecuting and defense attorneys that is filed with the court or an oral stipulation in open court that is made and entered upon the minutes of the court, except that a waiver shall not be allowed unless the court consents thereto.

Authority:

PEN 1203(b)(1)

PEN 1203(b)(4)

Second Holding:

The purpose of a probation report is to advise the court of the circumstances surrounding the crime and to provide information about the defendant’s history and record.

Authority:

People v. Llamas (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 35, 40

Third Holding:

Prejudice is measured under Watson.

Authority:

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

People v. Dobbins (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 176

Fourth Holding:

A stipulation to waive referral to probation must appear in the minutes

Authority:

PEN 1203(b)(4)

Appellate Principles

Case 000019

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

GARY Note: There is not much discussion in this case. Benoit relief was granted on a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking a finding that the notice of appeal was deemed constructively filed timely. That process is potentially available to a defendant whose notice of appeal was NOT filed with the 60 days (for a felony, 30 days for a misdemeanor), if certain conditions exist. The conditions are:(a) the defendant has been incarcerated during the entire period that a notice of appeal may be filed; (b) during that period the defendant requested that the attorney file one (or the attorney has otherwise conveyed to the defendant that the attorney will file the notice of appeal); and (c) the attorney failed to timely file the notice of appeal. The defendant may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the appellate court and ask that the court deem the notice of appeal to have been constructively filed timely. Although not discussed in this case, Benoit relief is generally NOT granted if the defendant was NOT in custody the entire 60 days, OR if the defendant did not ask the attorney within that 60 days to file a notice of appeal. Other than the reference to the Benoit case, the opinion does not contain any authority. I have added the two pertinent rules from the Rules of Court and a few case citations, none of which appears in the opinion, but I think it’s valuable to understand the importance of meeting that jurisdictional requirement.

First Holding:

Habeas relief can determine whether a notice of appeal should be deemed timely constructively filed.

Authority:

In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72

Second Holding:

In felony cases, the notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days. In appeals from guilty pleas, any required certificate of probable cause must also be filed within 60 days. No court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal.

Authority:

Rules of Court rule 8.308

Third Holding:

In misdemeanor appeals, the notice must be filed within 30 days.

Authority:

Rules of Court rule 8.393

Fourth Holding:

An untimely notice of appeal divests the appellate court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. An untimely notice of appeal is wholly ineffectual. The delay cannot be waived, it cannot be cured by nunc pro tunc order, and the appellate court has no power to give relief, but must dismiss the appeal on motion or on its own motion. [Gary note: Under Benoit, for an incarcerated person who, within that 60-day period, attempts to get the notice of appeal filed, a court that grants relief technically deems that the notice of appeal was constructively filed timely. Under that legal sense, it is not considered a late notice of appeal. In effect, the court is treating the timely attempts by the incarcerated defendant as the “functional equivalent”–MY description, NOT a court’s description–of filing a notice of appeal.]

Authority:

In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119

People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1094