Author Archives: Gary McCurdy

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 001005

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Section 654 barred punishment for the vandalism counts because those offenses involved the same course of conduct and objective as the attempted burglaries. We modify the judgment to impose concurrent terms on the three vandalism, stayed pursuant to section 654. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect the corrected sentence

First Holding:

Section 654 generally precludes multiple punishments for a single physical act that violates different provisions of law as well as multiple punishments for an indivisible course of conduct that violates more than one criminal statute. Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

If, on the other hand, the defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives that were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.

Authority:

PEN 654

In re Raymundo M. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 78, 94

Second Holding:

When a trial court determines that section 654 prohibits multiple punishments, it must impose a sentence for the conviction for which punishment is disallowed but stay its execution. Dismissal or imposition of a concurrent sentence is prohibited.

Authority:

People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 796

Third Holding:

While the trial court’s abstract of judgment properly stayed execution of punishment on vandalism two of the three counts subject to section 654, the abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction and does not control when it differs from the trial court’s oral judgment.

Here, the court’s language at sentencing was ambiguous: it said the vandalism counts would be “concurrent” and they “are 654” without expressly staying imposition of the concurrent sentences. Because the trial court verbally imposed an unauthorized sentence in violation of section 654, we direct that the abstract of judgment be corrected to the extent necessary to comply with section 654.

Authority:

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

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 001004

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal following remand from the defendant’s first appeal, the trial court failed to impose sentence on several counts whose punishment it stayed under section 654. It failed to impose a fine on a fifth count, and it improperly reimposed several other fines.

First Holding:

The court’s failure to pronounce sentence on some of the counts constitutes an unauthorized sentence. When a trial court determines that section 654 applies, the court must impose sentence on every count but stay execution as necessary to implement section 654. This procedure also applies when one of the sentences pertains to a misdemeanor conviction.

Authority:

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1472

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 380

Second Holding:

The defendant’s conviction under Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (driving under the influence) requires a fine, but the court failed to impose a fine.

Authority:

VEH 23536(a)

VEH 23600

People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 962 [defining an unauthorized sentence as one that cannot lawfully be imposed under any circumstances in a particular case]

Third Holding:

Having concluded that the trial court’s failure to impose sentences and to impose a fine resulted in an unauthorized sentence, we also conclude that remand is required to correct the errors. In other cases, we have exercised our authority under section 1260 to modify judgments in sentencing matters where remand would be futile or unnecessary because the record clearly indicated how the trial court would exercise its sentencing discretion.

Here, however, the trial court did not impose sentences on counts two, four, seven, and nine or the firearm enhancement associated with count two, or impose a fine on count six, either at the original sentencing or at the section 1172.75 resentencing. Given the range of sentencing options for the omitted counts and enhancement and the permissible range of the fine on count six, the record does not clearly indicate what sentences or fine the court would have imposed. Accordingly, remand is required.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1894, 1896

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

Fourth Holding:

We disagree with the People that on remand, the defendant is entitled to a full resentencing. Section 1260 grants appellate courts the authority to order limited remands for further proceedings that may be appropriate under the circumstances. In resentencing the defendant in 2025, the trial court considered the relevant factors in formulating a sentence it deemed appropriate based on his culpability, criminal history, and his risk of future dangerousness.

The two limited tasks on remand (imposing and staying sentences on the omitted counts that the court had already indicated it intended to stay and imposing a fine on count six) will not alter the overall sentencing scheme the trial court deemed appropriate such that resentencing on all nine counts would be required.

For these reasons, we order a limited remand.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Wilson (2024) 16 Cal.5th 874, 948-949

People v. Stevens (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1452, 1456 [Correcting a sentencing error by excising only the flawed component of the sentence from the aggregate term may be appropriate in some contexts where the interests of justice and judicial economy do not require a restructuring of the entire sentencing format]

Fifth Holding:

The court erred in reimposing and staying several fees, despite making an implied finding that the defendant did not have an ability to pay. Equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8(a)(1) or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1).

Neither of the applicable statutes nor Kopp allows a trial court to impose then stay the court operations fee or the court facilities fee after it finds a defendant indigent. Once it found the defendant lacked the ability to pay, the court’s option was to not impose the fees.

Authority:

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

Sixth Holding:

The statutes authorizing certain other fees that were previously imposed have since been repealed and are now unenforceable and uncollectible. Any portion of a judgment imposing those fees must be vacated.

Authority:

GOV 6111(a)

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001003

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The verdict form contained a typographical error regarding the appropriate subdivision on the use of firearm enhancement. The reference to subdivision (d) in the verdict from is stricken. There are several errors in the abstract of judgment and minute order that require correction.

First Holding:

A verdict is to be given a reasonable intendment and be construed in light of the issues submitted to the jury and the instructions of the court. Technical defects in a verdict may be disregarded if the jury’s intent to convict of a specified offense within the charges is unmistakably clear, and the accused’s substantial rights suffered no prejudice.

Where the error is in the recording of the judgment, as opposed to in the rendering of the judgment, it is clerical error which may be disregarded or corrected. Here, inclusion of subdivision (d) in addition to subdivision (a) was clearly a clerical error, and must be stricken from the judgment.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 373, 378–379

People v. Webster (1991) 54 Cal.3d 411, 447

People v. Camacho (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1273

People v. Trotter (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 363, 370

Second Holding:

The minute order fails to reflect that on motion by the prosecution the court dismissed the factors in aggravation. It must be corrected to reflect the dismissal. The abstract of judgment reflects that the defendant must pay [more than $10,000] to the Victim Compensation Board twice. The duplicate entry must be stricken from the abstract of judgment. There is an error on the abstract of judgment in reflect the determinate term where an indeterminate term has also been imposed, and the abstract of judgment must be corrected accordingly.

(Gary note: The court cited no authority for its orders directing the corrections, except for Wright, which it cited to demonstrate how the abstract should have been prepared. I have include some cases that the court could have drawn from as authority, had it felt it necessary.)

Authority:

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 848 [where remainder of sentence is indeterminate, in section six, the determinate form CR-290 must show no time]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 001002

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court failed to recalculate the defendant’s credit for time served on resentencing under section 1172.75.

Holding:

If the court modifies a defendant’s sentence, then the court must recalculate the number of days that the defendant has already spent in custody and award those recalculated credits in the new abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Ca1.4th 20, 29, 37, 41

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 001001

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(Gary note: This is not a win, but it contains of discussion on what excess credit for time served can apply to in the context of fines or fees.)

Penal Code section 2900.5 does not apply to restitution fines or nonpunitive assessments.

First Holding:

At the conclusion of the defendant’s proceedings, his credit for time served exceeded the total prison commitment that was imposed. His contention that section 2900.5 requires that his excess credits be applied against the ordered restitution fine and ancillary fees raises a matter of statutory interpretation requiring this court to exercise de novo review.

Authority:

People v. Carranza (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th Supp. 17, 23.

Second Holding:

Section 2900.5(a) provides that all presentence custody credit awarded to a defendant shall be credited upon his or her term of imprisonment, or credited to any base fine that may be imposed, at the rate of not less than one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125) per day, or more, in the discretion of the court imposing the sentence.

If the total number of days in custody exceeds the number of days of the term of imprisonment to be imposed, the entire term of imprisonment shall be deemed to have been served. In any case where the court has imposed both a prison or jail term of imprisonment and a fine, any days to be credited to the defendant shall first be applied to the term of imprisonment imposed, and thereafter the remaining days, if any, shall be applied to the base fine.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

Third Holding:

Section 2900.5 has undergone several changes, and prior to 2014 included restitution fines as subject to offset by excess days. Since 2017, the relevant language now requires that credit be applied to “any base fine,” with penalties and assessments imposed on the base fine to be reduced by the percentage the base fine has been satisfied. Excess credits cannot be applied to reduce restitution fines. Section 2900.5 does not apply to restitution fines, nor does it apply to nonpunitive assessments, such as the court operations assessment and the criminal conviction assessment imposed in this case.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Petri (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 82, 92-93

People v. Pinon (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 956, 967, fn. 7

People v. Rojas (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 48, 56

 

Fines and fees, Gary Musings, Sentencing

Case 001000

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The sentence on the defendant’s misdemeanor counts should have been stayed under section 654 as part of the same conduct as the felony.

First Holding:

Under rule 4.412(b), a defendant is estopped from challenging his or her sentence based on section 654’s prohibition of double punishment where the defendant agreed to a specified term in prison or county jail and is sentenced to that term or a shorter one. Rule 4.412(b) codifies one of the applications of the case law rule that defendants are estopped from complaining of sentences to which they agreed.

But in this case, the defendant did not expressly agree to any sentencing irregularity in exchange for a benefit. The record shows that it was an open plea, meaning that no promises were made as to his sentence. The defendant agreed that he could be sentenced to up to four years in one case and six years in the other, but those terms represented the maximum permitted for the offenses regardless of any plea agreementg. He faced anything up to and including the maximum term allowed.

Authority:

PEN 654

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.412(b)

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

People v. Velasquez (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 503

People v. Superior Court (Sanchez) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 567, 574–575

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 156

People v. Henderson (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 785, 788 [an open plea is one under which there is no promise about the nature or duration of the defendant’s sentence]

Second Holding (and Gary Musings):

In Jones, the defendant agreed to plead no contest to all charges and admit the enhancement allegations in exchange for a lid below the maximum term in sentencing. The lid was not the maximum exposure Jones would otherwise face absent the plea agreement. Rather, it restricted the sentence the trial court could impose but to a term less than Jones’s maximum exposure. It was not an open plea.

In Cole, the defendant pleaded guilty on the condition that his sentence would not exceed 25 years to life, whereas he was exposed to a term of 75 years to life but for the agreed lid. It, too, was not an open plea.

Thus, in Jones and Cole, the estoppel principle described in Hester applied, because the defendants were not permitted to complain on appeal about sentences that were limited by the terms of their pleas to something lower than the maximum that could have been imposed in the absence of their agreements.

That is not the case here, as the agreement did not specify a lid. There was simply a recognition of the maximum possible sentence that could be imposed for each count, regardless of any agreement.

(Gary note: In Jones and Cole, as stated in Jones, had they a problem with their sentences, they should have attempted to withdraw their pleas in the trial court when the sentences were imposed. Though not expressed, implicit in the court’s reliance on Cole and Jones as examples where estoppel applies is the recognition that an appeal from a denied motion to withdraw a plea requires a certificate of probable cause. For a pretty good discussion of certificates of probable cause, I have included Buttram in the Authority listed below, but it was not cited by or discussed in the opinion.

(If your client wishes to appeal after entering a plea agreement of any sort, you need to research whether a certificate of probable cause is required. If there is any chance at all that the appeal would undermine any of the terms of the plea agreement, a certificate is likely required. A common myth is that a certificate is not required to appeal any errors alleged to have occurred after the plea. Don’t fall for it. Instead, the focus is on the plea agreement itself. And the requirement of a certificate of probable cause is separate from the doctrine of estoppel addressed in this opinion. In Jones, there was no disagreement that omission of the application of section 654 created an unauthorized sentence. The obstacle was that the defendant was estopped from raising the issue because of his agreement.

(Although they’re all important, one must-read case is People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, which I’ve listed below but was not cited by the court here. The defendant pleaded guilty with an agreement on the sentence. Unbeknownst to him at the time of his own sentencing, his co-defendants apparently received significantly lower sentences. He appealed, claiming his sentence was disproportionate. Because he had not sought and been issued a certificate of probable cause, the Supreme Court concluded his appeal should have been dismissed. His challenge to his sentence, even on constitutional grounds, was a challenge to his plea, and thus a certificate was required.

(Also note that, under section 1237.5(a), a certificate of probable cause can be issued only where the application for a certificate shows “reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings.”

(Although it is described as a certificate of probable cause, “it is not the trial court’s responsibility to determine if there was error in the proceedings. The trial court’s sole objective is to eliminate those appeals having no possible legal basis by refusing to issue a certificate of probable cause. See People v. Holland (1978) 23 Cal.3d 77, 84, quoting People v. Warburton (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 815, 819. Holland also reminds us (in footnote 6) that a petition for writ of mandate is the means by which one may challenge a denial of an application for certificate of probable cause. Neither Holland nor Warburton were cited in the opinion, because a certificate of probable cause was not even an issue in the case.

(Until 2022, if it appeared to the clerk of the superior court that a notice of appeal from a guilty plea required a certificate of probable cause, the clerk would mark the notice received but inoperable. To get past that hurdle, the notice would have to reflect that it is a challenge to the sentence and was not a challenge to the plea (or that it was an appeal from a guilty plea after a denial of a motion to suppress evidence on search and seizure grounds under section 1538.5. Rule 8.304(b) was amended effective 1/1/22, and now provides that “If the defendant does not file the written statement required by Penal Code section 1237.5 or the superior court denies a certificate of probable cause, the appeal will be limited to issues that do not require a certificate of probable cause.” That was a vast improvement, from our defense perspective, because at least the notice of appeal initiated an appeal, albeit only on grounds not requiring a certificate.

(All of this Gary note is triggered by the court’s comment in Jones, cited by this court as distinguishable, that a defendant facing a 654 problem on an agreed-upon sentence must deal with it at the trial court level by moving to withdraw his or her plea timely. So this Gary note is really dealing with sub-sub-nonissues that I think you should nonetheless be aware of. Think of this lengthy aside as getting more for your money. Money? We ain’t got no money! We don’t need no money. You don’t have to show me any stinking money. Oops, sorry, got carried away a bit there.)

Authority:

People v. Jones (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 735, 739

People v. Cole (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 850, 856-858

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

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773,

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68

People v. Holland (1978) 23 Cal.3d 77, 84

People v. Warburton (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 815, 819

Third Holding:

Section 654 precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one. If, on the other hand, defendant harbored multiple criminal objectives, which were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for each statutory violation committed in pursuit of each objective, “even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Assad (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 187, 200

People v. Rodriguez (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005

Fourth Holding:

As there was no discussion at sentencing of section 654, we must affirm the sentence if an implied finding that section 654 does not apply is supported by substantial evidence. The record demonstrate that the defendant committed the offenses the misdemeanor cases with the objective to steal the contents of his victims’ vehicles. There is no evidence to support a finding that he formed a separate intent and objective for each offense for which he was sentenced. Accordingly, the sentences on the misdemeanor counts must be stayed.

Authority:

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 730–731

People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 162

Fifth Holding:

Separate restitution fines may be imposed for each case that are not consolidated, even if resolved jointly by plea bargain. Defendants who commit multiple crimes, and are consequently before the court in multiple cases when their pleas are taken, are properly subject to multiple fines. This straightforward application of the requirement that fines be imposed in every case serves the purpose of the state Restitution Fund, as well as the rehabilitative and deterrent functions of restitution fines.

Authority:

People v. Soria (2010) 48 Cal.4th 58, 64-66

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000999

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court abused its discretion by denying the defendant’s request for mental health diversion because its finding that he is ineligible for diversion is not supported by substantial evidence.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted sections 1001.35 and 1001.36 to authorize trial courts to grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendants diagnosed with qualifying mental disorders. To be eligible for mental health diversion, a defendant must meet two requirements.

One, the defendant must have been diagnosed within the past five years with a mental disorder identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

And two, the defendant’s mental disorder must be a significant factor in the commission of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 677

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400

Second Holding:

Among the express purposes of the diversion program is to increase diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety.

Under section 1001.36(b), the court must find a causal connection unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. Eligibility no longer turned on findings to the court’s satisfaction.

The statute requires the court to find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor unless clear and convincing evidence demonstrates otherwise. And it is the prosecution’s burden to provide clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption.

Authority:

Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 67, 80

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

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891

People v. Cabalar (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 41, 52

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 688

Third Holding:

Once a defendant meets the eligibility requirements, the trial court must then determine whether a defendant is suitable for diversion using the four criteria outlined in section 1001.36(c): (1) A qualified mental health expert has determined the defendant’s symptoms would respond to mental health treatment; (2) the defendant has consented to diversion and waived the right to a speedy trial; (3) the defendant has agreed to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion, and (4) the court has determined the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400-401

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on an application for mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. A court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. By definition, ‘substantial evidence’ requires evidence and not mere speculation.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Ramon (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 843, 851

Fifth Holding:

In reviewing a trial court’s finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before us is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the dispute] fact was true.

More specifically, in this context, we must determine whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. To answer that question, we review the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.

(Gary note: The balance of the decision discusses the conclusions drawn by the trial court that it relied on to conclude that the mental disorder did not contribute to the offense. The appellate court concluded that the inferences the trial court drew were not substantial evidence to overcome by clear and convincing the presumption that the mental disorder was a contributing factor, and reversed the denial. It remanded for the court to reconsider the defendant’s application for mental health diversion consistent with the appellate court’s opinion.)

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401-402

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000998

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We must reverse the defendant’s conviction under section 4501(a) because it duplicates his conviction under section 4500.

First Holding:

The defendant was convicted of section 4500 and 4501. In essence, section 4500 provides that any person serving a life sentence who, with malice aforethought, commits an assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury is punishable by death or life without the possibility of parole. If the victim does not die within a year and a day, the punishment is life without the possibility of parole for nine years.

In essence, section 4501 provides that, except as provided in section 4500, a prisoner who commits an assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury is punishable by two, four, or six years, to be served consecutively.

Authority:

PEN 4500

PEN 4501

Second Holding:

Section 954 allows prosecutors to charge different statements of the same offense, but does not allow a defendant to be convicted for multiple statements of the same offense. A defendant cannot be convicted of two offenses if one is necessarily included in the other or if the legislature intended to define a single offense that can be committed multiple ways–in other words, if the convictions are different statements of the same offense.

Authority:

PEN 954

People v. Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632, 648-650

Third Holding:

There are two tests to determine whether an uncharged offense is necessarily included within a charged offense: the “elements” test and the “accusatory pleading” test.

Under the elements test, if the statutory elements of the greater offense include all of the statutory elements of the lesser offense, the latter is necessarily included in the former.

Under the accusatory pleading test, if the facts actually alleged in the accusatory pleading include all of the elements of the lesser offense, the latter is necessarily included in the former.

Authority:

People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224, 1227–1228

Fourth Holding:

To determine if two convictions run afoul of section 954, we consider the elements as well as legislative intent. If one is a necessarily included offense of the other, they are not different offenses. Even if the elements differ, two offenses can be essentially the same if legislative intent shows this is so. We consider the text and structure of the statutes, the elements of the offenses, the punishments, the legislative history, and the historical context of the statutes’ enactment.

Authority:

People v. Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632, 637-638, 648

People v. Aguayo (2022) 13 Cal.5th 974, 982–983

Fifth Holding:

A defendant may be convicted only of section section 4501(a) or of section 4500, but not both for the same conduct. We direct the trial court to reverse the defendant’s conviction under section 4501(a) and to strike the sentence and any fees imposed in connection with that charge.

Authority:

People v. Nava (2007) 107 Cal.App.5th 624, 626

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000997

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The approved plea agreement provided for dismissal of count II, but that count was not dismissed at sentencing. Further, the court failed to impose a suspended parole revocation fine matching the amount imposed as the restitution fine.

The judgment is modified to dismiss count II and impose a $300 parole revocation fine, which shall be suspended unless parole is revoked. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the sentencing minute order to reflect this modification. However, because the abstract of judgment already reflects the $300 suspended parole revocation fine, no amendment of that document is necessary.

First Holding:

When a guilty or no contest plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits such as the dismissal of other counts or an agreed maximum punishment, both parties, including the state, must abide by the terms of the agreement.

Authority:

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 80

Second Holding:

When the trial court imposes a sentence that includes a period of parole, and it also imposes a restitution fine, a matching suspended parole revocation fine must be imposed. Omission of a mandatory parole revocation fine is an unauthorized sentence that we can correct on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 1202.45

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 853

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000996

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment contains an incorrect date of the sentence and has incorrect numbers for the counts of conviction. It must be corrected.

Holding:

The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment identifying the correct hearing dat, and in section 6.b., referencing counts 1, 2, and 6, rather than 1, 2, and 3.

(Gary note: The court listed no authority for its order to correct the abstract of judgment, so I have listed some cases below that the court could have cited.)

Authority:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000995

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This appeal is from the resentencing under section 1172.75. The restitution fine must be stricken, as now it was imposed more than 10 years ago. There are errors in the abstract of judgment that must be corrected.

First Holding:

The trial court originally imposed the restitution fine in August 2015. Since then, the Legislature amended section 1465.9 to provide that restitution fines under section 1202.4 are uncollectible and unenforceable after 10 years and that the part of the judgment imposing the fine must be vacated. While the court reimposed the $4,000 restitution fine less than 10 years after the original sentencing, 10 years have passed since the court originally imposed the $4,000 restitution fine, and thus the balance is now unenforceable and uncollectible. We will therefore strike the restitution fine.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

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

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600-601, review granted on a different issue Mar. 11, 2026, S295038

Second Holding:

The abstract lists the prior prison term enhancement as stayed, when in fact that enhancement was stricken by the trial court. In addition, the four-month sentence on count three is listed as concurrent when it should be listed as consecutive. We will therefore order amendment of the abstract to correct these errors

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [oral pronouncement of judgment ordinarily controls]

Duty of counsel, Duty of the court, Immigration, Plea bargains, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000994

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea conviction under section 1473.7, because the defendant demonstrated entitlement to relief.

First Holding:

In response to the absence of a legal remedy for individuals who are no longer in custody but find themselves facing unanticipated immigration consequences resulting from a guilty or no contest plea entered years earlier, the Legislature added section 1473.7 to the Penal Code, effective January 1, 2017. The statute was subsequently amended to broaden eligibility for relief beyond the entry of a plea.

In relevant part, the statute now provides that individuals may file a motion for relief from a conviction or sentence on the basis that the conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence. Relief is not contingent upon establishing ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7(a)

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 522-523

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 12-13

Second Holding:

A defendant must satisfy three statutory requirements to be eligible to seek relief from a legally invalid conviction or sentence under section 1473.7(a)(1). The movant must show he is no longer in criminal custody, and the conviction or sentence being challenged is currently causing or has the potential to cause removal or the denial of an application for an immigration benefit, lawful status, or naturalization. The motion must also be timely.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 13

Third Holding:

To prevail under section 1473.7, a defendant must demonstrate that his conviction is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging his or her ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence.

The defendant must first show that he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea.

Next, the defendant must show that his misunderstanding constituted prejudicial error.

Prejudical error means demonstrating a reasonable probability that the defendant would have rejected the plea if the defendant had correctly understood its actual or potential immigration consequences.

Authority:

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

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

Fourth Holding:

We evaluate prejudicial error under the totality of the circumstances.

Factors particularly relevant to this inquiry include the defendant’s ties to the United States, the importance the defendant placed on avoiding deportation, the defendant’s priorities in seeking a plea bargain, and whether the defendant had reason to believe an immigration-neutral negotiated disposition was possible.

The defendant’s probability of obtaining a more favorable outcome if he had rejected the plea and the difference between the bargained-for term and the likely term if he were convicted at trial are also relevant.

These factors are not exhaustive, and no single type of evidence is a prerequisite to relief.

A defendant must provide objective evidence to corroborate factual assertions. Objective evidence includes facts provided by declarations, contemporaneous documentation of the defendant’s immigration concerns or interactions with counsel, and evidence of the charges the defendant faced.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 320-321

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529-530

People v. Martinez (2013) 57 Cal.4th 555, 564

Lee v. United States (2017) 582 U.S. 357, 358

Fifth Holding:

On appeal, we apply independent review to evaluate whether a defendant has demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea offer had he understood its immigration consequences.

We exercise independent judgment to determine whether the facts satisfy the rule of law, and defer to the trial court’s factual determinations if they are based on the credibility of witnesses the superior court heard and observed.

However, when, as in this case, the trial court’s findings derive entirely from written declarations and other documents, the trial court and the reviewing court are in the same position, and no deference is owed.

Authority:

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

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 527-528

Sixth Holding:

The focus of this inquiry is the defendant’s own error. Thus, the key is the mindset of the defendant and not what an objectively reasonable person would have understood under the circumstances.

The defendant is the only one with direct access to his state of mind, but a defendant’s assertion as to his or her state of mind is not accepted at face value by courts evaluating a section 1473.7 motion. Such assertions must be corroborated with objective evidence.

A party seeking relief under section 1473.7 is not required to provide the declaration of plea counsel.

Authority:

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 16-17

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

People v. Alatorre (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 747, 769

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 325

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 962

Seventh Holding:

The standard section 1016.5 advisement—given to all criminal defendants in California who plead guilty to any offense other than an infraction—that his or her criminal conviction may have adverse immigration consequences does not bar a defendant from seeking relief from his plea on grounds of mistake or ignorance based on immigration consequences. Thus, the fact the superior court advised defendant pursuant to section 1016.5 does not resolve the matter against defendant.

Authority:

People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 889, 895

People v. Lopez (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 561, 577-578

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

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 962

Eighth Holding:

Prior to Padilla, there was no Sixth Amendment obligation on the part of defense counsel to affirmatively advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of a conviction. Rather, most courts had determined that no such duty existed.

As a general rule, a failure to anticipate changes in the law is not considered ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Gary note:  I think we all know what the court means by “Prior to Padilla, there was no Sixth Amendment obligation ….”  But I think a more accurate statement would be something like, “Padilla was the first pronouncement by the United States Supreme Court recognizing that the Sixth Amendment places an obligation on the part of defense counsel to ….”  The Sixth Amendment was certainly not amended to add any provision generating a new obligation.  The Sixth Amendment has been around for centuries, unchanged.  It was only its import that hadn’t been seen in the past, at least by the High Court.

(The court’s phrasing as I’ve set out in the Ninth Holding tracks what I’m saying.

(I mention this because I think sometimes it is important to argue that something is NOT new law, and that it has BEEN the law all along, notwithstanding that it had not previously been understood to be the law.  Why is that important?  It can make the difference in whether a court recognizes that your client’s rights were violated, even though it was only through a later appellate analysis that the nature of the violation was discovered.  We don’t want the court to assume that, because no court had seen it before, your client is not entitled to its benefit.

(There have been decisions, of course, that decline to revisit cases where, had the law been understood at the time, there would have been a different result.  But that is generally related to the principle of finality of judgment and the jurisdiction of the court to act on the case.  While not directly the same, think of the Estrada presumption of retroactivity of ameliorative changes in the law to those whose judgments are not final, in the absence of clear intent that the change was to be applied prospectively only.  

(Just sayin’.

(Of course, with respect to Padilla, the practical effect is that yes, the Sixth Amendment imposes the obligation on the attorney to provide the advice, but the failure to do so prior to Padilla is not tantamount to ineffective assistance of counsel as that principle has been described in the past.  As the court in this case said, relying on In re Grinder, “As a general rule, a failure to anticipate changes in the law is not considered ineffective assistance of counsel.”

(Was there a change in the law?  Or simply a change in the understanding of the Sixth Amendment?  Of course, the opposition might argue that court pronouncements dictate what is the law, and therefore they represent the law, and thererfore it wasn’t until Padilla that the Sixth Amendment created the obligation.  An interesting debate, or not, but for another time.)  

Authority:

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

Chaidez v. United States (2013) 568 U.S. 342, 353

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

In re Grinder (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 845, 872

Ninth Holding:

Here, defendant entered his plea 15 years before the United States Supreme Court held in Padilla that the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to provide affirmative and competent advice to noncitizen defendants regarding the potential immigration consequences of their criminal cases. As such, defendant’s attestation that his attorney did not advise him about the immigration consequences of his plea is consistent with the state of the law at that time.

(Gary note: The appellate court examined and analyzed extensively many facts in the record from which it concluded that, based primarily on the principles I have extracted in this summary, the defendant was entitled to relief because his plea was not entered knowingly and intelligently within the contemplation of section 1473.7. I have omitted those details, some of which included citations to other cases apparently relevant to those details. Since this was an unpublished decision and cannot be cited for comparison, and since this is supposed to be a summary and not a copy of the entire decision, I have to stop about here.)

Authority:

PEN 1016.2

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

People v. Rodriguez (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 301, 307–312