Author Archives: Gary McCurdy

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000729

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the court was required to resentence the defendant under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 to determine whether he should be sentenced as a second strike defendant under the Act, subject to a finding that such resentencing would present an unreasonable risk of danger to the public in the context of the Act.

First Holding:

The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 limited indeterminate life sentences for nonserious, nonviolent third strike offenses. Pursuant to the Reform Act, codified at section 1170.126, a defendant can petition for a recall of sentence and request resentencing. In 2021, section 1172.75 was enacted by the Legislature, directing courts resentencing defendants to use currently applicable sentencing rules and to apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion” with a goal of eliminating disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1170.126

PEN 1172.75

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 849

Second Holding:

In Guevara, the Supreme Court held that because section 1172.75 incorporates the consideration of the danger to public safety inherent in section 1170.126, the two statutes operate harmoniously, and section 1172.75 is therefore constitutional and a valid, applicable statute under which a defendant may request resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 850

Third Holding:

Section 1172.75 requires that the resentencing court makes a new determination as to whether a defendant’s resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as of the present day. A prior finding that a particular defendant poses a risk to public safety under section 1170.126(f) is unquestionably relevant, and will no doubt be given consideration by a court subsequently resolving a resentencing under section 1172.75 involving an indeterminate Three Strikes sentence.

However, given significant passage of time, it is possible that a defendant who once presented a threat to public safety may no longer do so. For instance, not only may defendants present evidence that they have significantly rehabilitated since a prior section 1170.126 proceeding, but serious illness or advanced age may have substantially reduced the danger to public safety they once posed. Realistically assessing such changed circumstances is appropriately left to the trial court on remand.

On remand, the trial court should conduct an analysis of whether defendant, at the time of the hearing, continues to pose a danger to public safety.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 878, fn. 17

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000728

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the trial court should have vacated the restitution fine that was imposed more than 10 years earlier. We remand the case for the court to determine the defendant’s ability to pay the parole revocation restitution fine, which is not vacated by section 1465.9(d).

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 added subdivision (d) to section 1465.9, which provides that, upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to Section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated. It does not, however, apply to the parole revocation restitution fine.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Second Holding:

In Kopp, our Supreme Court clarified that, although fines may properly be imposed as punishment for crime, the excessive fines analysis under the state and federal Constitutions is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines, such as parole revocation fines. In addition, a trial court must conduct an ability to pay hearing before imposing a restitution fine (or corresponding parole revocation fine) that exceeds the statutory minimum of $300.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1 23, 17, 30

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000727

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Under section 654, the trial court should not have punished the defendant for both robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.

First Holding:

We review the trial court’s decision to sentence the defendant separately for the robbery conviction and the assault with a deadly weapon conviction, for substantial evidence that he harbored a separate intent and objective for each offense. Here, there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s implicit finding that the defendant’s intent in assaulting the victim was separate from his intent to rob him of the item.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Dowdell (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1414

Second 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. Section 654 bars the imposition of multiple sentences for a single act or omission, even though the act or omission may violate more than one provision of the Penal Code. The purpose of the protection against multiple punishment is to insure that the defendant’s punishment will be commensurate with his criminal liability.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Dowdell (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1414

Third Holding:

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 the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one. Whether an assault was committed with the intent to facilitate a robbery is a fact-bound determination.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, 507

People v. Sandoval (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1299

Fourth Holding:

Additionally, temporal proximity, or the lack of it, can be a relevant consideration in determining the divisibility of a course of conduct.

Authority:

People v. Nunez (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 625, 630 [Use of hammer to facilitate carjacking could not be punished as both the robbery and assault with a deadly weapon]

Fifth Holding:

A robbery occurs when defendant uses force or fear in resisting attempts to regain the property or in attempting to remove the property from the owner’s immediate presence regardless of the means by which defendant originally acquired the property.

Authority:

People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23, 27-28

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000726

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court ordered appellant participate and complete general education/counseling and mental health counseling at the discretion of and as directed by probation. We find that delegating unfettered discretion to the probation department to determine whether appellant shall participate and complete education and counseling is impermissible and violates the separation of powers doctrine.

As such, we strike this probation condition and remand the matter to the trial court to consider whether or not appellant shall participate in and complete education and counseling as a condition of his probation, consistent with this opinion.

First Holding:

The People argue that appellant forfeited his probation-condition challenge by failing to object to it at the sentencing hearing. The forfeiture doctrine is a well-established principle that, with certain exceptions, an appellate court will not consider claims of error that could have been—but were not—raised in the trial court.

Strong policy reasons support this rule: It is both unfair and inefficient to permit a claim of error on appeal that, if timely brought to the attention of the trial court, could have been easily corrected or avoided.

The law casts upon the party the duty of looking after his legal rights and of calling the judge’s attention to any infringement of them. If any other rule were to obtain, the party would in most cases be careful to be silent as to his objections until it would be too late to obviate them, and the result would be that few judgments would stand the test of an appeal.

Authority:

People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880–881

Second Holding:

One exception to the forfeiture doctrine includes a facial constitutional challenge—one that does not require scrutiny of individual facts and circumstances but instead requires the review of abstract and generalized legal concepts—a task that is well suited to the role of an appellate court.

Appellant presents a facial challenge: the issue is whether the trial court may, under the separation of powers doctrine, delegate to the probation officer the determination of whether appellant must participate and complete education/counseling and mental health counseling.

Such a claim is not predicated on the factual details about the specific education and counseling ordered, appellant’s specific rehabilitative needs, or on the details of the programming the probation officer could determine under this condition. The forfeiture doctrine does not apply in this circumstance.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 885, 887-888

Third Holding:

The California Constitution separates the state government’s power into legislative, executive, and judicial branches and prohibits persons charged with the exercise of one power to exercise either of the others except as permitted by the California Constitution. The separation of powers doctrine is violated when the actions of one branch defeat or materially impair the inherent functions of another. Under the separation of powers doctrine, judicial powers may not be delegated to nonjudicial officers.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. III, sec. 3

In re D.N. (2022) 14 Cal.5th 202, 212

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902

Fourth Holding:

A trial court has broad discretion to impose probation conditions to promote rehabilitation of the defendant and to protect the public. The court also has authority to empower the probation department with authority to supervise the probation conditions.

The court may leave to the discretion of the probation officer the specification of the many details that invariably are necessary to implement the terms of probation. However, the court’s order cannot be entirely open-ended. While the probation officer may properly specify the details necessary to effectuate the court’s probation conditions, it is the court’s duty to determine the nature of the requirements imposed on the probationer.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1(j)

PEN 1202.7

People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120

People v. Kwizera (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1240

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358–1359

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902

Fifth Holding:

We review a constitutional challenge to a probation condition de novo.

Authority:

In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143

People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717, 723

Sixth Holding:

Imposing a probation condition that subjects the defendant to the approval or direction of the probation officer is a permissible delegation. But delegating to a probation officer the decision of whether a defendant will participate in a specific form of treatment is an improper delegation of judicial authority.

Authority:

People v. Penoli (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 298, 307–309

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 901, 903 [probation condition violates separation of powers doctrine by delegating to probation officer whether the defendant would be required to attend residential treatment/therapy/counseling program]

Seventh Holding:

Here, the court’s order for appellant to submit to education and counseling was much broader than simply leaving the details of that programming to the probation department, it gave the probation department the unlimited discretion to decide whether appellant is required to participate and complete general education and counseling at all.

Specifically, the court ordered appellant to participate and complete education/counseling and mental health counseling at the discretion of and as directed by the probation department.

This is an invalid delegation of judicial authority: although the court may delegate to probation the determinations of when and where a condition will be satisfied, the court may not delegate the decision of whether counseling or education shall be completed.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 901, 903

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000725

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment fails to reflect the total credit for time served as of the date of resentencing. It must be corrected accordingly.

First Holding:

(Gary’s note for context: The abstract of judgment following resentencing under section 1172.75 listed only the credit for time served ordered originally in 1989. The order in this Case 000725 directs that the abstract of judgment be corrected, but in fact, it was the trial court that declined to recalculate the credit for time served, leaving it up to the Department of Corrections. The case authority cited by the court–Buckhalter–does state that the court has a duty to recalculate the credit for time served when a person is resentenced.)

The amended abstract of judgment fails to reflect the appropriate calculation of custody credits for time already served by the defendant. The judgment is affirmed subject to the clerk correcting the abstract of judgment upon remand to award the defendant [more than 13,000] days of custody credit.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

(Gary’s second note: It is not a win for the defendant, but there was another abstract of judgment error, this time understating the sentence that was imposed.

(The court ordered that, in addition to reflecting the revised credit for time served calculation, the abstract must reflect that the sentence was enhancement by two years for a firearm use enhancement that was omitted from the calculation of the sentence. The error omitting the enhancement was merely a repeat of the erroneous abstract more than 30 years earlier, which also failed to reflect the enhancement despite the court’s oral imposition of it.

(Though not a win for the defendant, I’m including this information because it once again demonstrates the importance of checking abstracts of judgment. While this one favored the defendant until the Court of Appeal spotted the error, many, many errors in abstracts reflect harsher treatment of the defendant than actually imposed by the court. Also, the court cited no authority for correction of the abstract, but I have listed several cases here that the court could have cited.)

Authority:

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324

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

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–388

People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000724

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The victim restitution award for expenses paid by the Victim Compensation Board violates the defendant’s right to due process and is reversed because the prosecution did not present bills to establish the amount paid as required pursuant to section 1202.4(f)(4)(B). The matter is remanded for the court to hold a new restitution hearing. Additionally, The abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the defendant was sentenced to 40 years to life (rather than 50 years to life).

First Holding:

The only evidence presented at the restitution hearing was the set of California Victim Compensation Board forms submitted by the prosecution, over the objection of counsel. No certified copies of the bills were introduced, nor was a declaration under penalty of perjury by the custodian of records. Restitution for expenses paid by the California Victim Compensation Board requires proof established by copies of bills submitted to the Board, reflecting the amount paid, pursuant to section 1202.4(f)(4)(B).

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)(4)(B)

Second Holding:

In California, crime victims have the right to receive restitution for losses attributable to the defendant’s actions. Indeed, in every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court.

Section 1202.4 does not, by its terms, require any particular kind of proof. However, the trial court is entitled to consider the probation report, and, as prima facie evidence of loss, may accept a property owner’s statement made in the probation report about the value of stolen or damaged property. This is so because a hearing to establish the amount of restitution does not require the formalities of other phases of a criminal prosecution.

When the probation report includes information on the amount of the victim’s loss and a recommendation as to the amount of restitution, the defendant must come forward with contrary information to challenge that amount.

Authority:

Cal. Const. art. I, sec 28(b)(13)(B)

PEN 1202.4(a)(1)

People v. Lockwood (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 91, 96

People v. Holmberg (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1320

Third Holding:

However, section 1202.4(f)(4) includes special provisions that are applicable when, as here, state funds are used to provide assistance to or on behalf of a victim.

The amount of assistance provided by the Restitution Fund shall be established by copies of bills submitted to the California Victim Compensation Board reflecting the amount paid by the board and whether the services for which payment was made were for medical or dental expenses, funeral or burial expenses, mental health counseling, wage or support losses, or rehabilitation.

Certified copies of these bills provided by the board and redacted to protect the privacy and safety of the victim or any legal privilege, together with a statement made under penalty of perjury by the custodian of records that those bills were submitted to and were paid by the board, shall be sufficient to meet this requirement.

The section 1202.4(f)(4)(B) restitution order lacks the necessary evidentiary support and must be vacated and the case remanded for a new restitution hearing.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)(4)

People v. Lockwood (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 91, 96

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment states defendant was sentenced to a term of 50 years to life on count 1. It also reflects defendant was sentenced to 25 years on the section 12022.53(d) enhancement. However, defendant was sentenced to 15 years to life on count 1 and 25 years to life for the section 12022.53(d) firearm enhancement.

When an abstract of judgment does not reflect the actual sentence imposed in the trial judge’s verbal pronouncement, this court has the inherent power to correct such clerical error on appeal, whether on our own motion or upon application of the parties. On remand, the trial court is instructed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment.

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Gary Musings, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000723

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court was required to revisit whether the gang enhancement attached to the felony assault charge was still valid in light of changes to the gang criminal activity statutes under AB 333. When asked to strike the enhancement, the trial court stated that it did not have discretion to relitigate the facts underlying the gang enhancement. This was error.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 rendered legally invalid any prior prison term enhancement imposed before January 1, 2020 (unless the enhancement was imposed for a prior sexually violent conviction), and it created a resentencing procedure for defendants who are currently serving sentences that include such an enhancement. Section 1172.75(c) requires a court to strike any now-invalid prior prison term enhancement and recall the defendant’s sentence.

Section 1172.75(d) provides instructions for resentencing. Among other things, the provision requires the court to resentence the defendant under current law, including any changes in law that reduce sentences.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily and capriciously, relies on improper matters, or is unaware of the scope of its discretion such that it does not exercise its discretion at all. We independently review questions of statutory interpretation implicated by the trial court’s decisions.

Authority:

People v. Knowles (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 757, 765

People v. Mathis (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 359, 366

Third Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 333 made several changes to the law governing the gang enhancement.

First, AB 333 narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons.

Second, it changed the requirement that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity to now require that any such pattern be collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, it narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal gang activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date of the currently charged offense; (2) the pattern offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the pattern offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) none of the pattern offenses is the same as the currently charged offense.

Finally, AB 333 narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational. Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational, under the amended provision, include, but are not limited to, financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting a perceived or actual gang rival, or intimidation or silencing of a potential current or previous witness or informant.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

Fourth Holding:

AB 333’s amendments to section 186.22 apply retroactively to the defendant’s case because they are ameliorative changes and the defendant’s case became nonfinal when the court vacated and recalled his sentence under section 1172.75.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 163

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 396–400

Fifth Holding:

In Stamps, the Supreme Court held that a trial court may not modify a plea agreement because a plea agreement is, in essence, a contract between the defendant and the prosecutor to which the court consents to be bound. But, as the Supreme Court explained in Doe v. Harris, the terms of the plea agreement can be affected by changes in the law. By implementing such changes, the trial court is not altering the terms of the plea bargain.

Thus, under Doe, the defendant’s 2016 plea agreement is deemed to incorporate the Legislature’s subsequent enactment of AB 333. Consequently, requiring the parties compliance with changes to section 186.22 made retroactive to the defendant does not violate the terms of the plea agreement. We therefore conclude that the gang-related enhancement findings must be vacated and the matter remanded to give the People the opportunity to prove the applicability of the enhancements under the amendments to section 186.22.

Authority:

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 701

Doe v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 64, 73-74

People v. Harrell (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 161, 168

People v. Lopez (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 327, 346

Extensive Gary Note, NOT In The Opinion:

Gary note: I think I first noted this in my summary for Case 000532. But effective 1/1/2025, section 1171 provides that a resentencing under any ameliorative provisions cannot result in an order to set aside a plea bargain in which the sentence was specified. In other words, section 1171 appears to have overturned the Stamps decision with respect to allowing the lower court or the prosecution to set aside a plea bargain if the ameliorative provisions apply to change the sentence in a way that the prosecutor or court do not like.

This question was granted review in a case that originally issued a published opinion in 2024 (100 Cal.App.5th 768), where it defined the issue as “Is the prosecution entitled to rescind a plea agreement when a defendant receives a full resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728) and the trial court intends to reduce the sentence beyond eliminating the prior prison term enhancements?”

On 12/18/2024, the Supreme Court transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal on the People’s motion for the Court of Appeal to vacate its earlier decision [which, in fact, concluded that the prosecutor could NOT rescind the agreement] and reconsider its opinion in light of the passage of AB 2483, which enacted section 1171. It also ordered the Court of Appeal’s original opinion to be depublished.

On remand, the Court of Appeal set aside its earlier opinion and issued a new opinion in which it said, “At the hearing, Montgomery may seek relief under any provision of section 1172.75, and neither the prosecutor nor the court may rescind the plea agreement due to a resulting sentence reduction.”

The original Court of Appeal opinion was published, and it provides an analysis of why a review of the legislative history of AB 483 (which enacted section 1172.75)–including uncodified portions of AB 483– compelled it to conclude that Stamps did not apply. But the subsequent opinion following the Supreme Court’s transfer relied solely on section 1171, and the opinion was not published.  As I stated, the “published” opinion also was wiped off the books when the Supreme Court ordered it depublished.

In the recent decision People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, the Supreme Court indicated its awareness of section 1171–as it obviously did when it transferred the Montgomery case–but declined to apply it where the case was a direct appeal from the judgment itself, in which the appellant challenged the stipulated sentence–in which he agreed to and received an upper term before section 1170 was amended to require jury findings for upper terms.

See Mitchell’s footnote 9. Keep in mind that section 1171 was created to guide courts in the handling of newly enacted ameliorative legislation. The Supreme Court in Mitchell seems to have left open the question where the appeal is from the original judgment itself, rather than an appeal from an attempt at securing relief from ameliorative statutes. Its footnote 9 ends, “We decline to consider this argument because we have concluded that Mitchell is entitled to a remand under our established precedent in Stamps. We express no view on the applicability of section 1171 to this case or how it might affect the options described above. Mitchell may raise this issue in the Court of Appeal or the trial court in the first instance.”

And for the rest of the story, the Court of Appeal has since, in an unpublished sentence, remanded the matter to the trial court to permit the defendant to seek relief under the ameliorative provisions.  At that time, the defendant may present the argument that section 1171 bars the prosecution or the court from seeking that the plea agreement be set aside if either the prosecutor or the court is not satisfied with any resulting modification of the sentence.

Authority:

Gary has no authority, just musings.

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000722

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A jury found the defendant guilty of selling cocaine base and possessing cocaine base for sale. Under section 654, it was error to sentence the defendant on each, to run concurrently. The sentence on one of the counts must be stayed.

First Holding:

Section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for the same act or indivisible course of conduct. Before 2022, when a single act or omission was punishable under multiple provisions, the court was required to impose sentence under the provision carrying the longest potential term. Effective January 1, 2022, Assembly Bill No. 518 amended section 654 to afford trial courts discretion to impose punishment under either applicable provision.

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

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

Second Holding:

Multiple punishments violate section 654 because the defendant’s possession of cocaine base for sale and the sale of cocaine base arose from an indivisible course of conduct with a single objective. Under the amended statute, the trial court has discretion to impose the sentence on either count 1 or count 2, including the option of selecting the shorter term.

Authority:

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379

Fourth Amendment

Case 000721

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A police officer’s observation of a driver’s red, glossy eyes and strong odor of cologne, without more, did not provide a reasonable suspicion to conduct a DUI investigation after instigating a traffic stop. We affirm the trial court’s granting of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

(Gary note: This is a long summary. In short, the defendant showed no signs of driving under the influence, and the only reason the officer conducted a search was he perceived the defendant’s eyes as red and glossy and he smelled cologne. I have chosen to set forth the main principles relied on by the Court of Appeal in affirming the trial court’s grant of the suppression motion, which had been overturned by the appellate division of the superior court before the Court of Appeal transferred the matter to itself on the defendant’s petition.)

First Holding:

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. As such, a defendant may move to suppress evidence on the grounds that the search or seizure without a warrant was unreasonable. The burden to show proper justification for a warrantless search and seizure] rests on the prosecution.

Authority:

U.S. Const. 4th Amend.

PEN 1538.5(a)(1)(A)

People v. Gale (1973) 9 Cal.3d 788, 795

Second Holding:

A seizure occurs for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when an officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, restricts a person’s liberty. A detention is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, provide some objective manifestation that the person detained may be involved in criminal activity.

Authority:

Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 19, fn. 16

People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 231

Third Holding:

A reasonable suspicion to detain requires a lesser showing than probable cause to arrest. Not only can reasonable suspicion be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause, but also reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause.

Authority:

People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 230-231,

Alabama v. White (1990) 496 U.S. 325, 330

Fourth Holding:

Ordinary traffic stops are treated as investigatory detentions for which the officer must be able to articulate specific facts justifying the suspicion that a crime is being committed. Thus, a seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation.

The tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s mission—to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop and attend to related safety concerns. Because addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may last no longer than is necessary to effectuate that purpose. Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.

Authority:

People v. Suff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1013, 1053–1054

Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 354

Fifth Holding:

An officer’s mission during a traffic stop includes addressing the traffic violation; checking the driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance; and determining whether the driver has outstanding warrants—all of which serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly.

Authority:

Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 355

Sixth Holding:

Under certain circumstances, an officer conducting a traffic stop may also investigate a suspected crime unrelated to the infraction that initially prompted the stop. However, the officer may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual. An articulable and reasonable suspicion that a person is driving while impaired is required to extend a routine traffic stop to involve a more intrusive DUI investigation requiring the driver to exit his or her vehicle to perform field sobriety tests [FSTs].

Authority:

Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 355

People v. Ayon (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 926, 940-941 [the Fourth Amendment requires officers to diligently pursue a means of investigation reasonably designed to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly]

People v. Evans (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 735, 742 [an officer’s subjective beliefs are generally irrelevant to the lawfulness of a search and seizure]

Seventh Holding:

Here, the trial court found that the officer’s prolonging the traffic stop in order to investigate defendant for a DUI by having him exit the vehicle to undergo field sobriety tests was not independently supported by individualized, reasonable suspicion. We agree with this conclusion.

In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we defer to that court’s factual findings, express or implied, if they are supported by substantial evidence. On appeal, we draw all inferences from the record in favor of the trial court’s ruling and defer to the trial court’s factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence.

We exercise our independent judgment in determining whether, on the facts presented, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. In doing so we do not consider each fact in isolation. Instead, we must consider the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture.

Authority:

People v. Silveria and Travis (2020) 10 Cal.5th 195, 232

People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1043

People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362

People v. Linn (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 46, 56 [when a misdemeanor appeal is certified for transfer to the appellate court, the Court of Appeal’s review is as if the parties directly appealed from the trial court ruling on defendant’s suppression motion]

Eighth Holding:

The officer testified that he suspected defendant may have been intoxicated and, therefore, decided to conduct a DUI investigation based on two factors: defendant had red, glossy eyes and smelled strongly of cologne. These factors are not enough to provide reasonable suspicion of a DUI crime.

Authority:

People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1045 [mere presence in a known narcotics area is not enough to warrant suspicion]

People v. Ayon (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 926, 940 [finding no substantial evidence to support the officer’s claim that the defendant appeared intoxicated when the defendant did not display any conduct demonstrating insobriety, such as slurred or irregular speech, an inability to walk or stand normally, confusion, or any other mental incapacity, and he was not acting any more nervously than a typical person in a traffic stop]

Ninth Holding:

A mere deviation from perceived social convention does not automatically signal criminal behavior. The particular conduct relied upon must, when considered in the totality of circumstances, support a reasonable suspicion that the person to be detained is, or is about to be, engaged in activity ‘relating to crime.

Authority:

People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1045

In re L.G. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 818, 822 [Nervousness, an unrelated arrest, and a gang companion did not create reasonable suspicion L.G. was at that moment committing a crime]

Tenth Holding:

While officers may draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences, they cannot rely on mere hunches.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2008) 45 Cal.4th 295, 299

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Racial Justice Act, Standard of review

Case 000720

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant’s petition for writ of mandate is granted. Filed as a habeas corpus petition, the People aver that the instant petition should be treated as a petition for writ of mandate from the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s discovery motion and concede that the defendant established a plausible factual foundation for discovery.

The People assert, and the defendant agrees, the matter should be remanded for development of the record on the relevant factors governing Racial Justice Act [RJA] discovery and for the trial court to consider those factors in the first instance.

We conclude the trial court misapplied the applicable legal standards and erred by denying the defendant’s motion. We therefore grant the petition, direct the trial court to vacate its denial of the defendant’s discovery motion, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

First Holding:

We have the discretion to treat a petition for writ of habeas corpus as a petition for writ of mandate. Writ review is appropriate where a petition raises novel legal issues of widespread interest. The RJA remains fairly new legislation and has been amended several times since its inception. Though laudable in its purposes, the Act has proven challenging to the courts in its implementation. Given there are few appellate decisions interpreting the Act thus far, several appellate courts have found writ review appropriate in addressing issues raised under the RJA.

Authority:

People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 340

Escamilla v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 498, 509

Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1612

Brandt v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 813, 816

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 147, 156 [the RJA’s command is simple, but the implementation is somewhat complex; writ review appropriate to address questions of first impression including how to interpret the RJA’s discovery provision]]

Jackson v. Superior Court (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 372, 382

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 46 [writ of mandate issued and matter remanded for the trial court to determine if the defendant was entitled to the appointment of counsel]

Mosby v. Superior Court (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 106, 133 [writ of mandate issued, and the trial court’s order denying the petitioner a hearing vacated after the appellate court determined the petitioner met his burden and could proceed to an evidentiary hearing]

Second Holding:

Here, the parties agree without objection that the defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus should be treated as a petition for writ of mandate. We therefore exercise our discretion to construe the petition as a petition for writ of mandate of the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s RJA discovery motion and address the court’s order on the merits.

Authority:

People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 335

People v. Payne (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 933, 937 [appeal from nonappealable order treated as application for writ of mandate and addressed on the merits]

Third Holding:

Two courts of appeal have concluded, albeit with different reasoning, that a trial court’s order denying a request for discovery under the RJA is not appealable. Both courts recognized, however, that such an order may be challenged by a petition for writ of mandate.

Authority:

In re Montgomery (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1071–1072, 1076 review dism. Dec. 30, 2025, S287339

People v. Serrano (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 276, 292, 293, review dism. Dec. 30, 2025, S288202

In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682, 692 [denial of a sec. 1054.9 discovery motion may be challenged by a petition for writ of mandate]

Fourth Holding:

A discovery order is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion because management of discovery lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. We review the factual underpinnings of a discretionary determination for substantial evidence, but where such a determination rests on incorrect legal premises, our review is de novo.

The scope of discretion always resides in the particular law being applied. If the court’s decision is influenced by an erroneous understanding of applicable law or reflects an unawareness of the full scope of its discretion, the court has not properly exercised its discretion under the law. Therefore, a discretionary order based on an application of improper criteria or incorrect legal assumptions is not an exercise of informed discretion and is subject to reversal.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 156

City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1297

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 36, 55

Sargon Enterprises Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 773

Fifth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2021, the Legislature enacted the RJA (Assembly Bill No. 2542 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) to eliminate racial bias from California’s criminal justice system; to ensure that race plays no role at all in seeking or obtaining convictions or in sentencing; and to ensure that individuals have access to all relevant evidence, including statistical evidence, regarding potential discrimination in seeking or obtaining convictions or imposing sentences. To achieve these objectives, the RJA added section 745 to the Penal Code and amended sections 1473 and 1473.7.

Authority:

AB 2542

PEN 745

PEN 1473

PEN 1473.7

Sixth Holding:

Section 745(a) proclaims that the state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. It specifies four categories which, if proven by a preponderance of the evidence, constitute a violation of the RJA.

As relevant here, a violation occurs under section 745 (a)(3) where the defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the evidence establishes that the prosecution more frequently sought or obtained convictions for more serious offenses against people who share the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin in the county where the convictions were sought or obtained.

Also relevant here, a violation occurs under section 745(a)(4)(A) where a longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for that offense on people that share the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin than on defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins in the county where the sentence was imposed.

Authority:

PEN 745

Seventh Holding:

A defendant in custody may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging a violation of the RJA. Specifically, section 745(b) provides that a defendant may file a motion pursuant to this section, or a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion under Section 1473.7, in a court of competent jurisdiction, alleging a violation of subdivision (a). The RJA also amended section 1473, which identifies bases for prosecuting a petition for writ of habeas corpus, to add a subdivision governing the litigation of RJA claims.

Authority:

People v. Wilson (2024) 16 Cal.5th 874, 945

Eighth Holding:

If a habeas petition makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief under the RJA, the trial court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing. If, after a hearing, the court finds a violation of section 745(a) by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall impose a remedy specific to the violation pursuant to section 745(e).

Authority:

PEN 1473(e)

Ninth Holding:

If a court finds after judgment has been entered that a conviction was sought or obtained in violation of section 745(a), the court shall vacate the conviction and sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and order new proceedings consistent with section 745(a). If the court finds that the only violation of section 745(a) that occurred is based on paragraph (3) of section 745(a), the court may modify the judgment to a lesser included or lesser related offense.

If a court finds after judgment has been entered that only the sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed in violation of section 745(a), the court shall vacate the sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and impose a new sentence. On resentencing, the court shall not impose a new sentence greater than that previously imposed.

Authority:

PEN 745(e)

Tenth Holding:

The RJA contains a discovery provision in section 745(d). If a defendant believes a violation of the RJA has occurred, he or she may file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of subdivision (a) in the possession or control of the state. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall order the records to be released.

Authority:

PEN 745(d)

Eleventh Holding:

In Young, the Court of Appeal addressed what constitutes good cause for purposes of discovery under section 745(d). The court conducted a comprehensive analysis of the RJA’s enactment, as well as general provisions governing discovery in criminal cases.

Drawing on the Pitchess standard for discovery of law enforcement personnel records, the Young court held that in order to establish good cause for discovery under the RJA, a defendant is required only to advance a plausible factual foundation, based on specific facts, that a violation of the RJA could or might have occurred in his case.

This standard for discovery under section 745(d) is even more relaxed than the Pitchess standard in two respects. First, while a Pitchess motion must be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth a reasonable belief that the requested discovery is material to the subject matter of the case, there is no comparable affidavit requirement for discovery under the RJA. Second, unlike in a Pitchess motion, an RJA discovery motion has no materiality requirement, at least not in the sense that the defendant must show a logical link between some defense and a pending charge.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 149-160

Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531

Twelfth Holding:

The RJA’s counterpart to Pitchess materiality is relevance to a potential violation of section 745(a). Since a section 745(a) violation may be proved up in several different ways based on a variety of direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination under subdivision (a)(1)–(4), the threshold showing for good cause must be commensurately broad and flexible.

The limiting factor is relevance in the discovery sense—that is, each request for disclosure must be reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence probative of a section 745(a) violation. This subject matter limitation on the scope of discoverable material creates an outer boundary that, if crossed, may justify an order narrowing or otherwise limiting the obligation to respond. And as always in the context of discovery, the trial court has ample discretion to manage where the discovery-relevance boundary lies.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 160

Thirteenth Holding:

The Young court found support for its articulated good cause standard for discovery in the escalating burdens of proof within section 745. The burden at the discovery stage is a good cause showing, the burden at the prima facie stage is higher, and the burden at the evidentiary hearing is higher still—proof of an RJA violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

As the least onerous of the statute’s burdens of proof, the plausible justification standard should not be difficult to meet. Accordingly, where the defendant makes a showing of plausible justification that there was or could have been a violation of the RJA, thus triggering access to all relevant evidence concerning a potential violation of section 745(a), it will likely be an abuse of discretion to totally foreclose discovery.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 160-161, 168-169

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 36, 61

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000719

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Although the trial court did not orally impose any fines or fees at sentencing, the minute order and abstract of judgment include a $300 restitution fine, a $300 parole revocation fine, a $40 court operations assessment, and a $30 criminal conviction assessment. The abstract of judgment and the minute order must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment.

First Holding:

The oral imposition of sentence constitutes the judgment in an action, and the minutes and abstract of judgment cannot add anything substantive to the oral pronouncement. The oral pronouncement controls if there is a discrepancy, and the court clerk lacks the authority to add fines or fees not imposed by the trial court. If the clerk includes fines or fees in the minute order or abstract of judgment that were not orally imposed, those fines and/or fees must be stricken from the minute order and abstract.

Authority:

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

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385, 387-389, 385-390

People v. Rowland (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 119, 124

Second Holding:

A restitution fine under section 1202.4 need not be imposed if the trial court finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and states those reasons on the record. Thus, a restitution fine under section 1202.4 is a discretionary sentencing choice. A corresponding parole revocation fine is mandatory only if a restitution fine is imposed. Although the People argue the judgment should be modified to include the omitted fines, they did not object to the omission at sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(b)

People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 302, 303

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

Third Holding:

The court operations assessment and criminal conviction assessment are both mandatory, and we may address such an omission because the failure to impose them results in an unlawful sentence. The judgment is modified to impose a $40 court operations assessment and a $30 criminal conviction assessment. The trial court is directed to correct the sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment to omit the $300 restitution fine and the $300 parole revocation fine, and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Authority:

PEN 1465.8

GOV 70373

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

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000718

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Where the defendant has been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), the court cannot impose a parole revocation restitution fine.

Holding:

In every case where a person is convicted of a crime and his or her sentence includes a period of parole, the court shall, at the time of imposing the restitution fine pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1202.4, assess an additional parole revocation restitution fine in the same amount. Where a defendant has been sentenced to LWOP or death, the section does not apply. We order the trial court to modify the judgment by striking the parole revocation fine.

Authority:

PEN 1202.45

People v. Oganesyan (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1183 [When there is no parole eligibility, the fine is clearly not applicable.]

People v. Carr (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 475, 482, fn. 6