Author Archives: Gary McCurdy

Duty of the court

Case 000765

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This was a grant of a petition for habeas corpus to compel the trial court to set bail in this murder case. The appellate court granted the petition and directed the court to hold a new bail hearing consistent with the opinion.

First Holding:

Our state constitution entitles arrestees to bail unless one of a limited number of exceptions applies. The exception at issue here provides that a trial judge may deny bail when a defendant is charged with a felony offense involving acts of violence on another person when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the judge finds based upon clear and convincing evidence that there is a substantial likelihood the person’s release would result in great bodily harm to others.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 12

Yedinak v. Superior Court (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 876, 884

In re Kowalczyk (2026) 19 Cal.5th 593, 630 [a court may order the pretrial detention of a noncapital defendant only in the circumstances specified in subdivisions (b) and (c) of section 12 of article I of the California Constitution]

Second Holding:

California Supreme Court caselaw imposed two more requirements for the so-called violent felony exception to apply. A trial judge must satisfy four legal requirements before issuing a pretrial detention order under section 12(b).

The judge must: (1) find there is sufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict against the arrestee on a qualifying felony; (2) find by clear and convincing evidence a substantial likelihood that the arrestee’s release would result in great bodily harm to others; (3) find by clear and convincing evidence that no less restrictive condition than detention can reasonably protect the interests in public or victim safety, and the arrestee’s appearance in court; and (4) set forth the reasons for their decision on the record and include them in the minute order.

Per our order to show cause, only the third and fourth Yedinak factors are at issue here. We hold the trial court did not adequately satisfy either factor.

Authority:

Yedinak v. Superior Court (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 876, 886

In re White (2020) 9 Cal.5th 455

In re Humphrey (2021) 11 Cal.5th 135

Third Holding:

A court entering a pretrial detention order must set forth the reasons for its decision on the record and to include them in the court’s minutes, and the reasons supporting a denial of bail cannot be implied.”

Authority:

In re Harris (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1085, 1105, reversed in part on other grounds in In re Harris (2024) 16 Cal.5th 292

Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000764

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred by not staying punishment for the second count under section 654. Also, the court must recalculate the credit for time served on resentencing. Further, the abstract of judgment erroneously reflects that the defendant stands convicted of a count that was reversed in the prior appeal.

(Gary note: This was mentioned only in a footnote, and there was no express direction for correction. But the court did order resentencing “consistent with this opinion,” which most likely implies a direction that the subsequent abstract of judgment accurately reflect the record.)

First Holding:

Section 654(a) states that 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.

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

Second Holding:

Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an act or omission may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective.

We first consider if the different crimes were completed by a single physical act. If so, the defendant may not be punished more than once for that act. Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single intent and objective or multiple intents and objectives. At step one, courts examine the facts of the case to determine whether multiple convictions are based upon a single physical act.

When those facts are undisputed the application of section 654 raises a question of law we review de novo. However, we review the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence.

Authority:

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

People v. Washington (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 776, 795

Third Holding:

A review of the record indicates that there was but one act constituting the crime. Accordingly, the sentence on count 2 should have been stayed.

Authority:

PEN 654

Fourth Holding:

While we do not address the trial court’s failure to recalculate the defendant’s actual days of presentence custody credits because it was not raised by the defendant and we are remanding the matter for resentencing, we note that trial courts are required to do so.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 41

Fifth Holding:

(Gary note: the court mentioned in a footnote that the abstract incorrectly lists a conviction of an offense that was reversed in a prior appeal. It made no express direction for correct of the abstract, but there is much authority that would have supported such an order, some of which I set forth below.)

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

Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000763

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in declining to determine the defendant’s ability to pay fines and fees. Its stated basis was the probation office’s strong stance on rejecting the plea, based on the victim. After sentencing, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kopp.

First Holding:

A defendant may challenge the imposition of a punitive fine under the United States and California Constitutions’ excessive fines provisions. The California Supreme Court The court used the “fine” term to refer to penalties provided by the Legislature to punish a criminal offense and included restitution fines and parole revocation restitution fines within that category. Because its decision was issued after the defendant was sentenced, the defendant should be given the opportunity to develop an excessive fines argument in the first instance on remand.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23, 30-31

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution [Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted]

Article I, section 17 of the California Constitution [Cruel or unusual punishment may not be inflicted or excessive fines imposed.]

Second Holding:

Because the trial court failed to consider the defendant’s ability to pay the the court operations and court facilities assessments despite his request, we must remand for such consideration. Because there is no rational basis for distinguishing criminal defendants from indigent civil litigants—who are afforded waivers for similar assessments—equal protection principles require the trial court to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing these ancillary costs.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 14-15, 24-31

AppellateAdvisor Updates, Duty of the court, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000762

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erroneously denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss his conviction under section 1203.4 following his fulfillment of conditions of probation. The trial court concluded that the defendant was not eligible for relief as long as he had to register as a sex offender. The trial court denied the defendant’s petition for an erroneous reason without determining whether he fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire probation period. Therefore, the order denying the petition is reversed, and the trial court is directed to make that determination.

First Holding:

When a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation, the defendant is entitled to have his conviction set aside and the case dismissed.

Authority:

PEN 1203.4(a)(1)

Second Holding:

This statutory provision is clear. If the defendant fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, the trial court shall allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea and shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information. Dismissal in this circumstance is mandatory.

Authority:

People v. Daffeh (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 790, 796

People v. Tran (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 877, 892, fn. 6 [under section 1203.4, if the petitioner establishes either of the necessary factual predicates, the trial court is required to grant the requested relief]

Third Holding:

A person who has suffered a conviction specified in section 290 is required to register as a sex offender, notwithstanding dismissal of such conviction pursuant to 1203.4. But the duty to register as a sex offender does not make the person ineligible for relief under section 1203.4

Authority:

Doe v. Brown (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 408, 423

People v. Chatman (2018) 4 Cal.5th 277, 287

People v. Hamdon (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1065, 1071, fn. 3 [Section 290.007 expressly precludes relief from the sex offender registration requirement for persons whose convictions are dismissed pursuant to section 1203.4]

People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 975, 996 [same]

Fourth Holding:

If the defendant has not fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation or been discharged prior to the termination of the probation period, the court still has discretion to grant relief in the interests of justice.

Authority:

People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 975, 991

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Appellate Principles

Case 000761

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though we dismiss the appeal as from an nonappealable order, we remand to the trial court for correction of the abstract of judgment, which contains several significant errors in recording the sentence that was imposed. The abstract incorrectly identified the stayed 10-year enhancements as imposed pursuant to section 12022.53(d), rather than section 12022.53(b). The abstract also failed to reflect that the 25 years to life firearm enhancement attached to the attempted robbery.

First Holding:

The court has the authority to remand the matter to the lower court for correction of an abstract of judgment even if it dismisses the appeal itself.

Authority:

People v. Hibbard (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 145, 150 [dismissing appeal but remanding to correct abstract of judgment]

People v. Navarro (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1105-1106 [same]

Second Holding:

Section 1172.1 permits a court to resentence the defendant after conviction. But the request must come from the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of Parole Hearings in the case of a defendant incarcerated in state prison, the county correctional administrator in the case of a defendant incarcerated in county jail, the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, or the Attorney General if the Department of Justice originally prosecuted the case.

The court may recall the sentence on its own motion within 120 days of the date of commitment or at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law. Though a defendant may invite the court to recall the sentence under section 1172.1, the defendant does not have a right to file a petition seeking the relief. If the defendant requests consideration for relief under the section, the court is not required to respond.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1

Third Holding:

If the request for resentencing is initiated by invitation or request of the defendant, the defendant has no right to appeal the denial or inaction by the trial court. An order declining to act on a defendant’s unauthorized section 1172.1 petition is nonappealable.

Authority:

People v. Roy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 991, 998

People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 996

People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687, 693

Fourth Holding:

Although the defendant attached a letter from a CDCR correctional case records analyst, that letter merely pointed out a potential error with the abstract of judgment and in no way used the words “recall” or “resentence” or otherwise invoke section 1172.1; such a letter does not constitute a recommendation by the Secretary.

Authority:

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 987 [a CDCR letter was not a qualifying recommendation where it was from a case records manager, not the secretary]

People v. Magana (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 1120, 1125

People v. Humphrey (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 371, 373 [letter from CDCR stating abstract of judgment may be in error did not invoke the court’s authority under section 1170–the predecessor to what is now section 1172.1]

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

Case 000760

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction on count 2, and there are errors in the abstract of judgment that must be corrected.

First Holding:

The defendant was charged with taking a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 and with receiving stolen property (the same vehicle) under Penal Code section 496d(a). He was convicted of both counts. Though there was sufficient evidence that he took the vehicle, there was no evidence on what he did with it before its discovery. The evidence supports the theory that defendant was on one continuous journey away from the locus of the theft’ with the golf cart after taking it from the company premises until it was placed at the location from which the victim later retrieved it.

Authority:

People v. Strong (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 366, 375

Second Holding:

Where a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal conviction, we apply the substantial evidence standard of review. Accordingly, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

While substantial evidence may consist of inferences, such inferences must be a product of logic and reason and must rest on the evidence; inferences that are the result of mere speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding.

Authority:

People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1212

People v. Shively (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 460, 468

Kuhn v. Department of General Services (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1627, 1633

Third Holding:

Vehicle Code section 10851(a) proscribes a wide range of conduct. A person can violate Vehicle Code section 10851(a) either by taking a vehicle with the intent to steal it or by driving it with the intent only to temporarily deprive its owner of possession (i.e., joyriding). A taking is complete when the driving is not part of the escape from the scene of the theft.

Authority:

People v. Garza (2005) 35 Cal.4th 866, 871, 876

People v. Calistro (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 387, 395

Fourth Holding:

A person who violates section 10851(a) by taking a car with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession, and who is convicted of that offense on that basis, cannot also be convicted of receiving the same vehicle as stolen property. If, on the other hand, a section 10851(a) conviction is based on posttheft driving, a separate conviction under section 496(a) for receiving the same vehicle as stolen property is not precluded.

Authority:

People v. Garza (2005) 35 Cal.4th 866, 871, 876

Fifth Holding:

When a defendant is improperly convicted of both stealing and receiving the same stolen property, the theft conviction should be upheld and the receiving conviction reversed.

Authority:

People v. Ceja (2010) 49 Cal.4th 1, 10

Sixth Holding:

There were numerous errors in the abstract of judgment, in which the recitation of prison terms imposed were quite different than orally pronounced. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. The abstract must be corrected.

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000759

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing on a petition for resentencing (the opinion does not state under which statute the petition was filed, but in the body of the opinion it mentions section 1172.1, under which various entities can recommend the recall of sentence and resentencing), the trial court denied the defendant’s request to reduce his kidnap for robbery conviction to the lesser included offense of false imprisonment, stating that it did not have discretion to do so. The court erred, as it did have the discretion. We remand for the court to exercise its discretion.

First Holding:

Under section 1172.1(a)(3)(B), the trial court may in the interest of justice vacate the defendant’s conviction and impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense then resentence the defendant to a reduced term of imprisonment. Defendant thus asked the trial court at the hearing on his petition to reduce his conviction on count 2 from a kidnap to false imprisonment as the other counts in his sentencing were false imprisonment. The trial court viewed the request as a challenge to the evidence and declined to revisit the evidence.

The court indicated that it did not have the discretion to do anything but impose the sentence on the count of conviction. The court’s comments confirm that it was unaware it had the discretion under section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(3)(B) to reduce defendant’s kidnapping-for-robbery conviction on count 2 to false imprisonment and resentence him to a reduced term for that offense. The trial court thus abused its sentencing discretion.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1(a)(3)(B)

In re White (2020) 9 Cal.5th 455, 470

Second Holding:

When, as here, the trial court is unaware of its sentencing discretion, we must remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have made the same decision if it had been aware of its discretion. The record does not indicate that. If anything, it indicates that the trial court might have imposed a lesser sentence on count 2 if it believed it had the discretion to do so. We therefore remand for a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424

People v. Terwilligar (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 585, 601

People v. Moseley (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 870, 874

People v. Marcus (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 201, 214 [Because there are multiple counts and discretionary decisions at play, the trial court may consider the entire sentencing scheme and reconsider all sentencing choices.]

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

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000758

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment includes clerical errors which should be corrected to accurately reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement. First, it reflects imposition of a restitution fine without also indicating that the court stayed the fine. Second, it incorrectly states the sentence imposed by the court.

Holding:

Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Courts have the inherent power to correct such clerical errors, either on their own motion or upon the application of the parties.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 [a discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as entered in the minutes is presumably the result of clerical error]

Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000757

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

While affirming the lower court’s finding that section 654 did not apply, it did find that the sentence for the second count was unauthorized, as the trial court purported to impose one-third the middle term to be served concurrently with the other count. It should have imposed a full term to run concurrently, as the one-third the middle term calculation applies only when sentences are to be served consecutively.

First Holding:

A sentence is generally unauthorized where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. An appellate court can correct an unauthorized sentence on appeal when such error is clear and correctable independent of any factual issues presented by the record at sentencing.

Authority:

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

People v. Quintero (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1156, fn. 3 [vacating and correcting the unauthorized sentence rather than remanding for resentencing because the record clearly reflects the trial judge’s intention to run the unauthorized sentence concurrently and not impose any additional consecutive time]

Second Holding:

The imposition of one-third the middle term for subordinate offenses applies in case of consecutive, but not concurrent, sentences. Because concurrent terms are not part of the principal and subordinate term computation under section 1170.1(a), they are imposed at the full base term, not according to the one-third middle term formula, even though they are served at the same time.

As such, imposition of one-third the midterm sentence on a concurrent term is an unauthorized sentence. However, remand for resentencing is unnecessary because the record clearly indicates that the trial court intended to run the sentence on his possession of a firearm conviction concurrently and not impose any additional consecutive time.

Authority:

People v. Matthews (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 164, 169, fn. 4

People v. Quintero (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1156, fn. 3

Third Holding:

Section 654(a) provides that 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. The statute therefore precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. Multiple punishment includes the imposition of both concurrent and consecutive sentences because the defendant is deemed to be subjected to the term of both sentences although they are served simultaneously.

Authority:

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 353, 358

Fourth Holding:

The proscription against double punishment in section 654 is applicable where there is a course of conduct which … comprises an indivisible transaction punishable under more than one statute.… The divisibility of a course of conduct depends upon the intent and objective of the actor, and if all the offenses are incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of them but not for more than one.

Authority:

People v. Bauer (1969) 1 Cal.3d 368, 376

Fifth Holding:

If the defendant had multiple or simultaneous objectives, independent of and not merely incidental to each other, the defendant may be punished for each violation committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations share common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct. In the context of a conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, where the evidence shows a possession distinctly antecedent and separate from the primary offense, punishment on both crimes has been approved.

Authority:

People v. Cleveland (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 263, 267-268

People v. Bradford (1976) 17 Cal.3d 8, 22

Sixth Holding:

Whether section 654 applies in a given case is a question of fact for the trial court, which is vested with broad latitude in making its determination. Its findings will not be reversed on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them. We review the trial court’s determination in the light most favorable to the respondent and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the evidence. The evidence in this case indicates that the defendant bought the firearm and possessed it for a substantial period before the shooting, not simply during the shooting.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143

People v. Wynn (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1217 [courts have determined that section 654 applies where the defendant obtained the prohibited weapon during the assault in which he used the weapon]

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000756

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the court erred in believing that it had no discretion to consider defendant’s motion pursuant to dismiss prior serious felony enhancements under Romero. The matter is reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to hold a full resentencing hearing at which the court must consider defendant’s Romero motion.

First Holding:

In 2019, in an effort to reduce the societal and fiscal burdens of incarceration, the Legislature passed SB 136, which amended section 667.5(b) to eliminate prior-prison-term enhancements for all prior crimes except for sexually violent offenses as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

In 2021, SB 483 made this change retroactive. It enacted what is now Penal Code section 1172.75, which states that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

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

Second Holding:

A defendant serving a term for a judgment that includes a now-invalid enhancement is entitled to resentencing. To facilitate the process, the statute directs California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to identify those persons in their custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a).

Upon receiving that information, the sentencing court must review the judgment and verify that the current judgment includes a sentencing enhancement described in subdivision (a). If the court determines that the current judgment includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a), the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. The statute provides separate deadlines for identification, review, and resentencing of individuals currently serving a sentence based on the enhancement and all other individuals.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1055

Third Holding:

Section 1172.75(d) sets forth detailed instructions for resentencing once a sentence has been recalled. As relevant here, subdivision (d) specifies: that resentencing pursuant to this section shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.

Resentencing pursuant to this section shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed. The trial court must apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council as well as any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

In addition, the court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the defendant’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1055

Fourth 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. The trial court has the authority to exercise its discretion under section 1385(a) and Romero to strike any or all of defendant’s strike priors after recalling his sentence and for the purpose of resentencing him under section 1172.75.

Authority:

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

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 364

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 400

People v. Dowdy (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1, 9-13

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497

Fines and fees, Juveniles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 000755

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because of a change in the law while the minor’s case has been pending, the restitution fine ordered by the court must be stricken.

First Holding:

Here, the juvenile court imposed a restitution fine as a condition of probation. At the time of the minor’s disposition, the restitution fine was mandatory. Effective January 1, 2025, however, the Legislature passed AB 1186 which amended Welfare and Instituitons Code section 730.6 to prohibit a court from imposing a separate and additional restitution fine against a minor found to be a person described in Section 602.

Authority:

WIC 730.6(a)(2)

Second Holding:

An adult or juvenile offender is generally entitled to benefit from amendments that become effective while their case is on appeal and not yet final.

Authority:

People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 305 [applying a revised version of the statute in setting a restitution fine]

In re N.D. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 885, 891 [rule of retroactivity applies to juvenile delinquency judgments]

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 748 [Where the amendatory statute mitigates punishment and there is no saving clause, the rule is that the amendment will operate retroactively so that the lighter punishment is imposed.

Third Holding:

Because imposing a restitution fine constitutes “punishment” and the minor’s case was not yet final when section 730.6 became effective, we conclude section 730.6 operates retroactively and precludes imposition of a restitution fine. Therefore, the restitution fine should be stricken.

Authority:

People v. Allen (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 312, 321

Jury trial, Standard of review

Case 000754

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erroneously overruled the defendant’s objection to the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge against a Black prospective juror because the main reason given by the prosecutor for exercising the challenge was presumptively invalid under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7. The record did not contain clear and convincing evidence rebutting the presumptive invalidity of the challenge.

First Holding:

Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 prohibits the use of a peremptory challenge on the basis of a prospective juror’s race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or perceived membership in any of those groups. The Legislature enacted section 231.7, effective in criminal trials beginning January 1, 2022, to establish a new process for identifying unlawful bias in the use of peremptory challenges during jury selection because studies showed that the existing Batson/Wheeler analysis was inadequate to prevent racial discrimination.

Authority:

CCP 231.7

People v. Jimenez (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 534, 539–540

Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79

People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258

Second Holding:

Upon objection to the exercise of a peremptory challenge pursuant to CCP 231.7, the party exercising the peremptory challenge shall state the reasons the peremptory challenge has been exercised. The trial court must then evaluate the reasons given to justify the peremptory challenge in light of the totality of the circumstances, considering only the reasons actually given.

If the court determines there is a substantial likelihood that an objectively reasonable person would view race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or perceived membership in any of those groups, as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge, then the objection shall be sustained. For purposes of section 231.7, an objectively reasonable person is aware that unconscious bias, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in the unfair exclusion of potential jurors in the State of California.

Authority:

CCP 231.7

Third Holding:

Section 231.7 also contains two separate provisions describing presumptively invalid reasons for the exercise of a peremptory challenge. Each subdivision sets out a distinct process by which a court determines whether a presumptively invalid reason can be absolved of that presumption.

The challenge of a prospective juror who expresses a distrust of or having a negative experience with law enforcement or the criminal legal system is presumed to be invalid unless the party exercising the peremptory challenge can show by clear and convincing evidence that an objectively reasonable person would view the rationale as unrelated to a prospective juror’s race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or perceived membership in any of those groups, and that the reasons articulated bear on the prospective juror’s ability to be fair and impartial in the case

Authority:

CCP 231.7(e) and (g)

People v. Alston (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 575, 581

Fourth Holding:

The denial of an objection made under CCP section 231.7 shall be reviewed by the appellate court de novo, with the trial court’s express factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence. The appellate court shall not impute to the trial court any findings, including findings of a prospective juror’s demeanor, that the trial court did not expressly state on the record.

The reviewing court shall consider only reasons actually given under subdivision (c) and shall not speculate as to or consider reasons that were not given to explain either the party’s use of the peremptory challenge or the party’s failure to challenge similarly situated jurors who are not members of the same cognizable group as the challenged juror, regardless of whether the moving party made a comparative analysis argument in the trial court. Should the appellate court determine that the objection was erroneously denied, the error shall be deemed prejudicial, the judgment shall be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(j)

Fifth Holding:

The defendant did not forfeit review of this issue, because his attorney’s general objection to the exercise of the peremptory challenge was sufficient to preserve the issue in this case.

Authority:

People v. Jaime (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 941, 946 [forfeiture rule applies to section 231.7 claims]

People v. Espiritu (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 1128 [The court was not confronted with a situation in which a defendant wholly failed to object “under the applicable statute. Rather, the defendant’s general objection was sufficient to preserve an argument alleging error based on a category of presumptively invalid reasons not brought to the trial court’s attention by defense counsel.]

Sixth Holding:

An objection to a peremptory challenge must be sustained whenever any reason identified for the challenge becomes conclusively invalid under section 231.7(g), regardless of whether the party exercising the peremptory challenge also identifies facially neutral reasons that do not fall within the scope of subdivision (g). Under the circumstances in this case, the defendant’s objection to the peremptory challenge was erroneously overruled, and prejudicially so. We reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.

Authority:

People v. Caparrotta (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 874, 896