Author Archives: Gary McCurdy

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000669

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erroneously stated that all of the aggravating factors had been found true by the jury. The only aggravating factor alleged, and found true by the jury was that the victims were particularly vulnerable. The sentence is reversed and the court is directed to consider the sentence in light of the only aggravating factor found true by the jury. Further, the court must consider the defendant’s ability to pay the restitution fines and ancillary fees.

First Holding:

In theory, the aggregate prejudice from several different errors occurring at trial could require reversal even if no single error was prejudicial by itself.

Authority:

In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 483

Second Holding:

Section 1170(b)(2) states that when imposing a sentence under a statute that allows for a low, middle, and high term, the court shall impose the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

A Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established.

The violation is prejudicial unless an appellate court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court to justify an upper term sentence, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statutory requirements. If the reviewing court cannot so determine, applying the Chapman standard of review, the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024)16 Cal.5th 730, 768

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

Third Holding:

To the extent a potential aggravating circumstance at issue in a particular case rests on a somewhat vague or subjective standard, it may be difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court.

The determination of whether the crime involved sophistication and planning rests on a vague and subjective standard. Accordingly, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found true the two remaining aggravating factors upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified.

We therefore reverse the sentence and remand for the trial court to hold a new sentencing hearing during which it shall only consider aggravating factors that were found true by the jury as part of its analysis of whether to impose an upper term sentence.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024)16 Cal.5th 730, 775

Fourth Holding:

Where a trial court imposes fines exceeding the statutory minimum of $300 under section 1202.4(b), and section 1202.45, it must consider the defendant’s ability to pay. Before imposing ancillary costs pursuant to section 1465.8(a)(1) and Government Code section 70373, equal protection principles require the trial court to, on defendant’s request, consider a defendant’s inability to pay such costs.

Authority:

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000668

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It is unclear whether the court intended to impose as the base term the low term of 16 months or the middle term of two years, we remand for the court to clarify its intended sentence, as well as to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

At the sentencing hearing, the court stated it was imposing the low term, two years in prison. It doubled that term as it was a two-strikes sentence, and added three years for an injury enhancement, and stated the total sentence was seven years. The low term for the crime, however, carries a triad of 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years. Thus, the low term is 16 months, and two years is the middle term.

The matter must be remanded for the court to clarify whether it intended to impose the low term (in which case the sentence must be recalculated) or the middle term (in which case the sentence will remain the same as orally pronounced as two years doubled plus three years for the enhancement for a total of seven years).

We stress that, if the court indeed intended to impose the seven-year total sentence based on the middle term of two years, doing so was not an abuse of the court’s discretion considering the relevant sentencing factors considered by the court on the record. A sentence based on the low term of 16 months would also not be an abuse of the court’s sentencing discretion.

Authority:

People v. Sarmiento-Zuniga (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1216, 1226 [trial court does not abuse its discretion by imposing the presumptive middle term rather than the low term where the court sets forth on the record the facts and reasons for choosing the sentence imposed at time of sentencing, and that decision does not fall outside the bounds of reason under applicable law and relevant facts]

Second Holding:

Though the conviction was by plea, no certificate of cause is required for the defendant to raise his challenges to the sentence in this case. Section 1237.5 provides a defendant may not appeal from a guilty or no contest plea without a certificate of probable cause for an appeal based on reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. Even without a certificate of probable cause, a defendant may nonetheless appeal issues related to post-plea matters, such as the sentence, that do not challenge the plea’s validity.

Authority:

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 694

Third Holding:

However, even when a defendant purports to challenge only the sentence imposed, a certificate is required if the challenge goes to an aspect of the sentence to which the defendant agreed as an integral part of a plea agreement, as such a claim is, in substance, a challenge to the validity of the plea. Thus, where a defendant enters a negotiated plea in which the parties agree the court will impose a specific, agreed-upon sentence, any challenge to that sentence is a challenge to the validity of the plea and requires a certificate of probable cause.

(Gary note: This is a direct appeal from the original sentencing. It should not be confused with an appeal from a resentencing under one of the recent ameliorative provisions, such as 1172.75. Where it is an appeal from such a resentencing, it is important to review section 1171, effective 1/1/2025, which states in subdivision (c)(3) that “Any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement.” I have not seen any instances in which there was discussion of the need for a certificate of probable cause in appeals from decisions in the ameliorative provisions context, but section 1171(c)(3) seems to me to specifically address (and countermand) those aspects of the Stamps decision regarding setting aside the plea.

(I would argue that Stamps also would not be authority to require a certificate of probable cause to appeal a ruling on the application of ameliorative provisions where there was a stipulated sentence, given the legislation that, in essence, not only doesn’t challenge the plea agreement, it specifically states that application of the ameliorative provisions will not result in the setting aside of the plea itself. As I said, I have not noticed the question of certificates of probable cause in appeals from hearings involving ameliorative sections such as–but not limited to–1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75. See my comment in case 000532 for a more extensive discussion on section 1171, including the observation that the Supreme Court transferred a case with a Stamps issue back to the Court of Appeal with instructions to consider the impact of the then-recently added section 1171.)

Authority:

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 694

People v. Hurlic (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 50, 55

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 79

Fourth Holding:

By contrast, a certificate of probable cause is not required to challenge the exercise of individualized sentencing discretion within an agreed maximum sentence, absent contrary provisions in the plea agreement, as long as the defendant is not challenging the trial court’s authority to impose a sentence within a negotiated lid or maximum.

Authority:

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 790

People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 763

Fifth Holding:

No certificate of probable cause is needed to challenge a court’s failure to strike a prior strike where striking a strike would still result in a sentence that falls within the range contemplated by the plea.

Authority:

People v. Cole (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 850, 872

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 790-791, 777, 786-787

Sixth Holding:

The abstract must also be corrected to remove the notation “YTL” (for “years to life”), as no indeterminate life term was imposed in this case.

(Gary note: The court listed no authority for that correction, but there is plenty it could have relied on, some of which I list 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

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000667

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, it was error to reimpose the restitution fine (as it was more than 10 years old) and to impose various fees that were not enacted until after the defendant was originally sentenced.

First Holding:

A restitution fine cannot be re-imposed more than 10 years after initially imposed.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d) [setting a 10-year limit as to the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4]

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

Second Holding:

The assessment and fee did not become law until after defendant’s 1996 sentencing, and thus cannot be imposed.

Authority:

People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4th 749, 754 [applying section 1465.8 only to convictions imposed after its operative date of August 17, 2003]

People v. Davis (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 998, 1000-1001 [applying Government Code section 70373 only to convictions after its effective date of January 1, 2009]

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000666

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Imposition of the upper term based on judge-found facts, without the defendant’s express waiver of his jury trial right, violated the Sixth Amendment and California law, and the error was not harmless. Accordingly, we reverse.

First Holding:

The court found true the rule 4.421(b)(2) aggravating factor regarding numerous or increasingly serious prior convictions or adjudications, explaining only that the defendant has not only the prior strike, he has a substantial amount of convictions on his RAP sheet.

The trial court may impose an upper term sentence only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

The record does not reflect that the defendant ever waived his right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(2)

Second Holding:

The right to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction, relied upon to justify an upper term sentence is not merely a state law entitlement, but is constitutionally required by the Sixth Amendment. Any waiver of this right must be express. Absent waiver or stipulation, a jury must determine whether the particular details of a defendant’s criminal history demonstrate convictions of increasing seriousness, before a trial court can rely on that fact to justify an upper term sentence.

Authority:

Rules of Court rule 4.421(b)(2)

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078, 1082-1084

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47–48

Third Holding:

When such an error occurs, we determine whether it was prejudicial under the Chapman standard of review, under which we must reverse and remand unless we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found the aggravating factor true.

Authority:

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000665

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On remand for resentencing in the earlier appeal, the court erred in refusing to conduct a full resentencing. It was also error for the court to impose the upper term on the gun use enhancement where the aggravating circumstances were not stipulated to or found true by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. And the abstract of judgment must be amended to show that he was convicted of false imprisonment, not of kidnapping.

First Holding:

We consider a trial court’s sentencing decisions under an abuse of discretion standard. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

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

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 887

Second Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances. That the appellate court gave specific directions on remand does not preclude a full resentencing hearing as required by Buycks. Because the judgment is no longer final, new statutes imposing new lighter penalties are deemed to be sufficient to apply upon resentencing.

Authority:

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

People v. Walker (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 198, 204

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 160, 163 [once a court has determined that a defendant is entitled to resentencing, the result is vacatur of the original sentence whereupon the trial court may impose any appropriate sentence]

Third Holding:

Where, as here, a statute specifies three possible terms, the presumptive sentence is the middle term unless there are aggravating circumstances justifying imposition of the high term. The aggravating circumstance must be stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or, if jury is waived, by the court in a court trial.

The trial court acknowledged that a bifurcated trial would be necessary to find the aggravating circumstances true. Nevertheless it relied on our “very specific instructions” in declining to hold such a trial.

Where, as here, the record reflects no jury finding, no waiver thereof, and no admission by the defendant of the aggravating circumstances, the trial court’s reliance on unproven aggravating factors to impose an upper term sentence violates the Sixth Amendment.

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 767–769

Fourth Holding:

The error is harmless only if a reviewing court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all the aggravating facts relied upon by the sentencing court to justify the upper term. On this record we agree with the parties that we cannot draw such a conclusion.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 761, 775

Fifth Holding:

We direct the trial court to issue a corrected abstract of judgment. The defendant was convicted of the offense of false imprisonment, a violation of Penal Code section 237, not kidnapping, a violation of Penal Code section 207.

(GARY Note: The court listed no authority for correction of erroneous abstracts, likely because the error and remedy are so obvious. But I have listed several cases that the court could have relied on.)

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, Appellate Principles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000664

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We order the trial court to correct its minute order to accurately reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of the travel ban probation condition.

First Holding:

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a condition of probation that defendant was not to leave the state of California without the consent of the probation officer. However, the corresponding minute order lists the condition as “Do not leave California.” As such, the minute order does not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement of the court.

A court has inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records so as to make these records reflect the true facts. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Errors in the court’s minute orders are clerical errors that may be corrected at any time.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–186

Elements of crime, Fifth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000663

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Substantial evidence does not support the defendant’s conviction for exhibiting harmful matter to a minor.

First Holding:

The law governing sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges is well established. In reviewing a claim for sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses sufficient evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—supporting the decision, and not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We neither reweigh the evidence nor reevaluate the credibility of witnesses. We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury reasonably could deduce from the evidence. If the circumstances reasonably justify the findings made by the trier of fact, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding. A reversal for insufficient evidence is unwarranted unless it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict.

Authority:

People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 638-639

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

Second Holding:

Under section 288.2(c), “harmful matter” is defined in section 313. Section 313(a) states that harmful matter means matter, taken as a whole, which to the average person, applying contemporary statewide standards, appeals to the prurient interest, and is matter which, taken as a whole, depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct and which, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

This definition is virtually identical to the constitutional standard of obscenity set forth in Miller. We conclude the record does not contain evidence from which a jury could reasonably find the video the defendant showed them minor was harmful matter within the meaning of section 288.2(a)(2) and section 313. Therefore, substantial evidence does not support the defendant’s conviction, and we will reverse the judgment and remand for resentencing.

Authority:

Miller v. California (1973) 413 U.S. 15, 24

People v. Dyke (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1383

Third Holding:

Nudity or depictions of sexual intercourse or other sexual activity do not, by themselves, make a movie obscene.

Authority:

People v. Powell (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1291

Fourth Holding:

The defendant may not be retried on this count.

Authority:

United States v. DiFrancesco (1980) 449 U.S. 117, 131

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000662

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We direct the court to correct the abstract of judgment to indicate the sentence was ordered to be served consecutively.

Holding:

The parties agree the trial court imposed one-third the middle term (i.e., one year) on count 4 for securities fraud but did not mark the appropriate box on the abstract of judgment with an “X.” We agree and will direct the clerk to correct the error.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [courts may correct clerical errors at any time]

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000661

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court applied an improper legal standard when determining whether the defendant was eligible for mental health diversion, made findings regarding his eligibility that were not supported by the evidence, and failed to provide a basis for the exercise of its residual discretion to deny his motion. We accordingly conditionally reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings on the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion.

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 states that a trial court may, in its discretion, and after considering the positions of the defense and prosecution, grant pretrial diversion to a defendant pursuant to this section if the defendant satisfies the eligibility requirements for pretrial diversion set forth in subdivision (b) and the court determines that the defendant is suitable for that diversion under the factors set forth in subdivision (c).

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(a)

Second Holding:

The statute identifies two eligibility requirements: (1) in the last five years the defendant has been diagnosed with or treated for “a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, including, but not limited to, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder, but excluding antisocial personality disorder and pedophilia” (§ 1001.36, subd. (b)(1)); and (2) the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)(2)

Third Holding:

The statute identifies four suitability criteria: (1) a qualified mental health expert has opined that the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder causing, contributing to, or motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment; (2) the defendant (if mentally competent) consents to diversion and waives the right to a speedy trial; (3) the defendant (if mentally competent) agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and (4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in Section 1170.18, if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c

Fourth Holding:

If the defendant is both eligible and suitable, the trial court must also be satisfied that the recommended inpatient or outpatient program of mental health treatment will meet the specialized mental health treatment needs of the defendant. This is not an additional eligibility or suitability requirement the defendant must meet. Rather, section 1001.36f)(1) read as a whole appears to contemplate an ongoing assessment to assure that defendants will receive appropriate treatment for their particular conditions as part of the diversion program.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(f)(1)(A)(i)

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

Fifth Holding:

Even where defendants make a prima facie showing that they meet all the express statutory requirements, the court may still exercise its discretion to deny diversion. But this residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law.

That purpose includes a strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders because of the benefits of such treatment to both the offending individual and the community. Where the court chooses to exercise this residual discretion to deny diversion, its statement of reasons should reflect consideration of the underlying purposes of the statute and explain why diversion would not meet those goals.

Authority:

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

Sixth Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on mental health diversion for abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard, or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795

Seventh Holding:

If the defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, the court shall find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.

When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true. The issue before us is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have found it highly probable that the defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to his involvement in the alleged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011

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

Eighth Holding:

Reviewing courts have consistently made clear that the legislation’s aim is for diversion to apply as broadly as possible so as to increase the provision of mental health treatment for the betterment of individuals and society as a whole. “A trial court’s denial of mental health diversion using its residual discretion should be limited to those situations where the purposes of the statute would not be achieved.”

Authority:

People v. Cabalar (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 41, 58

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 138

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000660

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be correct to reflect the crime of which the defendant was convicted.

Holding:

The abstract of judgment states, correctly, that the defendant was convicted of violating section 236, but it incorrectly describes this crime as kidnapping for ransom resulting in bodily harm or death. Section 236 actually refers to the crime of false imprisonment, and it was this offense for which the defendant was convicted. An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction, and it is important for courts to correct elements of an abstract of judgment that differ from the court’s oral judgment.

Authority:

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

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000659

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred by finding true and relying on aggravating circumstances at sentencing without any waiver of the right to jury trial.

First Holding:

Despite the absence of a jury waiver, the court at sentencing found true multiple of the charged aggravating circumstances. The court also imposed the upper term of 10 years for the Penal Code section 12022.5(a) firearm enhancement. The trial court erred by imposing this upper term sentence based on aggravating circumstances that were not stipulated to by the defendant found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury, or found true by the judge in a court trial after a waiver of the right to jury trial.

Under the Sixth Amendment, any fact, beyond the bare fact of a prior conviction, that exposes a defendant to harsher punishment, must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, unless the defendant stipulates to its truth or waives a jury trial.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(2)

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1084

Second Holding:

Several of the aggravating circumstances found true by the trial court were based on what the Supreme Court in Lynch referred to as a somewhat vague or subjective standard. These include that the crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, and other acts showing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, and callousness and that Guy had engaged in violent conduct that indicates a serious danger to society.

Because these aggravating circumstances are inherently subjective and imprecise, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating factors relied upon by the trial court to justify an upper term sentence. Moreover, the court could not lawfully have imposed the upper term on the Penal Code section 12022.5(a) enhancement without proper true findings or a stipulation to the truth of circumstances in aggravation that justified the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768–769, 775–776

Third Holding:

We will therefore vacate the sentence and remand for a full resentencing hearing.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [full resentencing on all counts required when part of sentence is stricken on appeal]

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

Case 000658

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was an improper delegation of authority to impose a condition of probation that left it up to the probation officer to decide whether treatment should be residential or outpatient. There was also error regarding imposition of fees.

First Holding:

Though the defendant did not object to the condition at the time, the issue is not forfeited on appeal. His claim is cognizable because it is a facial constitutional challenge presenting a pure question of law that does not depend on the underlying factual record. We thus address defendant’s constitutional challenge on the merits, which we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 901 [a facial constitutional challenge may be considered for the first time on appeal because it does not depend on the underlying factual record]

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 884–886

Second Holding:

Under the separation of powers doctrine, judicial powers may not be delegated to nonjudicial officers. 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.

A court may dictate the basic policy of a condition of probation, leaving specification of details to the probation officer, but the court’s order cannot be entirely open-ended. It is for the court to determine the nature of the prohibition placed on a defendant as a condition of probation. By leaving key determinations to be decided ad hoc, a vague probation condition may result in an impermissible delegation of authority to the probation officer.

Authority:

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

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

In Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 919

Third Holding:

A condition requiring the defendant to enter a residential drug treatment program but authorizing probation to select which residential program may be upheld. We remand for the trial court to either strike the condition, or modify it to specify the type of treatment program in which defendant is directed to participate, including whether it requires defendant to undergo residential treatment. The court’s decision may be informed by the results of any assessment and additional information provided by the parties.

Authority:

People v. Penoli (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 298, 307–308

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 903, 905,

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 13

Fourth Holding:

Appellants implicitly concede a respondent’s argument by failing to respond in their reply brief to the respondent’s argument on that point. A court may assume respondent’s claim was correct if the defendant did not dispute respondent’s claim in his reply.

Authority:

Rudick v. State Bd. of Optometry (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 77, 89–90

Reygoza v. Superior Court (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 514, 519 and fn. 4

Fifth Holding:

An order of probation, like an abstract of judgment, must specify the statutory basis of each fine or fee imposed.

Authority:

People v. Eddards (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 712, 716

Sixth Holding:

In general costs of prosecuting and rehabilitating criminals are not recoverable absent express statutory authority to the contrary. The Legislature repealed section 1203.1b (which authorized to court to impose an order for the cost of probation services, depending on ability to pay, and it could not be a condition of probation) and enacted section 1465.9, which states in relevant part, that on after July 1, 2021, the balance of any court-imposed costs pursuant to section 1203.1b [among numerous other statutes] shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

People v. Baker (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 550, 559–560

Seventh Holding:

The abstract of judgment contains an error. It states that the jury found true the enhancement for great bodily injury under section 12022.7. This conflicts with the actual oral statement of the judge (who conducted a court trial on the enhancement), in which the judge stated “I am not going to find true the allegation of great bodily injury.”

Where, as here, discrepancies exist between the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order, the oral pronouncement controls. The trial court should thus modify the probation order to conform to its oral pronouncement.

Authority:

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