Author Archives: Gary McCurdy

Racial Justice Act, Standard of review

Case 000609

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court applied improper legal standards in denying the defendant’s renewed new trial motion under the Racial Justice Act (RJA) and his request for RJA discovery.

First Holding:

In enacting Penal Code section 745, effective 1/1/2021, the Legislature sought to eliminate racial bias from California’s criminal justice system, declaring that racism—whether intentional or implicit—at any stage of a criminal case undermines fairness and constitutes a miscarriage of justice under the state Constitution. The statute is designed not to punish bias but to remedy its impact on defendants and the judicial process, ensuring that race plays no role in obtaining convictions or imposing sentences and rejecting the premise that racial disparities in the system are unavoidable. The following year, the Legislature amended subdivision (j) to provide the RJA applies to all cases where the judgment is not final.

Authority:

PEN 745

Second Holding:

The RJA identifies four categories of conduct, any one of which, if proved, is sufficient to establish a violation of Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a). In the renewed motion, the defendant relied on section 745(a)(1) and (2), which permit a defendant to establish a RJA violation by a preponderance of the evidence where:

(1) The judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin; or

(2) During the defendant’s trial, in court and during the proceedings, the judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror, used racially discriminatory language about the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, or otherwise exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful.

(Paragraph (2) does not apply if the person speaking is relating language used by another that is relevant to the case or if the person speaking is giving a racially neutral and unbiased physical description of the suspect.)

Section 745 defines racially discriminatory language.

Authority:

PEN 745

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 147

Third Holding:

A defendant alleging an RJA violation must first make a prima facie showing in the trial court—i.e., present facts that, if true, demonstrate a substantial likelihood of a violation. This standard falls between a mere possibility and a preponderance of the evidence. At this stage, the court must accept the defendant’s factual allegations as true, including expert and statistical evidence, unless they are conclusory, unsupported, or contradicted by the record.

The trial court may not weigh competing evidence or make credibility determinations, except in the rare circumstances where the record irrefutably establishes the allegations are false. If the trial court determines a defendant has made a prima facie showing, it must conduct an evidentiary hearing where it may consider evidence and arguments submitted by the People, make credibility determinations, and weigh the evidence.

Authority:

Finley v. Superior Court (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 12, 22-23, 25

Fourth Holding:

We review de novo the trial court’s legal conclusion that appellants failed to make a prima facie showing.

Authority:

People v. Howard (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 625, 650

Fifth Holding:

The trial court concluded that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing. The court did not find the defendant’s testimony conclusory, irrelevant, or unsupported; rather, it discounted the testimony as uncorroborated and not credible. This was error. At the prima facie stage, the defendant was not required to prove the truth of his account; he was required only to show that, if true, the facts alleged would establish a violation.

The court further erred by proceeding with a prejudice analysis—reasoning that, even if the jury heard the introduction of the rap lyrics, the verdicts would not have changed and no miscarriage of justice occurred. But prejudice is not part of the prima facie inquiry. The question is solely whether the defendant satisfied his initial minimal burden to produce facts that, if true, establish that there is more than a mere possibility of an RJA violation. Applying de novo review, we conclude that the defendant met his minimal burden to allege facts that, if true, establish more than a mere possibility of an RJA violation.

Authority:

People v. Howard (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 625, 656

Sixth Holding:

The court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for RJA discovery. He provided some data in support of his motion. The showing required to establish a plausible factual foundation for discovery under the RJA is minimal. At the request for discovery stage a court need not determine whether a violation under Penal Code section 745(a) may ultimately be established or ruled out. The dispositive question is whether a defendant demonstrated a plausible factual foundation for any potential RJA violation sufficient to show good cause.

Authority:

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

McDaniel v. Superior Court (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 228, 244

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

Seventh Holding:

We review the trial court’s discovery order for abuse of discretion, because management of discovery lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. The RJA was designed to facilitate the exposure and evaluation of potential racial bias, not to erect insurmountable barriers at the discovery stage. By requiring more than a plausible factual showing and prematurely invoking additional discovery constraints, the trial court applied a framework that unduly restricted access to potentially probative evidence. Because the trial court’s ruling rested on erroneous legal premises, its denial of discovery constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

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

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case 000608

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The denial of the defendant’s motion for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 is reversed, and the court is directed to grant the petition. After examination of all the evidence, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support any theory today under which the defendant coould be convicted of murder.

First Holding:

The defendant was the assigned getaway driver who was not present in the building where the robbery took place. A bystander was killed by the police during the confrontation between the other defendants and the police. The defendant entered a plea bargain in which he pleaded guilty to one count of felony murder. First degree implied malice murder is not a valid theory of conviction for an accomplice under the provocative act theory of murder; the accomplice must harbor express malice–the specific intent to kill–in order to be properly convicted of first degree murder under this theory.

Authority:

People v. Concha (2009) 47 Cal.4th 653, 662

Second Holding:

The felony murder rule is not applicable where the killing was committed by a third party (e.g., police officer) who was not involved in the perpetration of the underlying felony. Because the felony murder rule is not applicable to these facts, the Banks/Clark inquiry as to the degree of defendant’s participation in the robbery and whether he displayed reckless indifference to human life during the course of the robbery is also inapplicable.

The provocative act murder doctrine arose as an alternative to felony-murder liability in circumstances where the killing was committed by a third party who was not involved in the perpetration of the underlying felony. A provocative act murder case necessarily involves at least three people—the perpetrator of the underlying offense, an accomplice, and a victim of their crime.

Authority:

People v. Taylor (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 849, 861, 866

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 727

Third Holding:

SB 1437, which took effect on January 1, 2019, limited accomplice liability under the felony-murder rule and eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder, to ensure that a person’s sentence is commensurate with his or her individual criminal culpability.

Authority:

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-844

Fourth Holding:

This court will ignore the findings purportedly made by the trial court following the remand from the court in the earlier appeal, as they were outside the scope of the remittitur. The remittitur defines the scope of the trial court’s jurisdiction to act, and action which does not conform to the reviewing court’s directions is unauthorized and void. Trial courts are bound by the directions given by a reviewing court and have no authority to retry any other issue or to make any other findings; the court’s authority is limited wholly and solely to following the directions of the reviewing court.

Authority:

In re J.M. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 745, 755

People v. Dutra (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1367

Fifth Holding:

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The requisite malice may be express or implied. Murder is committed with implied malice when the killing is proximately caused by an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life.

To be considered the proximate cause of the victim’s death, the defendant’s act must have been a substantial factor contributing to the result, rather than insignificant or merely theoretical. The defendant’s life-endangering act must proximately cause the victim’s death and to suffice for implied malice murder, the defendant’s act must involve a high degree of probability that it will result in death.

A relevant life-endangering act is one that proximately causes the victim’s death. It is an act or omission that sets in motion a chain of events that produces as a direct, natural and probable consequence of the act or omission the death of the victim and without which the death would not occur.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 988-989

People v. Cervantes (2016) 26 Cal.4th 860, 866

Sixth Holding:

Notwithstanding SB 1437’s elimination of natural and probable consequences liability for second degree murder, an aider and abettor who does not expressly intend to aid a killing can still be convicted of second degree murder if the person knows that his or her conduct endangers the life of another and acts with conscious disregard for life.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990

Seventh Holding:

Direct aiding and abetting is based on the combined actus reus of the participants and the aider and abettor’s own mens rea. In the context of implied malice, the actus reus required of the perpetrator is the commission of a life-endangering act. For the direct aider and abettor, the actus reus includes whatever acts constitute aiding the commission of the life-endangering act. Thus, to be liable for an implied malice murder, the direct aider and abettor must, by words or conduct, aid the commission of the life-endangering act, not the result of that act.

The mens rea, which must be personally harbored by the direct aider and abettor, is knowledge that the perpetrator intended to commit the act, intent to aid the perpetrator in the commission of the act, knowledge that the act is dangerous to human life, and acting in conscious disregard for human life.

The direct aider and abettor must, therefore, act with intent to aid the life-endangering act of the direct perpetrator that proximately causes the death. Implied malice murder requires attention to the aider and abettor’s mental state concerning the life endangering act committed by the direct perpetrator, such as shooting at the victim.

The aider and abettor must know the direct perpetrator intends to commit the murder or life-endangering act and intend to aid the direct perpetrator in its commission. It is this mental relationship to the perpetrator’s acts that confers liability on the aider and abettor.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990-992

People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 311

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 468

Eighth Holding:

We remand the case with directions to grant the petition and resentence defendant on the underlying offense of robbery.

Authority:

People v. Dixon (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 116, 137, fn. 3 [Granting the petition for resentencing, as opposed to ordering a new evidentiary hearing, may be the appropriate remedy where a petitioner successfully demonstrates no substantial evidence supports the denial of a section 1172.6 petition even considering erroneously admitted evidence at an evidentiary hearing]

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000607

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the prior strikes were incurred before the AB 333 amendments to criminal gang activity laws, and were dependent on gang activity findings made under the old law, the sentence is reversed and the matter is remanded for the court to determine whether those prior convictions would still be considered strikes under the current law on gang activity crimes.

Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) significantly modified the elements of gang-related offenses and enhancements. After appellant was sentenced, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Fletcher. In Fletcher, the high court held that when a defendant has a conviction under the prior version of section 186.22, whether that conviction still qualifies as a prior serious felony for purposes of the “Three Strikes” law and prior serious felony enhancements must be viewed under the current version of section 186.22. Because the sentence is vacated, the court shall conduct a full resentencing consistent with current law.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 608

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

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

Case 000606

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The jury found the defendant guilty of two felonies (maintaining a place for the purpose of using, selling, or giving away a controlled substance and felon in position of ammunition) and several misdemeanors (possession of cocaine, cultivating more than six marijuana plants, and possession of marijuana).

We conclude that two felony convictions must be reversed, the fee and assessment imposed for the possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana conviction must be reversed, either the possession of marijuana misdemeanor or the cultivating more than six marijuana plants misdemeanor must be stayed pursuant to section 654, and the four clerical errors in the judgment must be corrected.

First Holding:

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.

Appellate courts presume in support of the judgment every fact that the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence. Appellate courts also properly consider erroneously admitted evidence, notwithstanding the erroneous admission. Appellate courts do not resolve credibility issues or evidentiary conflicts. A judgment will not be reversed for insufficiency of the evidence merely because the circumstances may also be reasonably reconciled with a conclusion contrary to the judgment.

Authority:

People v. Cardenas (2025) 18 Cal.5th 797, 821

People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 57

People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756, 820

People v. Jackson (2014) 58 Cal.4th 724, 749

Second Holding:

Every person who opens or maintains any place for the purpose of unlawfully selling, giving away, or using any controlled substance as identified in particular sections of the Health and Safety Code shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year or the state prison. Because of the disjunctive “or,” section 11366 does not require that the place be maintained for the purpose of selling; it can be violated without selling, merely by providing a place for drug abusers to gather and share their experience.

Section 11366 proscribes continuously selling, giving away, or using a controlled substance; a single or isolated instance of this forbidden conduct is insufficient. Further, section 11366 is violated by selling or giving away to others, or allowing others to use, a controlled substance in a place maintained or opened for that purpose; it is not violated by an individual’s repeated personal use of a controlled substance at his home.

Authority:

HSC 11366

People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 716, 718

People v. Vera (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1102-1103 and fn. 2

People v. Green (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 538, 544

People v. Shoals (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 475, 490, 492

Third Holding:

In determining whether a place is opened or maintained for the purpose of selling, giving away, or using a controlled substance, the trier of fact should consider the surrounding circumstances, including: the quantity of any controlled substance discovered; the character of the place opened or maintained; how the place is fitted up; whether other individuals visited the place in unusual numbers or at unusual times; whether other individuals who were under the influence of a controlled substance were found at the place; whether lookouts were posted near or at the place; whether a password or passcode was needed for entry into the place; any pertinent statements by the defendant or those found at the premises; and whether any drug paraphernalia or drug residue was found in the place.

However, the quantity of controlled substance discovered at a place is alone insufficient to show that the place was maintained or opened for the purpose of continuously selling, giving away, or using a controlled substance.

Authority:

People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 726

People v. Hawkins (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 675, 683

People v. Shoals (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 475, 491-492

People v. Cannon (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 163, 168

Fourth Holding:

Health and Safety Code section 11366 prohibits opening or maintaining a place for the purpose of selling, using, or giving away a controlled substance; it does not prohibit opening or maintaining a place for the purpose of growing or cultivating a controlled substance/marijuana. (Cf. sec. 11366 with 11358 [prohibiting the cultivation of marijuana]; 11366.5 [prohibiting individuals from making available a premises for the manufacture of a controlled substance]; cf. also Dowl [describing separate criminal provisions that are exempt from prosecution pursuant to the Medical Marijuana Program of sec. 11362.7 et seq.]

Authority:

People v. Dowl (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1079, 1086

Fifth Holding:

Section 11366 requires that a controlled substance be sold, used, or given away at the place maintained for such a purpose. Section 11366 simply does not address controlled substances that are sold, used, or given away at a location other than the place, even if the controlled substance is produced at the place. Accordingly, Shoals and related considerations do not support the conclusion that the instant property was used for the purpose of continuously selling, using, or giving away marijuana to others.

Authority:

HSC 11366

People v. Shoals (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 475, 491 [The prosecution must prove that appellant opened or maintained the hotel room for the purpose of selling the cocaine base.]

People v. Holland (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 583, 588 [There is no evidence that this barbecue stand was opened for the prohibited purpose.]

Sixth Holding:

A conviction cannot be constitutionally sustained on the basis of a theory that was not actually presented to the jury. Here, the instructions informed the jury that the controlled substance at issue was cannabis; cocaine was not mentioned. Therefore, the defendant’s conviction cannot be sustained based on the cocaine discovered at the property. In sum, the evidence shows the property was used to grow, cultivate, and process marijuana, but that is all. Substantial evidence does not support the section 11366 conviction because there is insufficient evidence that the defendant maintained the property for the purpose of continuously selling, using, or giving away marijuana at the property.

Authority:

Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 314

Cole v. Arkansas (1948) 333 U.S. 196, 202

People v. Kunkin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 245, 251

People v. Zemek (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 313, 340

People v. Garcia (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 519, 525

Seventh Holding:

Substantial evidence does not support the defendant’s conviction for felon in possession of ammunition. His prior felony under section 11359 was reduced to a misdemeanor and sealed. As a result of the resentencing and sealing, the prior felony is no longer a felony and cannot be used to support the defendant’s conviction. Because he has no other prior felony convictions, conviction on that count is unsupported and must be reversed.

In 2016, voters approved Proposition 64, which, among other things, generally reduced marijuana-related crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, including the offense of possession under section 11359. Proposition 64 also added section 11361.8, which provides a mechanism to obtain relief for those currently serving a sentence, or for those who had completed a sentence, for a marijuana offense affected by Proposition 64. For those qualifying defendants who have completed a sentence, the court shall redesignate the conviction as a misdemeanor or infraction or dismiss and seal the conviction as legally invalid.

Further, the Legislature has provided that a conviction that has been ordered sealed pursuant to section 11361.8 is deemed never to have occurred, and the person may reply accordingly to any inquiry about the events. The parties agree that, because the defendant had his prior felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 64 and sealed, he was no longer a felon in possession of ammunition, and the count must be reversed.

Authority:

HSC 11361.8

HSC 11361.9

People v. Smit (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 596, 599, 600

People v. Jessup (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 83, 88

People v. Saelee (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 744, 751

People v. Taylor (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 115, 120, fn. 3.

Eighth Holding:

Penal Code section 654 provides in part 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 may apply to an indivisible course of criminal conduct involving violations of different statutes, where the defendant commits the violations with a single intent and objective. It has been held that section 654 applies to prevent a defendant from being punished for both possession of marijuana and cultivation of marijuana where the possession was merely incidental to the cultivation.

A court’s implicit or express finding that a defendant harbored different intents and objectives for purposes of section 654 is reviewed for substantial evidence. The parties agree, and we concur, that substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s implicit finding that the defendant harbored different intents and objectives with respect to counts 6 and 7, cultivation of marijuana and possession of marijuana. The court must stay the sentence on one of the two counts.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Brents (2012) 53 Cal.4th 599, 618

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

People v. Vasquez (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 732, 736–737

People v. McDaniel (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 475, 485–486

People v. Richardson (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1203, 1214

Ninth Holding:

Health and Safety Code section 11372.7–which imposes a drug program fee for violation of its chapter–expressly excludes section 11357(b), possession of more than an ounce of marijuna, from its application. Thus, the trial court erred in imposing the fee under that that section, and it must be stricken, along with other fees that came into play based on that improperly imposed assessment.

Authority:

HSC 11372.7(e)

Tenth Holding:

The minute order contains several errors that must be corrected: (1) with respect to count 2 at page 3, the minute order lists the basis for fines and penalties as section 11372.5 instead of 11372.7; (2) with respect to count 2 at page 4, the minute order identifies the amount of penalty assessments as $3,210 instead of $310; (3) with respect to count 1 at page 5, the minute order lists the basis for fines and penalties as section 11372.5 instead of 11372.7; (4) with respect to count 5 at pages 5 and 6, all fees and penalties are improper because they were not imposed as part of the oral pronouncement of sentence.

A trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence constitutes the judgment in a criminal case, and to the extent there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and a minute order or abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement will control. Reviewing courts on appeal may correct any discrepancy that exists between a trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence and a minute order or abstract of judgment.

Authority:

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

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

Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000605

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Where the minor was not removed from the home, it was error for the court to set a maximum period of confinement.

Holding:

The juvenile court is required to specify the maximum term of confinement only when the court orders a minor removed from the physical custody of their parent or guardian. When the dispositional order includes a maximum confinement term for a minor who is not removed from parental custody, the remedy is to strike the term.

Authority:

WIC 726

In re Joseph G. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1735, 1744

In re A.C. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 590, 591–592

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000604

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court denied the defendant’s motion under section 1172.6 to recall his sentence on his 1999 murder convictions (he had hired someone to kill his father, and that person also killed the defendant’s mother in the process, all while the defendant was away from the home in which they were killed). We conclude the defendant’s acquittal on first degree murder of his mother precluded a finding that he had intended to kill her. We remand for the court to consider whether he remains guilty of his mother’s murder under a theory of implied malice. In doing so, the court should consider his youth at the time of the offense.

First Holding:

The defendant hired a person to kill the defendant’s father. The hiree did so, but also killed the defendant’s mother. The jury convicted the defendant of first degree murder of the father, but of only second degree murder of his mother. In our view, the defendant’s acquittal of first degree murder as to the mother precluded a finding that he intended to kill her. First degree murder generally requires a premeditated and deliberate intent to kill. Second degree murder requires either an intent to kill without premeditation and deliberation or implied malice—conscious disregard for human life.

Authority:

People v. Whisenhunt (2008) 44 Cal.4th 174, 201

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 151–152

Second Holding:

After the defendant’s trial, the Legislature amended the law of murder to eliminate liability based on imputed malice, including the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Section 1172.6 provides retroactive relief to defendants convicted under those now-invalid theories. Under principles of collateral estoppel, a jury’s finding at trial precludes a contrary finding in a section 1172.6 hearing.

Authority:

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 723–724

People v. Arnold (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 376, 385-386 [discussing collateral estoppel]

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s factual findings in denying a section 1172.6 petition for substantial evidence. But the preclusive effect of a defendant’s partial acquittal is a legal issue we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Arnold (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 376, 383

Fourth Holding:

We presume the jury meticulously followed the trial court’s instructions. We thus conclude the jury found that that the defendant lacked an intent to kill the mother, precluding the trial court’s contrary finding.

Authority:

People v. Cruz (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 69, 73

Fifth Holding:

The erroneous finding was not harmless. Although the record could have supported liability under a theory of implied malice, the trial court did not evaluate that theory and we cannot conclude it would have reached the same result if it had. The defendant was 19 years old at the time of the crimes—still on the lower end of the young adult age range. Recent decisions have emphasized that youths may be less able to appreciate risks and consequences and thus that courts must consider defendants’ youth in deciding if they acted with implied malice or reckless indifference.

Authority:

People v. Jimenez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 994, 1001-1004, 1007

People v. Pittman (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 400, 416–418

Due process, Pleading, Sentencing

Case 000603

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court sentenced the defendant under the One Strike Law (section 667.61), but relied on special circumstances that had not been alleged in the information to impose sentences of 25 years to life on several counts. Because of the lack of notice to the defendant that the specific special circumstances would be relied on, the sentences on those counts are reversed and the matter is remanded.

First Holding:

A defendant has a cognizable due process right to fair notice of the specific sentence enhancement allegations that will be invoked to increase punishment for the defendant’s crimes.

Due process does not require rigid code pleading or the incantation of magic words. To satisfy due process, it is sufficient for an accusatory pleading to provide the defendant fair notice of a particular one strike sentence the prosecution is seeking and of which facts it intends to prove to support that sentence.

The ambiguity of the one strike allegation is that section 667.61 (a) provides for a 25-year-to-life sentence if the offense is committed under two or more circumstances in subdivision (e), and the information alleged only one circumstance, i.e., multiple victims. While the information notifies defendant of the 25-year-to-life term that applies under subdivision (a), that subdivision is not triggered based on the single subdivision (e) circumstance alleged.

Thus, the information is, at best, ambiguous and confusing as to whether the prosecution intended to seek terms of 25 years to life and, if so, based on which alleged circumstances, rather than 15 years to life based on the multiple victim circumstance.

Authority:

People v. Mancebo (2002) 27 Cal.4th 735, 747

In re Vaquera (2024) 15 Cal.5th 706, 721, 720, 723-725

Jurisdiction, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000602

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Although the trial court had the jurisdiction to correct clerical errors, it had no jurisdiction after the judgment was final to correct judicial errors. Thus, it had no jurisdiction to set aside the credit for time served that it had awarded years earlier. The order eliminating the credits must be vacated.

(Because the new offenses were committed in prison while serving an earlier commitment, the new sentence was required to run consecutively, and he was not entitled to credit for time while serving his term on the original offense to be applied against the new consecutive sentence. Nonetheless, the court originally awarded him nearly two years credit for time served.)

First Holding:

The question whether the trial court had jurisdiction to eliminate custody credits after a final judgment is a pure question of law we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Camp (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 461, 467

Second Holding:

Under the general common law rule, a trial court loses jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has begun. While there are some exceptions to that rule, none justifies the court’s elimination of the defendant’s custody credits.

Authority:

People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344

Third Holding:

A court has inherent power to correct a clerical error at any time. Clerical error, however, is to be distinguished from judicial error which cannot be corrected by amendment. The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered. Here, the trial court’s orders imposing the custodial credits in 2010, 2021, and again in 2024 were plainly judicial—not clerical—errors.

Authority:

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

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 63

In re Rojas (1979) 23 Cal.3d 152, 154

Fourth Holding:

Section 1172.1(a)(1) does not apply here, because (1) it was not the Caliofrnia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation secretary who sent the letter pointing out the errors, but a records analyst who sent the letter; (2) the sentencing was not within 120 days of the date of commitment; and (3) the request did not relate to a change of sentencing laws since the original sentencing. Moreover, the sentence was in fact greater than the original sentence.

Authority:

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 987 [letter came from a case records manager, not the secretary and did not reference section 1172.1 or use the terms recall or resentencing]

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 791–792

Fifth Holding:

Regarding jurisdiction to correct an unauthorized sentence, we find King to be a better reasoned case than Codinha. King reasoned that the “venerable notion” that an unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time had been rejected by the Supreme Court in In re G.C.. The unauthorized sentence doctrine is an exception to the waiver doctrine, in that a party does not forfeit the right to argue that a sentence is unlawful by failing to object in the trial court. It is not, however, an exception to the requirement of jurisdiction. Rather, in order to invoke the unauthorized sentence doctrine to remedy a judgment of conviction, the trial court must still have jurisdiction over the judgment.

Authority:

People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 635

In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1129

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 66

People v. Garcia (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 139, 145–146

People v. Hernandez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1123

Sixth Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Amelioration, Evidence, Fifth Amendment, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000601

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6. We conclude there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding the defendant is guilty of murder, beyond a reasonable doubt, under a still-valid theory, and reversal for resentencing is unwarranted. As for the defendant’s evidentiary challenges, however, we hold the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting and relying on the grand jury transcript and police reports. As a result, we vacate the trial court’s order, and remand the matter for a new evidentiary hearing.

First Holding:

SB 1437 was enacted to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. It amended section 188, which defines malice, and section 189, which defines the degrees of murder to address felony-murder liability. Through section 1172.6, it provided a means of relief for those whose convictions would no longer be considered murder under the revised law.

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 1172.6

Second Holding:

In the context of an appeal from a criminal conviction where substantial evidence does not support a conviction, the remedy is generally not a new trial. The sufficiency of the evidence is considered by examining the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment and deciding whether it discloses substantial evidence such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence erroneously admitted is properly considered in weighing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, notwithstanding its erroneous admission.

Authority:

People v. Hatch (2000) 22 Cal.4th 260, 271–272 [the federal and California Constitutions preclude retrial if a court determines the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a conviction as a matter of law]

People v. Jasso (2025) 17 Cal.5th 646, 684,

People v. Navarro (2021) 12 Cal.5th 285, 311

Third Holding:

The reason for this is that a reversal based solely on evidentiary insufficiency has fundamentally different implications, for double jeopardy purposes, than a reversal based on such ordinary trial errors as the incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence. While the former is in effect a finding that the government has failed to prove its case against the defendant, the latter implies nothing with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but is simply a determination that he has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect.

Thus, as a general rule, it is well established that if the defendant secures on appeal a reversal of his conviction based on trial errors other than insufficiency of evidence, he is subject to retrial.

Authority:

People v. Jasso (2025) 17 Cal.5th 646, 684,

People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1, 6

Fourth Holding:

Although principles of double jeopardy are not implicated in the voluntary section 1172.6 petition process, an insufficient evidence claim, coupled with additional challenges to the admission of evidence, may give rise to an issue of remedy.

If, considering the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment, there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s denial of the section 1172.6 petition after an evidentiary hearing, it signals a substantive failure of proof by the government much like it does in the context of a direct appeal from a criminal conviction, suggesting reversal for resentencing is the appropriate remedy. Under 1172.6(d)(3) if the prosecution fails to sustain its burden of proof, the petitioner shall be resentenced.

Authority:

People v. Hill (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1068

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 875, 896 [directing resentencing be granted on remand where insufficient evidence supported denial of sec. 1172.6 petition after an evidentiary hearing]

Fifth Holding:

On the other hand, a prejudicial procedural error (such as an evidentiary error), on its own, typically signals nothing about whether the petitioner is or is not guilty of murder under the law as amended by SB 1437, but points only to a flawed judicial process. In cases involving only this latter situation, remand for a new evidentiary hearing is ordinarily the appropriate remedy. This remedy is especially apt in the context of section 1172.6, which was created by the Legislature as an act of lenity.

Authority:

People v. Dixon (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 116, 137 & fn. 3 [in the absence of a substantial evidence challenge, prejudicial evidentiary errors warrant remand for a new evidentiary hearing rather than remand for resentencing]

People v. Lopez-Barraza (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1227, 1255 [remanding for a new evidentiary hearing where trial court impermissibly relied on evidence admitted at the petitioner’s trial that contradicted jury findings]

People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1062–1063 [conditionally reversing denial of sec. 1172.6 petition after evidentiary hearing to permit the trial court to reconsider discovery motion, and to order a new evidentiary hearing if additional evidence disclosure was warranted]

People v. Hill (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1067–1068 [sentence modification procedure under sec. 1172.6 is an entirely voluntary process and constitutes an act of legislative lenity, not a new criminal prosecution]

Sixth Holding:

The grand jury transcript is not admissible under section 1172.6(d)(3)’s exception for evidence previously admitted at a prior hearing or trial.

Authority:

People v. Dixon (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 116

Seventh Holding:

Since Davenport and Cody, appellate courts have considered whether section 1172.6(d)(3)’s hearsay exception extends to transcripts from grand jury proceedings. In Ocobachi, the court held it did not. The court explained the existing hearsay exception for former testimony found in Evidence Code section 1291 requires a showing of witness unavailability) and that the party against whom the former testimony was offered had been given the right and opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

Unlike former testimony given during a petitioner’s preliminary hearing or original trial, Ocobachi pointed out the person investigated at a grand jury proceeding is not a party but a target who has no right to appear or offer evidence at grand jury proceedings. Thus, unlike in Davenport and Cody, admitting a transcript of grand jury testimony under section 1172.6(d)(3) would require ignoring both provisions of Evidence Code section 1291, creating an overbroad hearsay exception. In contrast, Robinson [review granted] concluded that the grand jury transcript may be considered at the section 1172.6 hearing.

Authority:

People v. Davenport (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1158–1159

People v. Cody (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 87, 103

People v. Ocobachi (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1174, 1183

People v. Robinson (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 854, 872, review granted Feb. 26, 2025, S288606

Eighth Holding:

The proper interpretation of a statute is a question of law we review de novo. We consider portions of a statute in the context of the entire statute and the statutory scheme of which it is a part, giving significance to every word, phrase, sentence, and part of an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961

People v. Reynoza (2024) 15 Cal.5th 982, 989–990

Ninth Holding:

Grand jury proceedings are not adjudicative, unlike hearings and trials in a criminal proceeding, nor are they adversarial. Rather, they are investigatory proceedings: a judicial officer does not typically preside over grand jury proceedings; a defendant does not receive notice of grand jury proceedings; and a defendant has no right to appear, offer evidence, or cross-examine witnesses. Despite similarities in their function, unlike preliminary hearings, grand jury proceedings are one-sided investigatory proceedings.

Authority:

Cummiskey v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1018, 1026

People v. Petrilli (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 814, 824

People v. Arroyo (2016) 62 Cal.4th 589, 595

Tenth Holding:

It would be anomalous for the Legislature to have amended the statute under SB 775 to tighten the evidentiary rules by excluding preliminary hearing testimony under section 872(b) [which allows a magistrate to find probable cause at a preliminary hearing based on the testimony of a qualified law enforcement officer that would otherwise be excluded as inadmissible hearsay], which is subject to cross-examination, but not exclude similar section 939.6(c), testimony received at a grand jury proceeding, which is untested by cross-examination.

Authority:

People v. Ledesma (1997) 16 Cal.4th 90, 101 [in construing statutes, courts should strive to avoid anomalous results]

Eleventh Holding:

We agree with the parties that the police reports and related witness statements collected by the police are hearsay because they were created out of court and were offered (and considered) for the truth of the matter asserted. These documents also contain out-of-court statements of witnesses that constitute another layer of hearsay when offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

While there may be an applicable exception for some of the information contained in the police reports, there must also be a hearsay exception for out-of-court witness statements recorded in the documents that were considered for the truth of the matter asserted. Many of the findings taken from the police reports involved nonparty witness statements recorded by the police that were considered for the truth of the matter asserted, but no hearsay exception was identified

Authority:

EVID 1200(a)[hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove that its assertion is true]

People v. Hall (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 831, 844–845 [arrest report admissible under official records exception to hearsay rule to the extent it reported an act, condition, or event observed by law enforcement pursuant to Evid. Code sec. 1280]

Walker v. Superior Court (2021) 12 Cal.5th 177, 192 [observing the general rule that each level of out-of-court statements in documents such as probation and police reports must fall under a hearsay exception to be admitted into evidence]

Twelfth Holding:

Judicial notice extends only to notice of the document’s existence, not necessarily to the truth of the facts contained within a document. Judicial notice of a document is not a vehicle for the admission of hearsay contained within the document.

Authority:

People v. Moore (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 168, 178

People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448, 458–459 [the fact that a document may be judicially noticed under Evid. Code sec. 452 does not mean all the hearsay statements within the document are admissible or noticeable]

Thirteenth Holding:

Prejudice is shown where it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.

Authority:

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836

Fourteenth Holding:

On other questions the defendant has asked us to address, we decline to do so in light of the remand and reversal. As a general rule, we do not issue advisory opinions indicating what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.

Authority:

People v. Slayton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1076, 1084

Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000600

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is remanded for the court to sentence the defendant on one count and stay punishment under section 654 on the two other counts.

First Holding:

Penal Code Section 654 prohibits a trial court from imposing multiple punishments when a defendant commits multiple offenses during an indivisible course of conduct directed toward a single objective.

Authority:

PEN 654

Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19 [If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one]

Second Holding:

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

Third Holding:

The purpose of section 654 is to ensure a defendant’s punishment is commensurate with his or her culpability. That is, a jury can convict a defendant of multiple crimes arising from a single act, but a court can only punish the defendant for one of those crimes. If a court imposes concurrent sentences, then that sentence constitutes double punishment within the meaning of section 654. A course of criminal conduct is a single “act” for purposes of section 654 if all of the offenses committed during the course of conduct were incident to one objective.

Authority:

People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1211

People v. Miller (1977) 18 Cal.3d 873, 887

Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19

Fourth Holding:

It is defendant’s intent and objective, not the temporal proximity of his offenses, which determine whether the transaction is indivisible. If all of the offenses were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once.

Authority:

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335

Fifth Holding:

When a trial court sentences a defendant to separate terms without making an express finding the defendant entertained separate objectives, the trial court is deemed to have made an implied finding each offense had a separate objective.

Authority:

People v. Islas (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 116, 129

Sixth Holding:

We review for substantial evidence a trial court’s implied finding that a defendant had separate intents and objectives for different offenses. Substantial evidence means that evidence which, when viewed in light of the entire record, is of solid probative value, maintains its credibility and inspires confidence that the ultimate fact it addresses has been justly determined.

Authority:

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

People v. Lehman (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 795, 804

Seventh Holding:

Under section 654, a defendant cannot be punished for both a robbery, and a kidnapping for the purpose of that same robbery.

Authority:

People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 639

Eighth Holding:

There is not substantial evidence to support the trial court’s implied (unstated) finding that the defendant formed (1) a separate intent and objective to commit a kidnapping for the purpose of robbery, and then (2) formed a separate intent and objective to commit a carjacking, and then (3) formed a separate intent and objective to commit a robbery of the pharmaceuticals.

Authority:

People v. Green (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1085 [there must be evidence to support a finding the defendant formed a separate intent and objective for each offense for which he was sentenced]

Ninth Holding:

On remand, the trial court is directed to impose a sentence for only one of the three convictions, and then stay the sentence on the other two crimes under section 654.

Authority:

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1469 [to implement section 654, the trial court must impose sentence on all counts, but stay execution of sentence as necessary to prevent multiple punishment]

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 000598

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In this appeal from the defendant’s resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, we must remand the case for the court to consider the continuing validity of his gang enhancements after AB 333.

First Holding:

The defendant was entitled to have the court consider the changes made to section 186.22 by AB 333, which apply retroactively to his case, because his conviction was not yet final. The ameliorative changes to the gang statute made by AB 333 apply to cases in which sentencing issues remain pending before the superior court following remand. The superior court here did not have the opportunity to consider whether the defendant met the revised requirements for determining whether his gang constituted a criminal street gang, whether it engaged in ‘a pattern of criminal gang activity’, or whether the defendant’s actions were for the common benefit to members of a gang. Accordingly, we remand the matter to allow for that consideration.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 392