Author Archives: Gary McCurdy

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000488

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment contains errors that must be corrected.

Holding:

The abstract of judgment includes a court operations assessment of $160 and a conviction assessment of $120, which the trial court struck during its oral pronouncement of sentence. The abstract of judgment must be corrected to show these assessments were not imposed.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts]

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000487

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We will order the abstract of judgment and sentencing minute order corrected to conform to the jury’s finding of only one prior strike [not two] and the oral pronouncement of judgment.

First Holding:

The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects that the jury found true two prior conviction allegations even though a second prior conviction allegation was not submitted to the jury. The abstract of judgment and sentencing minute order currently reflect 200 days of actual credits and 200 days of conduct credits for a total of 400 days. We will direct the trial court to issue an amended abstract of judgment and corrected minute order conforming to the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. The trial court shall correct the sentencing minute order to reflect time served rather than a 60-day consecutive sentence on count three. The trial court should correct the sentencing minute order and amend the abstract of judgment to reflect 140 days of actual time and 140 days of conduct credits for a total of 280 days of custody credits.

An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize. Likewise, the oral pronouncement of judgment controls over the clerk’s minute order.

Authority:

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

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

Second Holding:

It is well established that the Three Strikes law is not an enhancement. It is an alternative sentencing scheme for the current offense.

Authority:

People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 243

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000486

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit that same murder. It was error to impose sentence on both counts concurrently. One of the counts should have been stayed under section 654.

First 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. A defendant may not receive more than one punishment for a single act, nor may a defendant receive multiple punishments for acts that comprised a single, indivisible course of conduct in service of a single objective. As a result, section 654 prohibits punishing a defendant for both conspiracy to commit murder and the underlying murder.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 550-552

People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 835, 866, disapproved of on another ground by People v. Riccardi (2012) 54 Cal.4th 758, 824, fn. 32

Second Holding:

In pronouncing the defendant’s sentence, the court did not stay the sentence on count two, which was necessary to avoid double punishment.

Authority:

People v. Caparaz (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 669, 689

Third Holding:

Where, as here, the punishment is the same for the two counts at issue, a remand is unnecessary because it would not change the defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, we will modify the judgment to stay the sentence for count two.

Authority:

People v. Bey (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 144, 167

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000485

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court abused its discretion in ordering interest on the restitution award to accrue from the date of the offense.

First Holding:

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 that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)

Second Holding:

We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion. A victim’s restitution right is to be broadly and liberally construed. Once the victim makes a prima facie showing of economic losses incurred as a result of the defendant’s criminal acts, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the amount of losses claimed by the victim. Sentencing judges are given virtually unlimited discretion as to the kind of information they can consider in determining victim restitution. When there is a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered, no abuse of discretion will be found.

Authority:

People v. Phu (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 280, 283, 284

People v. Pittman (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1252, 1258

Third Holding:

Section 1202.4(f)(3)(G) provides that a restitution order shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct, including interest, at the rate of 10 percent per annum, that accrues as of the date of sentencing or loss, as determined by the court. Here, there was no evidence that the victim incurred losses as early as ordered by the court. For this reason, we reverse the portion of the trial court’s restitution order concerning interest accrual and remand for the court to select an appropriate date from which interest on the restitution award accrues.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)(3)(G)

Abstracts and Minutes, Elements of crime, Pleading, Sentencing

Case 000484

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court failed to award presentence conduct credits, and the abstract of judgment must be corrected (a) to show the correct section and description of the crime the jury convicted the defendant of in count 7, and (b) to delete the $10,000 restitution fine and the $10,000 parole revocation restitution fine that were waived by the court.

First Holding:

When the defendant is sentenced under section 667.61, the one strike law, the court need not grant such presentence conduct credit. But here it was error to deny the defendant credit for his presentence conduct under PC 667.61, because the People never invoked section 667.61 by alleging the strikable circumstances in the accusatory pleading. The lack of such notice precluded the trial court from sentencing the defendant subject to section 667.61. Further, such a sentencing scheme would have required the court to impose an indeterminate term, and it did not. The defendant was therefore entitled to an award of conduct credits at the rate of 15%, based on his conviction of violent felony.

Authority:

PEN 667.61

PEN 2933.1

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1036–1037

People v. Jimenez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 373, 393–397

Second Holding:

Though the information charged the defendant in count 7 with section 245 as assault with a deadly weapon (defendant’s hands and feet), the jury was instructed only as to section 245 as assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury. The verdict form showed simply as charged under count 7 of the information. The jury could not have convicted the defendant of anything other than assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury because it was never instructed on any other crime for the purposes of count 7.

Thus, the verdict form’s reference to the erroneous charge is a clerical error rather than a reflection of the true verdict. We may correct a clerical error on a verdict form when the error does not reflect the jury’s actual verdict. The abstract lists the offense as section 245 assault with a deadly weapon. In light of the jury instruction and the verdict form, it must be corrected to reflect that the conviction was for section 245 as assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury.

Authority:

People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1055, 1065 [Hands and feet are not deadly weapons as a matter of law]

People v. Frederickson (2020) 8 Cal.5th 963, 1026 [we presume the jury understood and followed instructions]

People v. Trotter (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 363, 370-371 [clerical correction to verdict forms after jury is discharged is not modification of verdict itself]

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [a reviewing court has the authority to correct clerical errors at any time]

Third Holding:

The trial court ordered direct restitution to the victim but waived the separate mandatory fines and fees. The abstract of judgment erroneously lists two fines: a $10,000 restitution fine and a $10,000 parole revocation restitution fine per section 1202.45. When the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment are inconsistent with one another, the oral pronouncement controls over the abstract of judgment. The abstract of judgment may be corrected at any time for accuracy.

On appeal, the Attorney General argues the abstract of judgment need not be amended because the fines have a mandatory minimum that can only be waived by a finding of compelling and extraordinary reasons, and the court’s reasoning here was insufficient. We need not reach this question. Any such argument was waived when the prosecutor did not object in the trial court.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–188

Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000483

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We find insufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction for sexual penetration and remand for resentencing on the remaining counts.

First Holding:

Even considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, we find no evidence to support the defendant’s unlawful sexual penetration conviction. During the victim’s police interview, she made general statements describing the defendant’s conduct, but they constituted vague, euphemistic language requiring followup questions to prove the required penetration. But the officers did not ask any. The officer’s trial testimony regarding what the victim meant, based on the officer’s experience and training, did not clarify the statements. Nothing indicates that the victim ascribed the same meaning and the officer’s testimony asserted. Nor did the victim clarify the acts in her testimony. Taken together, this evidence does not constitute precise and specific testimony to prove the required penetration beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Haynes (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1291

People v. Paz (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1038

People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 316 [though a child sexual crime victim need not specify precise dates, times and circumstances, she must describe the kind of act or acts committed with sufficient specificity, both to assure that unlawful conduct indeed has occurred and to differentiate between the various types of proscribed conduct]

People v. Quintana (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1362, 1371

Second Holding:

On this record, we must reverse the sexual penetration conviction. We strike his sentence for that count and remand for a full resentencing as to all counts so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [trial courts have jurisdiction to modify every aspect of sentence on the counts that were affirmed, including the term imposed as the principal term]

Elements of crime, Juveniles, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case 000482

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

No substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s order sustaining allegations relating to property theft. The minor came into the store with two adult males. One of the adults asked the clerk to bring him clothes that matched shoes he had previously purchased. The group took six items into a fitting room. Subsequently, one of the adults asked the clerk for different sizes and she went to the back of the store to get them. When she returned to the fitting room, only the two adults were there. The clerk did not see the minor leave. Security camera footage showed the minor leaving the store about five minutes after the group had entered the fitting room. Shortly thereafter, the two adults came out of the fitting room, returned five items to the clerk, and left. The sixth item, a green sweater, was missing from the store.

The possibility that the minor stole the sweater or otherwise aided and abetted the theft is insufficient. Accordingly, no substantial evidence supports the true findings.

First Holding:

Our review of the minors’ substantial evidence claim is governed by the same standard applicable to adult criminal cases. In reviewing the 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.

Evidence that merely raises a strong suspicion of the defendant’s guilt is not sufficient to support a conviction. Suspicion is not evidence, it merely raises a possibility, and this is not a sufficient basis for an inference of fact. The substantial evidence rule mandates consideration of the weight of the evidence before deferring to the conclusions drawn from the evidence by the trier of fact.

In determining whether the record is sufficient the appellate court can give credit only to substantial evidence, i.e., evidence that reasonably inspires confidence and is of solid value. Mere conjecture, surmise, or suspicion is not the equivalent of reasonable inference and does not constitute proof.

Authority:

In re V.V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1020, 1026

People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 307-308

Second Holding:

An aider and abettor is one who acts with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent or purpose either of committing, or of encouraging or facilitating commission of, the offense.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2014) 60 Cal.4th 603, 611

Third Holding:

The possibility that the minor stole the sweater or otherwise aided and abetted the theft is insufficient. Accordingly, no substantial evidence supports the true findings.

Authority:

People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 307

In re Leanna W. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 735, 741, 744 [where liquor was missing and property was damaged after the minor hosted a party at her grandmother’s home while her grandmother was away, no substantial evidence supported burglary and vandalism findings because the fact that the minor was present when the liquor was used does not show that she actually consumed it, much less that she had the specific intent to take it when she entered the house and there is no evidence that the minor was the person who damaged or destroyed the property]

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000481

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Denial of the petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 is reversed, and the matter is remanded for the court to redetermine whether petitioner acted with reckless indifference to human life, taking into consideration his youth at the time of the offense. We also conclude substantial evidence does not support the court’s finding that petitioner aided and abetted the murder with intent to kill and the denial of the petition therefore cannot be upheld on this alternative ground.

First Holding:

Although petitioner briefly argued in the superior court that his youth should be considered in the court’s analysis of whether he was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, the superior court did not address this argument. Indeed, the superior court may have felt compelled to conclude, based on the state of the law at the time, that petitioner’s youth was not a relevant factor, given that petitioner was a young adult at the time he committed the offense and not a juvenile.

We continue to find there was substantial evidence for the trial court to conclude that the defendant acted with indifference of human life, but pending this appeal, there have been cases that squarely hold that the court should consider youth of a nonjuvenile in that determination.

If we do not address this issue, petitioner may be able to file a second petition for resentencing in the superior court to have the court consider his youth as part of the totality of circumstances bearing on whether he acted with reckless indifference to human life. In the interests of justice and for the sake of judicial economy, we address this argument on the merits. We conclude that petitioner is entitled to a new evidentiary hearing to apply new law relating to the effect, if any, of his youth on the court’s reckless indifference finding.

Authority:

People v. Jimenez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 994, 1008

Second Holding:

We review the court’s findings for substantial evidence. Under this standard, we review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner acted with reckless indifference.

Authority:

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

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 885

Third Holding:

In the first stage of this appeal–before review was granted and the matter was transferred back to this court–petitioner raised the argument (that the court should take into consideration the defendant’s youth) in his reply brief for the first time. Ordinarily, we do not consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief. As such, this argument was not addressed in our prior opinion.

Authority:

In re Luke H. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1090

Fourth Holding:

During the pendency of this appeal, the appellate court in Jones addressed the relevance of youth to the reckless indifference finding in a case involving a young adult who was 20 years old at the time of the offense.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1076, 1091–1093

Fifth Holding:

In Oliver, the appellate court assumed, without deciding, that the trial court was required to consider the petitioner’s youth (23 years of age) in reference to the petitioner’s mental state, but held that its failure to do so was harmless under the standard of Watson

Authority:

People v. Oliver (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 466, 488–489 and fn. 8

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

Sixth Holding:

In Pittman, the court applied the Watson standard and concluded there was a reasonable possibility the failure to consider the petitioner’s youth impacted the trial court’s decision. The court noted inferences of immaturity could be drawn from the fact that the petitioner was 21 years old when he participated in the attack with two peers who were 16 and 17 years old. Additionally, the crime suggested the participants acted impulsively, under the influence of rashness, and while intoxicated. Thus, the court determined the interests of justice were best served by remanding for the court to consider whether youth impacted the petitioner’s ability to form the requisite mental state for second degree murder.

Authority:

People v. Pittman (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 400, 417-418

Seventh Holding:

In Jiminez, the appellate court agreed that there had been a significant change in the law governing young adult offenders since the ruling on the first petition, and therefore the doctrines of collateral estoppel and law of the case did not apply. In this regard, the court noted that early cases addressing this issue of a petitioner’s youth applied only to juvenile offenders under the age of 18, and only to the major participant and reckless indifference findings.

Thereafter, however, the law was expanded to hold that youth was a consideration for other mental state requirements, including implied malice, and additionally expanded to include young adults who were in their late teens and early 20’s when they committed the crimes. Additionally, the Legislature had enacted similar changes to a variety of statutes to expand youth-related considerations to persons 25 years of age and younger. The court also determined that the error in failing to consider the petitioner’s age was not harmless under the Watson standard.

Authority:

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

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000480

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by failing to apply Penal Code section 1170(h)(5)(A) and (B), regarding mandatory supervision, after sentencing the defendant to county jail.

First Holding:

Punishment for a conviction of possession for sale of methamphetamine is governed by section 1170(h), which provides that punishment shall be by imprisonment in county jail. Although the section 12022(c) firearm enhancement directed imprisonment in state prison, section 1170(h)(9) required the sentence to be punishable as directed by the underlying offense. Under section 1170(h)(5)(A) and (B), a court imposing a sentence under subdivision (h)(1) must suspend execution of a concluding portion of the term for a period selected at the court’s discretion, known as mandatory supervision, unless it finds, in the interest of justice, that it is not appropriate in a particular case.

This section creates a statutory presumption in favor of the imposition of a period of mandatory supervision in all applicable cases, and, if the court denies mandatory supervision, it must state its reasons on the record. Given that the court ordered a term of imprisonment in county jail under section 1170(h), it is appropriate to remand for resentencing for consideration of mandatory supervision.

Authority:

PEN 1170(h)

Second Holding:

After the date of offense in this matter, section 12022(c)(2) was amended and now provides for imprisonment in state prison as punishment for a violation with a firearm enhancement under that section, not under section 1170(h). Applying this statute retroactively would likely violate the ex post facto clause.

Authority:

PEN 12022(c)

U.S. Const., art. I, secs. 9, 10

People v. White (2017) 2 Cal.5th 349, 360 [A statute violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws if it increases the punishment for a crime after it is committed]

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000479

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In this People’s appeal from the order of the juvenile court denying its motion to transfer the juvenile matter to adult court, the order retaining jurisdiction in juvenile court is affirmed, even though the respondent is well over 25 years of age.

First Holding:

We review the juvenile court’s ruling on a transfer motion for abuse of discretion. The court’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. A decision based on insufficient evidence or the court’s erroneous understanding of applicable law is subject to reversal. But we do not reweigh the evidence and we do not substitute our discretion for the discretion exercised by the trial court. We draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court’s findings, not against them. We are concerned only with whether the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings. When evidence reasonably justifies the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.

Authority:

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165, 169

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 187

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 211

Second Holding:

The ultimate question for the juvenile court in a transfer petition is whether a minor is amenable to rehabilitation before the juvenile court’s jurisdiction expires. To order a minor’s transfer to a court of criminal jurisdiction, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which for persons 25 years or older extends for up to two years from the date of disposition. the prosecution bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 607(d) [The court may retain jurisdiction over a person who is 25 years of age or older for a period not to exceed two years from the date of disposition if the person is found to be a person described in Section 602 by reason of the commission of an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707. The court shall exercise jurisdiction in conformance with the objectives of the juvenile court.]

WIC 707(a)(3)

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 416

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 167

Third Holding:

In making that determination, the juvenile court must consider five specific factors. The statute also sets forth a nonexhaustive list of relevant factors for the juvenile court to consider with respect to each of the five criteria. If the juvenile court orders a transfer to criminal court, it must recite the basis for its decision in an order entered upon the minutes, which shall include the reasons supporting the court’s finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(3)

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 212

Fourth Holding:

The language used in a statute or constitutional provision should be given its ordinary meaning, and if the language is clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, nor is it necessary to resort to indicia of the intent of the Legislature (in the case of a statute) or of the voters (in the case of a provision adopted by the voters). Courts generally must accord significance, if possible, to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of the legislative purpose, and a construction making some words surplusage is to be avoided.

The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible. We examine statutory language, not in isolation, but in the context of the statutory framework as a whole to discern its scope and purpose and to harmonize the various parts of the enactment.

Authority:

People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 357

Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735

Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment and Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1387

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 975

Fifth Holding:

Language in a judicial opinion is to be understood in accordance with the facts and issues before the court. An opinion is not authority for propositions not considered. Thus, a decision is authority only for the points actually involved and actually decided.

Authority:

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 154–155

People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 110

Sixth Holding:

Failure to offer reasoned analysis of an issue constitutes a waiver. When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived. The People’s failure to develop a legal analysis that is tethered to the issue they raised and is supported by relevant authority compels rejection of their claim of error. We will not develop that analysis for them.

Authority:

Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) [Each brief must state each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority]

Trinity Risk Management, LLC v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc. (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 995, 1008

Perry v. City of San Diego (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 172, 188, fn. 8 [It is not this court’s role to connect the dots]

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000478

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Before jury selection, the defendant requested mental health diversion. The trial court denied the request as untimely. This was error. The judgment is conditionally reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court to consider defendant’s application for mental health diversion under section 1001.36. If the trial court grants diversion and defendant successfully completes mental health diversion, the court shall dismiss the charges. If the court denies defendant’s application for mental health diversion, or if defendant does not successfully complete diversion, then the court shall reinstate the judgment and sentence.

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 authorizes pretrial mental health diversion for defendants with qualifying mental health disorders. The trial court must find a defendant is both eligible and suitable for diversion.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s order denying mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. 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. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448-449

Third Holding:

In a jury trial, to be timely, a request for diversion must be made before attachment of jeopardy. The defendant is deemed to have been placed in jeopardy when the jurors have been impaneled and sworn. Here, the jury had not been impaneled or sworn when defendant requested mental health diversion. The trial court abused its discretion in denying his unopposed request for mental health diversion solely on the ground that it was untimely.

Authority:

People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 819

People v. Fields (1996) 13 Cal.4th 289, 299

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000477

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing under section 1172.75 for recall of sentence and resentencing, the trial court failed to conduct a full resentencing because it limited resentencing to only one of the several cases consolidated into an aggregate sentence. The defendant had been sentenced in the 1990s in two separate sentencing hearings involving multiple cases. Only one of the cases was enhanced by a now invalid prior prison term enhancement. That case made him eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75. The trial court conducted a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75 on only that single case, and declined to resentence on the others. The trial court should have conducted a full resentencing that reconsidered sentencing choices in all five cases in the late 1995 aggregate sentence.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75(a) provides thatany sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense is legally invalid. Once the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) identifies those persons currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a) to the sentencing court, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. Here, defendant’s sentence was subject to recall and resentencing because the CDCR identified his now invalid prison prior.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(b), (c)

Second Holding:

On recall of his sentence, defendant was entitled to a full resentencing that included all aspects of his aggregate sentence. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements. Section 1172.75(d)(2) specifies that the court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

When a sentence is subject to recall, the resentencing court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the sentence, and not just the portion subjected to the recall. Where there are multiple counts and discretionary decisions at play, the trial court may consider the entire sentencing scheme and reconsider all sentencing choices. This includes an aggregate prison term, which is not a series of separate, independent terms, but one term made up of interdependent components. The invalidity of one component infects the entire scheme.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402

People v. Hill (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 831, 834

People v. Walker (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 198, 206

People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562, 568

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

People v. Marcus (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 201, 214

Third Holding:

Defendant’s sentence is an aggregate prison term comprised of five separate cases. Even though defendant only referenced the one of the 1995 sentences instead of both of the 1995 sentences, the trial court mistakenly believed it was limited to resentencing defendant on the narrow portion of his sentence that included the prison prior. Defendant’s sentence contains interdependent component parts from multiple cases. Therefore, the court erred by treating the portion of the sentence with the invalid prison prior as an independent, separate term, rather than an integral part of the whole and reconsidering every aspect of the sentencing scheme as required. The trial court should have conducted a full resentencing that reconsidered sentencing choices in all five cases in the later 1995 aggregate sentence.

Authority:

People v. Hill (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 831, 834

People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562, 568

People v. Marcus (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 201, 214