Author Archives: Gary McCurdy

Due process, Duty of the court, Standard of review

Case: 000380

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We review an order denying the defendants motion to vacate his conviction based on newly discovered evidence of factual innocence, pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7(a)(2). We reverse the order because the defendant was entitled to a hearing in the trial court to consider his eligibility for relief under section 1473.7(d).

First Holding:

The construction and interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we consider de novo on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Fryhaat (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 969, 975

Second Holding:

Section 1473.7 expressly provides that a person who is no longer in criminal custody may file a motion to vacate a conviction or sentence based on newly discovered evidence of actual innocence that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence as a matter of law or in the interests of justice. Persons who file a section 1473.7 motion are entitled to a hearing on the merits of the motion, per subdivision (d): “All motions shall be entitled to a hearing.” The plain language of section 1473.7 also entitles the moving party to be personally present at the hearing. However, upon the request of the moving party, the court may hold the hearing without the personal presence of the moving party provided that it finds good cause as to why the moving party cannot be present.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7

Third Holding:

As to appointment of counsel on the defendant’s behalf, the trial court was required to determine whether his petition stated a prima facie case for relief. If a prima facie case has been made, appointment of counsel is demanded by due process concerns. Here, the trial court summarily denied the petition without addressing entitlement to counsel and whether the defendant had presented a prima facie case for relief. The court reviewed only a handwritten one-page motion that it determined fails to cite to a basis for the relief without reviewing the entirety of the defendant’s 42-page motion.

Authority:

People v. Fryhaat (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 969, 981, 983

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000379

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2023 a jury convicted the defendant of, among other things, receiving a stolen vehicle and operating a chop shop. On appeal, the defendant seeks to vacate the former conviction because it is a lesser included offense of the latter. The People agree. We agree with the parties, reverse the conviction, and remand for resentencing.

First Holding:

In California, a single act or course of conduct by a defendant can lead to convictions of any number of the offenses charged. But a judicially created exception to this rule prohibits multiple convictions based on necessarily included offenses. In deciding whether an offense is necessarily included in another, we apply the elements test, asking whether all the legal ingredients of the corpus delicti of the lesser offense are included in the elements of the greater offense. In other words, if a crime cannot be committed without also necessarily committing a lesser offense, the latter is a lesser included offense within the former. Where defendant is convicted of a greater and an included offense, the conviction for the included offense must be reversed.

Authority:

People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031, 1034

People v. King (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 472, 475

Second Holding:

Receiving stolen property is a lesser included offense of operating a chop shop. The elements of receiving stolen property are (1) stolen property; (2) knowledge that the property was stolen; and (3) possession of the stolen property. Operating a chop shop requires the same elements but adds the further requirement that the defendant intentionally own or operate a place in which such stolen property is altered, destroyed, disassembled, dismantled, reassembled, or stored in order to change their identity or to sell them. Accordingly, all of the elements of receiving stolen property are necessarily included in running a chop shop where, as here, it is clear from the information that the stolen property alleged to have been received is the same property, i.e., the stolen motor vehicles, that constitute the chop shop violation.

Authority:

People v. King (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 472, 476

Third Holding:

Because we reverse one of the defendant’s convictions, we must also remand to allow the trial court to conduct a full resentencing based on the surviving convictions.

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000378

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court resentenced the defendant under section 1172.75 by striking the now-invalid prior prison term enhancements but concluded he was not eligible for further relief under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. Reversed.

Holding:

Under section 1172.75, the court must resentence an eligible defendant. The resentencing must result in a lesser sentence than originally imposed unless the court is convinced by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety. The court must 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.

Thus, the court must apply the ameliorative provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act unless it finds that reduction would “pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” as that phrase is construed in the context of Three Strikes Reform Act. If the superior court does not determine that resentencing the defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety and the defendant is otherwise eligible under the Reform Act, the court shall resentence the defendant] pursuant to the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act.

Authority:

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

Appellate Principles, Plea bargains, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000377

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In exchange for the defendant’s plea, the People dismissed nine other counts and the parties stipulated to a sentence between the range of five and 13 years in prison. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred by imposing the upper term sentence of 13 years based on aggravating factors that he did not stipulate to and were not found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial. We agree and reverse the judgment and remand for resentencing. The defendant may stipulate to the factors in aggravation. If he chooses not to stipulate, he may demand a trial by jury or court, at which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravating factors. Unless the defendant stipulates to the factors in aggravation, if the prosecution does not prove them at trial, the court must impose a sentence no greater than the middle term.

First Holding:

Although the failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause generally bars an appeal following a guilty plea, a certificate of probable cause is not required to raise on appeal a claim, such as the one the defendant presents here, regarding proceedings held subsequent to the plea for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed.

Authority:

PEN 1237.5

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780, 790–791

Second Holding:

A defendant may waive the right to appeal as part of a plea bargain where the waiver is knowing, intelligent and voluntary. A broad or general waiver of appeal rights ordinarily includes error occurring before but not after the waiver because the defendant could not knowingly and intelligently waive the right to appeal any unforeseen or unknown future error. Thus, a waiver of appeal rights does not apply to possible future error, including sentencing error, that is outside the defendant’s contemplation and knowledge at the time the waiver is made.

Waiver is ordinarily a question of fact. The burden is on the party claiming the existence of the waiver to prove it by evidence that does not leave the matter to speculation, and doubtful cases will be resolved against a waiver. The right of appeal should not be considered waived or abandoned except where the record clearly establishes it. There is no dispute that when the defendant entered his plea he gave up his right to appeal any sentence stipulated in the plea agreement. Such a waiver may preclude an appellate challenge to the trial court’s imposition of a specific prison term that was stipulated in the plea agreement. What we must determine here, however, is whether the scope of such a waiver also includes a challenge to a trial court’s choice of a sentencing term from a stipulated range.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934, 940–941

People v. Vargas (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1653, 1661-1662

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 72–73, 85–86

Third Holding:

Buttram is instructive on the issue of waiver of the right to appeal. In considering this issue, the court distinguished Buttram’s case from cases involving plea agreements stipulating to a specified sentence, and found persuasive the argument that a negotiated plea term which provides for a maximum sentence, rather than a specified sentence, necessarily contemplates further adversary proceedings, in which the court must exercise its discretion to determine the appropriate sentence within the constraints of the bargain.

The court further reasoned that, when the parties negotiate a maximum sentence, they obviously mean something different than if they had bargained for a specific or recommended sentence. By agreeing only to a maximum sentence, the parties leave unresolved between themselves the appropriate sentence within the maximum. Finally, in determining Buttram’s appeal challenging the imposition of the maximum sentence was not precluded by his guilty plea, the court reasoned that an agreement for something other than a specified sentencing term, by its nature, contemplates that the court will choose from among a range of permissible sentences within the maximum, and that abuses of this discretionary sentencing authority will be reviewable on appeal, as they would otherwise be.

Authority:

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 782, 785, 790–791

Fourth Holding:

Here, the defendant stipulated to a sentencing range that set both the minimum and the maximum sentence but did not specify the exact sentence to be imposed. Nothing in the plea agreement dictates the terms by which the trial court would determine what sentence to impose from within the stipulated range. And nothing in the plea agreement stipulates that the trial court, in making its sentencing decision, would not be bound by section 1170(b), or the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which limit the ability of a trial court to impose an upper term sentence absent sufficient proof of aggravating factors.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(1) and (2)

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281 [under the Sixth Amendment, any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by a jury, not a judge, and established beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence]

Fifth Holding:

Section 1170(b) generally provides that a sentence may not exceed the middle term, except when it finds aggravating circumstances justify a higher sentence. Both section 1170(b) and the Sixth Amendment require that these aggravating factors be stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury or court trial. A court does not have discretion to impose an upper term sentence unless all the aggravating factors on which it relies have been sufficiently proven.

Authority:

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 759 [An upper term sentence may be imposed only when circumstances in aggravation justify that term, and only when the facts underlying those justifying circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury or court trial]

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1086

Sixth Holding:

The Courts of Appeal have split on the issue of whether a defendant, who stipulated to an upper term sentence pursuant to a plea agreement, is entitled to remand for consideration of the aggravating factors under section 1170, subdivision (b)(2), and the Supreme Court has granted review on this issue.

Gary LONG note: In this Sixth Holding, the appellate court is alluding to People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, although it does not actually mention Stamps. Stamps holds that if a defendant insists on taking advantage of ameliorative provisions in a case where the plea bargain specified the sentence, and the trial court changes the sentence based on those ameliorative provisions, either the prosecution or the court may set aside the original plea bargain entirely if not satisfied with the new sentence. But given a new statute, I wonder whether Stamps is still good law. (That is a “wonder if,” not a “statement of law.”) Effective 1/1/2025, section 1171 was enacted to give courts guidance on how to handle various amerliorative statutes.

Take a look at the excerpt from 1171(c)(3):

Penal Code section 1171(a): For the purposes of this section, “postconviction proceeding” means a proceeding to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute. Ameliorative statutes include, but are not limited to, sections 1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75.

…

(c) The following shall apply for all postconviction proceedings unless there is a conflict with a more specific rule established in statute, in which case the more specific statute shall apply: … (3) Any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement.

…

(e) This section does not diminish the ability of the prosecution to oppose relief requested in a postconviction proceeding.

…

(f) This section shall not be interpreted to authorize anything prohibited by an initiative statute.

On 5/18/2026, Mitchell (shown in this list of authorities relied on in the case) was decided by the Supreme Court. People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729. The Supreme Court did not rely on section 1171, but instead remanded for the procedure it outlined in Stamps–if the defendant gets what he wants, and the DA or the court is not happy with the modification, then the plea must be set aside. In its footnote 9, however, it stated,

“Shortly before oral argument, counsel for Mitchell filed a letter with this court identifying section 1171 as a new authority. Section 1171, effective January 1, 2025 … sets forth procedures governing a ‘postconviction proceeding,’ which the statute defines as ‘a proceeding to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute. Ameliorative statutes include, but are not limited to, Sections 1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75.’ … At oral argument, counsel for Mitchell urged that this statutory definition broadly encompasses a remand to the trial court in the context of a direct appeal under the authority of section 1170(b) and Estrada. We decline to consider this argument because we have concluded that Mitchell is entitled to a remand under our established precedent in Stamps. We express no view on the applicability of section 1171 to this case or how it might affect the options described above. Mitchell may raise this issue in the Court of Appeal or the trial court in the first instance.”

I suspect the Supreme Court wanted to see how the lower courts are treating section 1171 before it chooses to weigh in. While I do not know if that IS what the Supreme Court had in mind, I think there is value in that approach from the perspective of establishing the law. When major issues are briefed by multiple attorneys in several different cases, and Courts of Appeal arrive at their decisions through their own means of arriving at a legal conclusion, it gives the broadest perspective for the Supreme Court to decide what makes the most sense. I repeat, that’s just my opinion.

I also want to point out that In People v. Montgomery (no longer a published opinion, but it was originally published at 100 Cal.App.5th 768 before the Supreme Court granted review and ultimately ordered the opinion to be depublished), the Supreme Court had before it a question on whether Stamps applied. The Court of Appeal had concluded that relief under section 1172.75 would not permit the DA or trial court from vacating the plea agreement (i.e., a NON-Stamps approach). In December 2024, just before section 1171 was to go in effect on January 1, 2025, the Supreme Court transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal in light of section 1171. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal issued an unpublished opinion in which it essentially affirmed its previous result–modification under section 1172.75 would not result in the plea being set aside in light of section 1171.

And if I may quote from Paul Harvey, “And now you know … the rest of the story.”

Authority:

People v. De La Rosa Burgara (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1054, 1063, review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283452 [defendant entitled to remand]

People v. Todd (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 373, 381–382, review granted Apr. 26, 2023, S279154 [same]

People v. Fox (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 826, 831 [same]

People v. Mitchell (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1051, 1057–1059, review granted Dec. 14, 2022, S277314 [defendant not entitled to remand]

People v. Sallee (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 330, 340–341, review granted Apr. 26, 2023, S278690 [same]

People v. Kelly (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 1, 4, review granted Mar. 22, 2023, S278503 [same]

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000376

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the 2024 resentencing hearing under section 1172.5 pertaining to the defendant’s 2007 conviction, the court imposed a $5000 restitution fine, reducing the $10,000 restitution fine imposed in 2007. Since 10 years had lapsed since the original imposition of a restitution fine, it must be vacated.

First Holding:

Upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Second Holding:

Section 1465.9(d), applies retroactively to the defendant’s reopened sentence. The restitution fine was first imposed nearly 20 years ago and is now unenforceable and uncollectible under section 1465.9(d).

Authority:

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744-745 [absent evidence to the contrary, we presume ameliorative criminal statutes apply retroactively to all nonfinal judgments]

People v. Jennings (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 664, 681 [SB 136’s changes to section 667.5, former subdivision (b), applied retroactively to sentences that were not final at the time the law became effective]

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000375

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Two murders support only one special circumstance of multiple murders. We strike one of the two multiple-murder enhancements.

First Holding:

Two murders support only one multiple-murder special circumstance.

Authority:

People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394, 425

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case: 000374

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was not the actual killer in the 1995 crime, but the trial court denied his 1172.6 petition based on finding that he was a substantial participant in the underlying felony and thus could be convicted of felony murder even under current law. We do not find substantial evidence to support a finding that the defendant subjectively appreciated (knew) that his actions would likely result in the victim’s death death (i.e., reckless indifference to human life). Thus, we reverse the order of the trial court denying the defendant’s section 1172.6 petition. On remand, the trial court is directed to grant the petition, vacate the murder conviction, and resentence the defendant.

First Holding:

A person who did not kill or act with the intent to kill cannot be liable under a first degree felony-murder theory unless there is substantial evidence that the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and that they subjectively appreciated that their acts were likely to result in the taking of innocent life.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 893

Second Holding:

We accept the trial court’s findings to the extent they are supported by substantial evidence. 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. Breslin (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1415–1416

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

 

Third Holding:

Except for strict liability offenses, every crime has two components: (1) an act or omission, sometimes called the actus reus; and (2) a necessary mental state, sometimes called the mens rea. As to murder, the actus reus is the perpetrator’s act causing death, and the mens rea is malice aforethought. Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature passed SB 1437, which amended sections 188 and 189. The legislation effectively eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder, and narrowed the scope of the felony-murder rule. The legislation also created a procedure by which a defendant previously convicted of murder under either of those former theories could file a petition for resentencing.

The Legislature’s current version of the felony-murder rule now provides that a participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony listed in subdivision (a) in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven: (1) The person was the actual killer; (2) the person was not the actual killer, but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree; (3) the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

PEN 189

PEN 1172.6.

People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1117

Fourth Holding:

For felony-murder, the required act is being a major participant in the underlying felony, and the required mental state is a reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

PEN 189

Fifth Holding:

Ordinarily, the United States Supreme Court has held that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments requires a defendant to have either an express or implied intent to kill in order for the death penalty to apply. But as an exception, the Court held that major participation in the felony committed, combined with reckless indifference to human life, is sufficient to satisfy the Enmund culpability requirement.

Authority:

Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782, 797 [wheelman who did not participate in killing during armed robbery could not receive the death penalty]

Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137, 158

Sixth Holding:

In Banks, the California Supreme Court later identified a nonexclusive list of factors that are relevant in deciding whether a person was a major participant under the felony-murder special circumstance. The major participant factors identified in Banks are these: What role did the defendant have in planning the criminal enterprise that led to one or more deaths? What role did the defendant have in supplying or using lethal weapons? What awareness did the defendant have of particular dangers posed by the nature of the crime, weapons used, or past experience or conduct of the other participants? Was the defendant present at the scene of the killing, in a position to facilitate or prevent the actual murder, and did his or her own actions or inaction play a particular role in the death? What did the defendant do after lethal force was used?

No one of these considerations is necessary, nor is any one of them necessarily sufficient. All may be weighed in determining the ultimate question, whether the defendant’s participation in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death was sufficiently significant to be considered major.

Authority:

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 803

Seventh Holding:

In Clark, the Court identified a nonexclusive list of factors that are relevant in deciding whether a person acted with reckless indifference to human life: the defendant’s knowledge, and the use and number of weapons; the defendant’s proximity to the crime and opportunity to stop the killing or aid the victim; the duration of the conduct, that is, whether a murder came at the end of a prolonged period of restraint of the victims by defendant; the defendant’s awareness his or her confederate was likely to kill; and the defendant’s efforts to minimize the possibility of violence during the crime.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 618-623

Eighth Holding:

Reckless indifference encompasses both subjective and objective elements. As to the subjective element, the defendant must be aware of and willingly involved in the violent manner in which the particular offense is committed, and he or she must consciously disregard the significant risk of death his or her actions create. As to the objective element,the risk of death must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him or her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 884

Ninth Holding:

The degree of risk to human life is crucial to the analysis. The possibility of bloodshed is inherent in the commission of any violent felony, such that one who perpetrates or attempts to perpetrate such a crime may well anticipate the use of lethal force as a possibility. Were that degree of culpability sufficient, however, it would amount to little more than a restatement of the former felony-murder rule that the Legislature retired. Awareness of no more than the foreseeable risk of death inherent in any violent felony is insufficient to establish reckless indifference to human life; only knowingly creating a grave risk of death satisfies the statutory requirement.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 884

Tenth Holding:

Participation in a “garden-variety armed robbery,” i.e., one in which the only factor supporting a reckless indifference finding is that a participant was armed with a gun, is insufficient without more to establish reckless indifference. Although any person who plans or participates in an armed robbery can be said to anticipate that lethal force might be used, only about 1 in 200 armed robberies result in death.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 884

Eleventh Holding:

Courts must conduct a fact-intensive, individualized inquiry into where a defendant’s conduct falls on the spectrum of culpability between Enmund (the wheelman who merely participated in the underlying felony) and Tison (the defendants who armed escaped convicts and whose actions over a prolonged period demonstrated that they knew that the escapees were likely to kill).

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 882-883

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000373

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred when it imposed the upper term based on aggravating facts that did not conform with the jury trial requirements under section 1170(b).

First Holding:

The Sixth Amendment provides that those accused of a crime have the right to a trial by an impartial jury. This right, in conjunction with the due process clause, requires that each element of a crime be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 476

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 742

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281

Second Holding:

In 2022, section 1170(b) was amended to prohibit imposition of an upper term sentence unless aggravating circumstances justify that term and the facts underlying any such circumstance, other than a prior conviction, 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. Section 1170(b)(3) states that the court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 742

Third Holding:

In considering a prior conviction, a judge may do no more than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of. 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. Only when aggravating facts have been proven as the Constitution requires may the court then rely on them to conclude, in its discretion, that those facts justify an upper term.

Absent an admission or a jury trial waiver, a trial court cannot determine whether a defendant’s prior convictions were of increasing seriousness or that his probation or parole performance was poor. The defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1083-1086

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 82

Fourth Holding:

When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review. A sentence imposed under section 1170(b)] must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

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

Fifth Holding:

Although the minute order indicates defendant entered into a valid waiver to a jury trial, the reporter’s transcript does not reflect that the trial court advised defendant of his right to a jury trial and did not obtain a valid and informed waiver of that right. The People concede the court erred by not obtaining defendant’s waiver to a jury trial or stipulation to the aggravating facts. We agree that the court erred when it found both aggravating facts true without obtaining defendant’s stipulation or waiver of his right to a jury trial.

Authority:

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 169 [defendant’s waiver of the right to jury trial must be expressed in words and will not be implied from a defendant’s conduct]

People v. Washington (1949) 95 Cal.App.2d 454, 458–459 [a defendant’s waiver of the right to jury trial must be personally expressed in open court; an entry in the clerk’s minutes is not enough]

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000372

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to conclude that the defendant was not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75.. The court, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney all based their arguments and decisions on the understanding that the now-invalid prior prison term had been stricken by the appellate court in a prior appeal for reasons other than those eligible for striking under PEN 1172.75. The parties misunderstood the facts. While it is true that one prior prison term was stricken by the appellate court, there were two prior prison terms, only one of which had been stricken. Thus, when the defendant filed his PEN 1172.75 petition, he was eligible for resentencing, because he was a person described in PEN 1172.75.

First Holding:

(GARY NOTE: I decided to include this victory not so much because of its legal authorities so much as just a reminder of the importance of counsel to actually investigate the case. The parties all seemed to assume that there was one prior prison term, and that it had been stricken as a result of a prior appeal. As it happens, it was stricken because it had been used to enhance the sentence as both a prior serious felony under PC 667 and as a prior prison term under PC 667.5, whereas the law permits it to be used only once, per Jones. But the parties and the trial court missed the fact that the defendant had two prior prison terms, only one of which had been dismissed in the prior appeal.

(In my opinion, that should have been discovered far earlier than on the appeal from the denial of the PC 1172.75 petition because of a misunderstanding of the facts, particularly once the number of prior convictions became an issue when the prosecutor asserted that the defendant was not eligible. I do concede I do not know what occurred in and out of the lower court. But the Court of Appeal, which does not engage in investigation of matters outside the record on appeal, was able to determine the existence of the qualifying prior prison term just by reading the prior opinion from 2016, which states (in part and paraphrased), “The information also alleged that defendant suffered a conviction in case No. xxxxxxx, a serious felony conviction in case No. xxxxxx, and two prison convictions, one in case No. xxxxxxx, and one in case No. xxxxxx (Pen. Code, sec. 667.5(b).”)

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Jones (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1142, 1150

Second Holding:

It is unclear from the record as originally filed how the section 1172.75 proceedings had been initiated. Section 1172.75 does not authorize a defendant to seek resentencing on his or her own motion or petition. Rather the process is triggered by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR] identifying a defendant as a person serving a sentence that includes a prior prison term enhancement. On our own motion, we took judicial notice of a CDCR list, which identifies individuals potentially eligible for section 1172.75 relief; defendant’s name appears on that list.

Authority:

People v. Cota (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 318, 332

People v. Newell (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 265, 268

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 382 [Lower and appellate courts lack jurisdiction over a request for section 1172.75 relief brought solely by a defendant]

Third Holding:

Any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid. Section 1172.75 entitles a defendant to resentencing if the underlying judgment includes a prior-prison-term enhancement that was imposed before January 1, 2020, regardless of whether the enhancement was then executed or instead stayed.

Authority:

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

Discretion, Standard of review

Case: 000371

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court improperly denied the defendant’s request for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36 by applying the wrong standard in determining that he did not satisfy the statute’s public safety requirement. Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the judgment and remand to the trial court.

First Holding:

A trial court may grant a defendant pretrial mental health diversion if the defendant has a qualifying mental health disorder. The court has discretion to grant pretrial diversion if the defendant satisfies the eligibility requirements for pretrial diversion set forth in the statute and the court finds that the defendant is suitable for that diversion under the factors set forth in the statute. A defendant is eligible for pretrial diversion if (1) the defendant has been diagnosed with a qualifying mental disorder; and (2) the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 626–627

Second Holding:

For any defendant who satisfies the eligibility requirements, the court must then find the defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion if all the following criteria are met: (1) In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, 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 consents to diversion and waives the defendant’s right to a speedy trial; (3) The defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; (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)

Third Holding:

Section 1170.18, in turn, defines “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” as an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv). Thus, a trial court must determine whether the defendant is likely to commit an offense known colloquially as a “super strike.” Qualifying super strikes include murder, attempted murder, solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a police officer, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, and any serious or violent felony punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Authority:

PEN 1170.18(c)

PEN 667(e)(2)(C)(iv)

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1149, 1150-1151

People v. Bunas (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 840, 851, fn. 11

Fourth Holding:

Mental health diversion is discretionary, not mandatory, even if all the requirements are met. But this residual discretion must be exercised consistently with the principles and purpose of the law, which 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.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(a)

PEN 1001.35

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1080

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

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on a petition for pretrial 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. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448–449

Sixth Holding:

The trial court’s comments, coupled with the fact the court did not expressly find a likelihood that the defendant would commit a super strike, suggest the court was expanding the meaning of “public safety” in section 1001.36 beyond the likelihood that the defendant will commit a limited subset of violent felonies. This was improper.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 450

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896–897 [trial courts cannot create an alternative meaning of ‘public safety’ inconsistent with sec. 1001.36(c)(4)]

Seventh Holding:

We do not find the Watson standard of prejudice applicable here. Under the Watson test, an error is harmless unless it is reasonably probable the outcome would have been different in the absence of the error. The Watson standard is appropriate in circumstances where the trial court understood the nature of its discretion but, for example, relied on an improper factor in exercising that discretion or failed to state its reasoning. It does not apply where the court was unaware of the extent of its lawful authority in a particular context, because determining what choice the trial court is likely to make in the first instance is far more speculative.

Because the record suggests the trial court did not understand that its discretion in deciding the defendant’s motion was constrained by section 1001.36’s narrow definition of public safety, we cannot be confident that the court was aware of the scope of its discretion under section 1001.36. Defendants are entitled to decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion” of the court. A court that is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers cannot exercise that informed discretion. The appropriate remedy in such circumstances is to remand unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion. The Watson standard is thus inapplicable.

Authority:

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

People v. McDaniels (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 420, 426

In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 716

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391

People v. Doron (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1, 9–10 [concluding remand was required under Gutierrez where trial court did not apply correct standard in denying defendant’s motion for mental health diversion]

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 774 [Gutierrez standard applied where trial court was unaware that its discretion to select a prison sentence was constrained by a presumption against the upper term]

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000370

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the trial court to deny the defendant’s second petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 as successive, because there were changes in the statutory law between the first and the second. Remanded for the court’s consideration of the second petition.

Holding:

The defendant maintains that changes in statutory and decisional law after the denial of his first resentencing petition dictate that it not be accorded preclusive effect. On the merits, he argues that the jury’s verdict does not conclusively establish he is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. Asserting that his conviction for first degree murder may have been based on the felony murder rule, he contends he has made a prima facie case for relief and is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The Attorney General appropriately concedes error.

Because there were several applicable changes to the law since the denial of appellant’s first petition, the second petition was not barred under principles of collateral estoppel. These include amendments to the statute limiting reliance on a prior appellate opinion to the procedural history of the case and providing that substantial evidence to support a murder conviction is insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is ineligible for resentencing. Further, caselaw has clarified that at the prima facie stage, a trial court must not engage in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.

Authority:

PC 1172.6(d)(3)

People v. Jimenez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 994, 1005

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 972

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000369

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred in failing to conduct a full resentencing. The court erred in its calculation of custody credits, both as to postsentence conduct credits and credits for days in actual custody. The abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment as to the restitution fines and the victim restitution order.

First Holding:

When a defendant is convicted of an offense, a sentencing court has a duty to render judgment and impose the penalty authorized by law. Judgment is rendered when the trial court orally pronounces sentence. In rendering the judgment, the court must pronounce sentence on each count for which the defendant sustained a conviction. The failure to pronounce a sentence for each conviction results in an unauthorized sentence that can be corrected at any time.

Authority:

PEN 12

People v. Martinez (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1012

People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344, fn. 9

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 994

People v. Price (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1405, 1411, fn. 6

Second Holding:

At the resentencing hearing following our remand in the earlier appeal, the trial court addressed only the errors we identified in our opinion. Our remand order was not so limited. It was for a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Smith (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1003, 1008, abrogated on another ground by People v. Bullock (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 985

Third Holding:

The trial court’s statements suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the effect of our order vacating the defendant’s sentence and remanding for a full sentencing, which was the nullification of the previous sentence. Because the prior sentence no longer existed, the court had to construct an entirely new sentence. By failing to orally pronounce a sentence on the nine counts for which it stayed the sentences at the original sentencing, the court failed to render judgment on all of the defendant’s convictions, resulting in an unauthorized sentence. When the trial court stated it was excluding counts it had previously stayed under section 654, the trial court used the term concurrent in connection with section 654. But where section 654 applies, it precludes any multiple punishment, consecutive or concurrent.

Authority:

People v. Rouse (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 292, 297

People v. Price (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1405, 1411, fn. 6

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 994

People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 594

Fourth Holding:

Generally, when an unauthorized sentence is discovered on appeal, a reviewing court affirms the defendant’s conviction and remands the case for the trial court to pronounce a sentence consistent with the verdict.

Authority:

People v. Taylor (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 349, 353

Fifth Holding:

Our order for a full resentencing necessarily encompasses calculating the defendant’s custody credits and the appropriate assessments, fines, and restitution awards. When it resentenced the defendant, the trial court was required to credit her with all actual days she had spent in custody up to that time, including time in custody after the original sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424-425

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37

Sixth Holding:

A trial court is required to include all aspects of a judgment in its oral pronouncement. That includes fines and direct victim restitution. The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order and the abstract of judgment. Upon a defendant’s request, the trial court must hold a hearing on the defendant’s ability to pay before imposing ancillary costs, like the court operations assessment (sec. 1465.8(a)(1)) and the court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373).

Authority:

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

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

People v. Rowland (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1745, 1751

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