Author Archives: Gary McCurdy

Discretion, Racial Justice Act, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000271

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The petition for writ of habeas corpus, construed as a petition for mandate, is granted. The defendant filed a petition under the Racial Justice Act (RJA) to challenge his conviction of 25 years earlier. He petition contained statistical data showing that the prosecution charged far more Black defendants for specified offenses than White defendants in that same three-year period. He sought counsel in his petition. The trial court denied it in its entirety.

The trial court erred in ruling that the defendant had to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief to secure appointment of counsel. Rather, to obtain counsel, the Racial Justice Act requires habeas petitioners to plead a plausible allegation of a violation of the Act. Second, the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request for counsel was erroneous because regardless of whether he satisfied the minimal pleading standard governing that request, the court was unaware of its discretion to grant him leave to amend the petition to plead a plausible allegation of a Racial Justice Act violation. Lastly, the trial court erred in invoking the prohibition on successive habeas petitions because the defendant was not required to address procedural bars to relief at this initial stage of the proceedings.

First Holding:

When the issue on review is purely legal, such as the proper interpretation and application of a statute or constitutional provision, our review is de novo. Our fundamental task in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate its purpose. We begin with the text of the statute and give the words their usual meaning while construing them in light of the statutory framework as a whole. If the statutory language is unambiguous, then its plain meaning controls. If the language permits more than one reasonable interpretation, courts may consider other aids, such as the statute’s purpose, legislative history, and public policy. Discretionary decisions by the trial court are generally subject to appellate review under the abuse of discretion standard to determine if they were within the bounds of some applicable legal criteria.

Authority:

In re Lugo (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1535

People v. Carter (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 960, 967

People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 998

Second Holding:

In 2020, the Legislature enacted the Racial Justice Act. The purpose of the Act is to purge racial discrimination from our criminal justice system, and to ensure that race plays no role at all in seeking or obtaining convictions or in sentencing’. In passing the Act, the Legislature recognized that racial bias persists in our criminal justice system because courts generally only address racial bias in its most extreme and blatant forms. The Act acknowledges that all persons possess implicit biases that impact the criminal justice system, and these biases tend to disfavor people of color. The RJA added section 745, which sets forth legal standards governing a claim for relief under the Act. The Act also amended section 1473, which identifies bases for prosecuting a petition for writ of habeas corpus, to add a subdivision governing the litigation of RJA claims.

Authority:

PEN 745

PEN 1473

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 39, 43

People v. Lawson (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 990, 993

Third Holding:

In the legislation amending section 1473(e) effective January 1, 2026, the Legislature emphasized the extremely low showing a petitioner must make to obtain counsel:  “The Act’s threshold to secure counsel is extremely low, and yet courts have denied counsel to litigants raising Racial Justice Act claims far more than they have appointed counsel The Legislature reaffirms that the threshold showing for appointment of counsel does not require a prima facie showing, as correctly held by McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, and should be construed as a minimal pleading requirement.”

Authority:

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33

Fourth Holding:

If the Legislature amends or reenacts the statute without changing the interpretation placed on that statute by the courts, the Legislature is presumed to have been aware of, and acquiesced in, the courts’ construction of that statute.

Authority:

People v. Brown (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1436

Fifth Holding:

The statute now requires the appointment of counsel for an indigent habeas petitioner if the petition pleads a plausible allegation of a violation of RJA, and obligates the court to determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing, instead of a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief.

Authority:

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 39, 44

Sixth Holding:

The trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request for appointment of counsel was erroneous because the court was unaware of its discretion to permit him to amend his petition to satisfy the minimal pleading burden governing his request for counsel. If the court’s decision is influenced by an erroneous understanding of applicable law or reflects an unawareness of the full scope of its discretion, the court has not properly exercised its discretion under the law. Therefore, a discretionary order based on an application of improper criteria or incorrect legal assumptions is not an exercise of informed discretion and is subject to reversal. Simply stated, an abuse of discretion arises if the trial court based its decision on impermissible factors or on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

People v. K.D. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1, 19

Amelioration, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case: 000270

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to deny the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.75. While review was still pending in the Supreme Court following the defendant’s appeal of his conviction, the trial court assumed jurisdiction and struck the prior prison term enhancement as directed by the Court of Appeal’s opiniion. More than a year later, the Calfiornia Department of Corrections and Rehabiltation advised that the defendant was on its list of inmates entitled to have their now-invalid prior prison term enhancements stricken. The court recalled the sentence under section 1172.75, but ultimately after the trial court discovered that it had already dismissed the now-invalid enhancement for a prior prison term, it concluded that the defendant was not eligible for resentencing. However, the trial court had no jurisdiction to strike the enhancement while the appeal was pending review in the Supreme Court.

First Holding:

Subject to limited exceptions, the filing of a valid notice of appeal vests jurisdiction of the cause in the appellate court until determination of the appeal and issuance of the remittitur. Remittitur transfers jurisdiction back to the inferior court so that it may act upon the case again, consistent with the judgment of the reviewing court. Until the remittitur issues, the lower court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the order or judgment on appeal. So complete is this loss of jurisdiction effected by the appeal that even the consent of the parties has been held ineffective to reinvest the trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal and that an order based upon such consent would be a nullity.

Authority:

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 554

People v. Scarbrough (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 916, 923

Gallenkamp v. Superior Court (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1, 10

People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1044

In re Lukasik (1951) 108 Cal.App.2d 438, 443

People v. Burhop (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 808, 813

Second Holding:

Because the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction to strike the sentencing enhancements when it did [while the matter was still on appeal], the court’s order is void and vulnerable to direct or collateral attack at any time. Because the order striking the prior conviction enhancement is void, the only judgment that applied to defendant’s case was the original judgment that included the section 667.5 enhancement. The court therefore erred when it declined to resentence defendant by striking the section 667.5 enhancement during a new resentencing hearing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(c), (d)(1), (d)(2)

People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 660

People v. Vasilyan (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 443, 450

People v. Green (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 365, 373

Discretion, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS

Case: 000269

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude the electronics search condition as currently framed is invalid under Lent and In re Ricardo P. We therefore strike the condition and remand the matter to the juvenile court to consider the imposition of a modified electronics search condition in conformance with Ricardo P. and this opinion.

First Holding:

A juvenile court is authorized to impose any reasonable conditions that it may determine fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced. Notably, the permissible scope of discretion in formulating terms of juvenile probation is even greater than that allowed for adults, given that juveniles are deemed to be more in need of guidance and supervision than adults and that the state stands in the shoes of the parents in caring for the minor’s well being when it asserts jurisdiction over the minor.

Authority:

WIC 730(b)

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 909–910

Second Holding:

This broad discretion, however, is not unlimited. A probation condition is invalid if it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. The Lent test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term. As the Supreme Court has explained, a condition of probation that requires or forbids conduct which is not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality.

Authority:

In re J.B. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 749, 754

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

Third Holding:

The first question is whether the minor’s use of an electronic device bore a relationship to his assault of the victim with force likely to produce great bodily injury. In the context of electronics search probation conditions, some Courts of Appeal have found that use of an electronic device is related to an offense when the device was used to commit, plan, or facilitate that offense. In this case there was no indication that the minor used an electronic device to commit, plan, or facilitate his assault of the victim.

Authority:

People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717, 719–720, 724 [electronic device was involved in the offense where defendant met his victim through social media]

People v. Castellanos (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 267, 270, 271, 275–276 [electronic devices involved in transportation of controlled substances where defendant had three cell phones in his car at the time of arrest and cell phones are frequently used in drug sales]

Fourth Holding:

Other Courts of Appeal have found that electronic devices were not related to an offense when the connection between electronic device usage and an offense was more tangential. For example, in Alonzo M., the mere fact that electronic devices were stolen during the minor’s commission of automobile burglaries and purse snatch robberies did not compel the conclusion that electronic devices related to these offenses. Similarly, in Amber K., the minor’s use of social media before and after a school fight was found to be insufficient to satisfy the first prong of Lent.

Authority:

In re Alonzo M. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 156, 158-164 [observing the condition could not be upheld under either of first two Lent prongs]

In re Amber K. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 559, 564–566

Fifth Holding:

As indicated, there appears no dispute the second prong of the Lent test has been met. And for good reason: it is well-established that there is nothing inherently illegal about using electronic devices.

Authority:

In re Amber K. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 559, 566

Sixth Holding:

The third prong of Lent requires that we assess whether the electronics search condition requires or forbids conduct that is not reasonably related to future criminality. The third prong of Lent contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition. An abstract or hypothetical relationship between the probation condition and preventing future criminality is insufficient. A condition can survive only when there is information in the record establishing a connection between the search condition and the probationer’s criminal conduct or personal history and when the burden imposed by the condition is proportionate to the legitimate interests served by that condition.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1121-1122

In re Alonzo M. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 156, 166

Seventh Holding:

Following Ricardo P. and Alonzo M., we conclude the broad-ranging electronics search condition burdens the minor’s privacy in a manner substantially disproportionate to the probation department’s legitimate interest in monitoring” his compliance with his probation terms, including the order to stay away from the victim.

Authority:

In re Alonzo M. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 156, 168

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees

Case: 000268

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment does not accurately state the sentence imposed. It reflects the imposition of a variety of fines and fees. The trial court struck all fines and fees pursuant to People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 [regarding inability to pay] and ordered that anything that could not be stricken be stayed. Although we will affirm the trial court’s orders, we will remand with directions to correct the abstract of judgment.

Holding:

[GARY NOTE: There was no authority indicated in the opinion for the correction of the abstract. The error is so obvious that it hardly seems necessary to provide authority. Nonetheless, there is authority the court could have cited. The appellate court may direct the trial court to correct clerical errors in an abstract of judgment.]

Authority:

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

Gary Note:

[Gary note: Duenas was disapproved by the California Supreme Court to the extent it was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Kopp. Kopp is a must-read on the issue of the obligation of trial courts AND of the defendant (or defense counsel) regarding whether to impose certain fines and fees and the nature of the challenges available to the defendant. I have included the citation to Kopp below for your convenience, but it was not mentioned in this decision. Because of the nature of the issues raised in the brief, it was not necessary for the Court of Appeal to revisit the action of the trial court regarding imposition and staying or striking of fines and fees. The only issue was the inaccuracy of the abstract of judgment.]

Authority:

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

Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000267

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Error and/or relief:
The trial court failed to calculate her presentence custody credits correctly. We agree the defendant is entitled to three additional days of presentence custody credit. We direct the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect the correct amount of credit and transmit it to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Holding:

[GARY NOTE: There was no authority indicated in the opinion for the correction of the credit for time served, likely because the error is so obvious. For sake of completeness, the following authorities would support the court’s ruling.]

Authority:

PEN 2900.5(d) [It is the duty of the court imposing the sentence to determine the date or dates of any admission to, and release from, custody prior to sentencing and the total number of days to be credited pursuant to this section. The total number of days to be credited shall be contained in the abstract of judgment provided for in Section 1213.]

People v. Smith (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 523 [A sentencing court must award credits for all days in custody up to and including the day of sentencing.]

People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 793 [At the time of sentencing, credit for time served, including conduct credit, is calculated by the court. The total number of days to be credited is memorialized in the abstract of judgment and shall be credited upon the defendant’s term of imprisonment. The credit in effect, becomes part of the sentence.]

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000266

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing on the defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.75, the trial court struck some of the enhancements, but resentenced him to a life term on the balance under the Three Strikes Law as before. Under subsequently decided case law, the trial court should have considered imposing a sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. The matter must be remanded for resentencing. In addition, the abstract of judgment must be corrected to including the correct custody credits.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 provides that once the trial court has confirmed that a defendant’s current judgment includes a prior prison term enhancement that is now legally invalid, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. In so doing, the trial court is directed to follow specific instructions while resentencing. For example, it provides that resentencing pursuant to this section shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety. Resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75 shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed. In addition, when resentencing, the court shall 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.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

The court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the defendant’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Third Holding:

In 2012, the electorate passed the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36), which amended the law to reduce the punishment prescribed for certain third strike defendants. The electorate additionally authorized persons presently serving an indeterminate term of life imprisonment imposed under the prior version of the Three Strikes law to seek resentencing under the amended penalty scheme by filing a petition for recall of sentence. If the petitioner would have qualified for a shorter sentence under the Reform Act version of the law, taking into consideration the disqualifying factors, section 1170.126 provides that he or she shall be resentenced pursuant to the Reform Act unless the court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The Act, therefore, enacted two kinds of reforms: prospective, by exempting some newly-charged defendants from an indeterminate term, and retrospective, by permitting resentencing for some already convicted

Authority:

PEN 1170.126

People v. Frierson (2017) 4 Cal.5th 225, 231

Fourth Holding:

In Guevara, the California Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a full resentencing under section 1172.75 also permitted the trial court to consider resentencing in accordance with the Reform Act. It held that, as a matter of constitutional avoidance, section 1172.75 must be construed as incorporating the public safety determination under section 1172.126 as a condition for nonserious, nonviolent felony offenders to obtain the benefit of the Reform Act during resentencing.

The court noted that the voters’ intention in passing the Reform Act, particularly by including the requirement of whether resentencing poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, was to strike a balance between reform and safety, and such an intention would be honored by interpreting section 1172.75 as incorporating section 1170.126’s public safety override. Therefore, if a defendant demonstrates eligibility under the Reform Act at a section 1172.75 resentencing, the trial court must first determine whether resentencing the defendant under the revised provisions of the Reform Act would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. If no such risk is demonstrated, the court shall resentence the defendant pursuant to the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act.

[GARY NOTE: Proposition 47 in 2014 included a definition of “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” that was much more specific and more restrictive on what qualified as such than the undefined same language contained in the Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. Because Proposition 36 was an initiative, it cannot be amended by the Legislature except as state in Proposition 36. Section 1172.75’s enactment does not qualify to amend Proposition 36. Therefore, the more restrictive definition in PC 1170.18, enacted by Proposition 47, is not the measure for determining whether relief would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Instead, the standard arising from Proposition 36 applies. Although not in conjunction with section 1172.75, the Supreme Court has previously determined that the more restrictive definition enacted in Proposition 47 did not change the broader standard enacted by Proposition 36 two years earlier. See People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347]

Authority:

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

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

Fifth Holding:

At the conclusion of the resentencing proceedings, the trial court indicated that it did not need credits; as a result, the number of credits on the abstract of judgment was left blank with a note indicating that “CDCR to recalculate credits.” When a trial court resentences a defendant who is currently in custody, it must calculate and credit him with all actual days spent in custody up to that time, including time in custody after the original sentencing, as well as the conduct credits ordered at the original sentencing.

Authority:

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

People v. Dean (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 391, 397

Elements of crime, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000265

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of attempted dissuasion of a witness. We reverse the attempted dissuasion of a witness conviction, and remand for resentencing. In this case, the indictment was filed in 2012, and the dissuading charge pertained to conduct that occured in 2016.

[GARY NOTE: THE STATUTE WAS AMENDED EFFECTIVE 1/1/2026, AND POST-COMPLAINT-FILING DISSUASION BY ITSELF IS NOW PUNISHABLE. I have chosen to post this victory anyway, because there are likely still cases in which the conduct occurred prior to 1/1/2026, and ex post facto prohibitions would preclude application of the amended law.]

First Holding:

Section 136.1(b)(2) makes it a crime to attempt to dissuade a victim or witness from causing a complaint to be sought and prosecuted, and assisting in the prosecution thereof.

Authority:

People v. Reynoza (2024) 15 Cal.5th 982, 986

[Gary note: remember that the statute has since been amended to outlaw the conduct that was not previously covered under section 136.1(b)(2).]

Second Holding:

The issue before the Supreme Court in Reynoza was whether section 136.1(b)(2) [Gary note: referring to the version in effect prior to the 1/1/26 amendment] required proof of an attempt to dissuade a witness from causing a charging document to be sought and prosecuted or whether the statute also independently applies where a defendant dissuades a witness only from assisting in the prosecution of a case after the charging document has already been filed.

Put another way, can the statute support a disjunctive interpretation—in which the statute independently applies where a defendant dissuades a witness from assisting in the prosecution of a case after the charging document has already been filed—or whether a conjunctive interpretation precludes a conviction under such circumstances.

The court concluded that because section 136.1(b)(2) is equally susceptible to both the conjunctive and disjunctive constructions, the rule of lenity points to an interpretation more favorable to the defendant. As a result, the statute must be read in the conjunctive construction, which does not permit a conviction to be based solely on proof of dissuasion from assisting in the prosecution of an already-filed charging document.

Consequently, because the defendant’s conduct in Reynoza amounted to, at most, dissuasion after a complaint was filed, the conviction had to be reversed. Therefore, where criminal charges have already been filed, postcharging dissuasion alone does not constitute an offense under section 136.1(b)(2).

[Gary note: Did I adequately mention that the ambiguity has been cleared up by the Legislature, effective 1/1/26, and now it is clear that section 136.1(b)(2) applies even if the only attempted dissuasion occurred after the charging document has been filed? Thus, Reynoza’s conclusion applies to only those cases in which the attempt at dissuasion occurred prior to 1/1/26.]

Authority:

People v. Reynoza (2024) 15 Cal.5th 982, 986, 987, 989, 1013

Third Holding:

[Gary note: to demonstrate the significance of choice of words, I have set forth the original language that was interpreted in Reynoza and the amended version. The only difference is the change from “and” to “or.” I have added *** on both sides of the affected word to highlight it better. Goes to show sometimes it’s just all in the wrist.]

Authority:

PEN 136.1(b)(2) PRIOR TO AMENDMENT 1/1/26: “Causing a complaint, indictment, information, or probation or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, *** and *** assisting in the prosecution thereof.”

PEN 136.1(b)(2) AS AMENDED EFFECTIVE 1/1/26: “Causing a complaint, indictment, information, or probation or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, *** or *** assisting in the prosecution thereof.”

Amelioration, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case: 000264

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On remand from a grant of habeas corpus reversing the conviction of attempt murder, it was error for the court to simply strike the punishment attached to that reversed count and fail to conduct a full resentencing. The trial court did not explicitly state it was recalling the defendant’s sentence under section 1172.1. However, the court’s actions at the 2023 hearing make clear that it did.

First Holding:

Courts generally lack jurisdiction to modify a defendant’s sentence once execution of the sentence has begun. Section 1172.1 provides an exception to that general rule. It states a trial court may, at any time upon the recommendation of the secretary of the CDCR or the district attorney, recall a defendant’s sentence and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced. When resentencing a defendant under section 1172.1, the trial court must consider postconviction factors and apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

Authority:

PC 1172.1

People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344 [Under the general common law rule, a trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has commenced]

People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 636–637

Second Holding:

After announcing the People were conceding the defendant’s motion for recall and resentencing, the court granted the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss the gang allegation under section 1385. Assuming the defendant’s judgment of conviction was final at the start of the hearing—as the trial court believed it to be—the court had authority to grant the People’s motion only if it first recalled the defendant’s sentence. In other words, the fact that the trial court granted the People’s motion to dismiss shows it first recalled the defendant’s sentence under section 1172.1

Authority:

PEN 1170.1

PEN 1385

People v. Barraza (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 114, 121, fn. 8

People v. Kim (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 117, 123

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 666–667 [Assembly Bill 333 applies retroactively only to cases that are not yet final]

Third Holding:

By recalling the defendant’s sentence, the trial court effectively vacated the entire judgment, not just the portion related to the gang allegation. Therefore, the court was required to resentence the defendant on each count and enhancement in the same manner as if he had not previously been sentenced. The court also was required to apply changes in the law since the original sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1

People v. Arias (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 213, 219 [the recall of appellant’s sentence effectively vacated his original sentence and commitment]

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 360 [recall of a defendant’s sentence nullifies the original sentence]

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

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [the “full sentencing rule” applies when a court recalls a sentence under former section 1170(d), a predecessor to section 1172.1]

Fourth Holding:

The court dismissed the gang allegation, but it did not orally pronounce a sentence on the murder conviction or the firearm enhancement, even by reference to the original sentence. Nor is there any indication that the court applied the changes to the law since the original sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 [rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement]

People v. Wilshire Ins. Co. (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 521, 532 [at sentencing, the court must orally pronounce the term of imprisonment]

People v. Crabtree (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1327 [trial court erred by failing to pronounce sentence on a count before staying its execution]

Fifth Holding:

The defendant did not forfeit his right to a full resentencing by failing to raise the issue in the trial court. Generally, a defendant must raise an issue in the trial court to preserve it on appeal. However, that general rule does not apply to an unauthorized sentence, which a defendant may challenge on appeal despite not objecting below. Here, the trial court recalled the defendant’s sentence, which effectively vacated his entire sentence. However, it never pronounced a new sentence on the murder conviction and firearm enhancement. The court’s failure to do so resulted in an unauthorized sentence.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354

People v. Arias (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 213, 219

People v. Crabtree (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1327 [court committed unauthorized sentencing error by failing to pronounce a sentence on a count before ordering it stayed]

Sixth Holding:

Even if the forfeiture rule applied, we would exercise our discretion to consider the issue on the merits in order to forestall an inevitable ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [appellate courts have discretion to consider issues not preserved for review]

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 399–400 [declining to apply forfeiture rule where defendant failed to object to the lack of full resentencing under section 1172.75]

Seventh Holding:

Where, as here, the defendant did not receive a full resentencing to which he was entitled, the proper disposition is to remand for a full resentencing. Accordingly, we remand the case for the trial court to resentence the defendant in accordance with section 1172.1. In doing so, the court must consider postconviction factors and apply any 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 resentencing the defendant on remand, the court may not reinstate the gang allegation it dismissed under section 1385.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402 [remanding case for resentencing where the defendant was entitled to, but did not receive, a full resentencing under section 1172.75]

People v. Saldana (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1270, 1278–1279 [same]

People v. Brown (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1228 [when the record shows that the trial court proceeded with sentencing on the erroneous assumption it lacked discretion, remand is necessary so that the trial court may have the opportunity to exercise its sentencing discretion at a new sentencing hearing]

Duty of the court, Jury trial, Pleading, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000263

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in not holding a hearing under Marsden when the defendant attempted to have substitute counsel. The trial court erred in imposing the upper term based on its own conclusion that the defendant’s prior convictions that are numerous and of increasing seriousness. The matter is remanded for the trial court to hold a proper Marsden hearing. If the court grants the motion, the court must appoint new counsel to represent her and conduct a new trial. If the court denies the motion, the court is to reinstate the convictions. The judgment is reversed, and the trial court is directed to give the People an opportunity to prove applicable aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury (or the court, if if the defendant waives her right to a jury trial on aggravating circumstances) and to resentence the defendant.

First Holding:

When a defendant seeks to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation, the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his contention and to relate specific instances of the attorney’s inadequate performance. Once the defendant clearly indicates to the trial court a request for the discharge and replacement of appointed counsel, the court must hold a hearing to allow the defendant to explain the basis for the request. A proper and formal’ Marsden motion is not required—the defendant need only clearly indicate to the trial court ‘in some manner’ that he or she is requesting the discharge and replacement of appointed counsel.

Authority:

People v. Johnson (2018) 6 Cal.5th 541, 572

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 863-864

People v. Armijo (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1171, 1179

People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118

Second Holding:

The trial court erred in not holding a Marsden hearing when the defendant said she wanted to fire her court-appointed attorney. While stating a desire to fire one’s court-appointed attorney, without more, may not be sufficient to require a Marsden hearing, the trial court interrupted the defendant after she said “I feel like” and did not allow her to say more. And though the defendant never said she wanted to replace her current attorney with a different court-appointed attorney, that’s because, when the defendant began to explain why she did not want her current attorney to represent her, the court did not give her the chance to state her reasons.

Authority:

People v. Sanchez (2011) 53 Cal.4th 80, 90 [if at any time during criminal proceedings, a defendant requests substitute counsel, the trial court is obligated, pursuant to Marsden, to give the defendant an opportunity to state any grounds for dissatisfaction with the current appointed attorney]

People v. Chavez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 334, 346 [refusal by the trial court to afford a defendant an opportunity to set forth the reasons underlying his request for the substitution of appointed counsel constitutes an abuse of discretion]

Third Holding:

The trial court’s concern that the defendant’s request during jury selection was a delay tactic was legitimate, but it did not justify refusing to hold a Marsden hearing that would allow the court to hear her reasons and weigh them against the effects of delaying the trial.

Authority:

People v. Williams (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 627, 652 [delay in resolving a Marsden motion is a significant factor that the court is obligated to consider in evaluating the timeliness of the defendant’s request to substitute counsel]

Fourth Holding:

The court also erred in ruling that the defendant’s only choices were to retain an attorney or represent herself. Those were not her only two choices. She also had the right to make a showing under Marsden, if she could, she was entitled to substitute counsel.

Authority:

People v. Johnson (2018) 6 Cal.5th 541, 573 [defendant may request substitute counsel at any time during criminal proceedings]

People v. Sanchez (2011) 53 Cal.4th 80, 90 [same]

Fifth Holding:

The standard for prejudice regarding a denied Marsden motion is under Chapman. Under the Chapman harmless error standard, the burden is on the People, not the defendant, to demonstrate that the violation of the defendant’s federal constitutional right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Loya (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 932, 945

People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 601

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 349

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

Sixth Holding:

The court imposed the upper term based on the court’s finding that the defendant’s prior convictions and adjudications were numerous and of increasing seriousness. The court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial. the aggravating circumstance the trial court relied on here in imposing the upper term, increasing seriousness of the defendant’s prior convictions, was not found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury (or by the court after a jury trial waiver).

Authority:

PEN 1170

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

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

Seventh Holding:

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

Here, the court relied on only one aggravating circumstance: prior convictions that are numerous and of increasing seriousness. Determining whether that allegation is true, however, requires a comparison and evaluation of the relationship among a defendant’s prior convictions, and a determination as to their relative seriousness. As a result, it involves something more than a narrow factual finding that the convictions were sustained and what elements were required to prove them. While the evidence may have been sufficient to support a finding of increasing seriousness, a rational juror could have reached the opposite conclusion based on the totality of the defendant’s criminal conduct and the applicable sentences for those transgressions. Because a rational juror could find the defendant’s convictions were not of increasing seriousness, the error is not harmless under Chapman.

Authority:

AD

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

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Due process, Equal protection, Jury trial, Racial Justice Act, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000262

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by permitting the prosecution’s peremptory challenge to a juror, within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 (CCP 231.7), which requires reversal. The court also erred in denying the defendant’s motion for discovery under the Racial Justice Act (RJA) to support his claim that racial bias infected his case. We conclude the trial court misapplied the applicable legal standards. We conclude that the trial court erroneously applied the law in denying the defendant’s motion for discovery. The defendant also contends that the abstract of judgment should be corrected because it does not reflect the trial court’s ruling regarding his fees and fines. Because we reverse the conviction, we need not reach this issue.

First Holding:

Both the federal and state Constitutions prohibit any advocate’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors based on race. Doing so violates both the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and the right to trial by a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community under article I, section 16 of the California Constitution. Excluding by peremptory challenge even a single juror on the basis of race or ethnicity is an error of constitutional magnitude.

Authority:

People v. Holmes, McClain and Newborn (2022) 12 Cal.5th 719, 759–760

People v. Gutierrez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1150, 1157

Second Holding:

After studies showed that the existing analysis under Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 was inadequate to prevent racial discrimination, the Legislature enacted CCP 231.7, effective in criminal trials beginning January 1, 2022, to establish a new process for identifying unlawful bias in the use of peremptory challenges during jury selection.

Authority:

People v. Jimenez (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 534, 539–540

Third Holding:

In contrast to the three-step Batson/Wheeler procedure, under CCP 231.7, there is no requirement that the objecting party first make a showing of purposeful discrimination. Rather, upon objection, the party exercising the peremptory challenge shall state the reasons the peremptory challenge has been exercised. The trial court shall evaluate the reasons given to justify the peremptory challenge in light of the totality of the circumstances. In doing so, the court shall consider only the reasons actually given and shall not speculate on, or assume the existence of, other possible justifications for the use of the peremptory challenge.

Authority:

CCP 231.7

People v. Jaime (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 941, 943

People v. Hinojos (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 524, 540–541

Fourth Holding:

Unlike in the Batson/Wheeler analysis, the ultimate question for the trial court is not whether the party exercising the peremptory challenge engaged in purposeful discrimination. The statute expressly recognizes that discrimination in violation of this section need not be purposeful, but may involve unconscious bias, which includes implicit and institutional biases. The trial court shall sustain the objection to the use of the peremptory challenge if the court determines there is a substantial likelihood that an objectively reasonable person [aware that unconscious bias, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in the unfair exclusion of potential jurors in the State of California], would view race as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge. The statute defines “substantial likelihood” as more than a mere possibility but less than a standard of more likely than not.

Authority:

CCP 231.7

People v. Hinojos (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 524, 541

Fifth Holding:

CCP 231.7, subdivisions (e) and (g) provide two separate lists of presumptively invalid reasons for exercising a peremptory challenge. Each of these subdivisions sets out a distinct process by which a court determines whether a presumptively invalid reason can be absolved of that presumption.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(e),(g)

People v. Ortiz (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 768, 793

Sixth Holding:

The denial of an objection shall be reviewed de novo, with the trial court’s express factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence. Erroneous denial of a challenge is deemed prejudicial and requires reversal of the judgment and remand for a new trial.

Authority:

CCP 231.7

Seventh Holding:

We review the factual underpinnings of a discovery order for substantial evidence, but where such a determination rests on incorrect legal premises, our review is de novo.

Authority:

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

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

Eighth Holding:

Penal Code section 745 authorizes a defendant to file a discovery motion at trial as soon as practicable upon the defendant learning of an alleged violation, and requires the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing if the defendant makes a prima facie showing of the violation.

Authority:

PEN 745

Ninth Holding:

To establish good cause for discovery under the RJA, a defendant is required to advance a plausible factual foundation, based on specific facts, that a violation of the RJA could or might have occurred in his case. This is a notably less demanding standard than the prima facie requirement set forth in the statute for granting an evidentiary hearing, and a standard that should not be difficult to meet.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court of Solano County (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 159

McDaniel v. Superior Court (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 228, 244 [trial court should consider the relevance of the proffered facts to the claims of racial bias to determine whether a minimally plausible basis exists to grant discovery—a low threshold]

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th pp. Supp. 36, 44 [reversing denial of discovery motion where defendant had minimally proffered a plausible factual foundation for a potential violation of the RJA]

Tenth Holding:

[Gary note: The abstract of judgment apparently did not reflect the court’s order regarding fines and fees. The opinion gave no further information, because the issue would be addressed on remand for other reasons. But the law is clear that the court could have ordered correction of the abstract of judgment and minute orders. I have set forth some cases it could have relied on had it addressed the issue.]

Authority:

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

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

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

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

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

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

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000261

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the defendant’s hearing under section 1172.75, the court abused its discretion when it declined to dismiss the prior serious felony conviction enhancements as to each count. Pursuant to section 1465.9, we vacate the balance of the restitution fine.

First Holding:

Section 1385 provides that, notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so. It requires that a sentencing court give great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the nine mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present. One or more mitigating circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement. The statute provides an exception when the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. “Endanger public safety” means there is a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others.

Authority:

PEN 1385

Second Holding:

When a trial court finds that dismissal of an enhancement would endanger public safety, it must not exclusively consider whether the defendant currently poses a danger to the public. Although the current dangerousness of the petitioner is an appropriate factor to consider, as it will have some bearing on whether dismissing the enhancement would endanger the public, a crucial part of the inquiry is how the dismissal of the enhancement will impact the length of the defendant’s sentence. A currently dangerous defendant who will be released from prison within a short timeframe not necessarily the same as a currently dangerous defendant who has no prospect of release from prison until he is elderly. A trial court would find the former to pose a greater danger than the latter.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 228

Third Holding:

Absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a court retains the discretion to impose or dismiss enhancements provided that it assigns significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances when they are present. Stated simply, if the court does not conclude that dismissal would endanger public safety, then mitigating circumstances strongly favor dismissing the enhancement. But ultimately, the court must determine whether dismissal is in the furtherance of justice.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1029, 1036

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision not to strike sentencing enhancements under section 1385 for abuse of discretion. We must not disturb an exercise of discretion on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. A court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on impermissible factors or on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 298

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 225

Fifth Holding:

During the resentencing hearing, the prosecutor argued that the superior court should not reduce the sentence beyond striking the prior prison term enhancement because the defendant posed a threat to public safety based on the underlying facts of the case. In response, defense counsel urged the court not to focus on his current risk to public safety. She reasoned that the defendant would still have to serve three consecutive life sentences even if the court struck the prior serious felony conviction enhancements.

The court’s discussion of the underlying offenses and the defendant’s prior convictions does not suggest a forward-looking inquiry. Instead, the court relied on past conduct to determine the defendant’s present dangerousness. The court applied a legal standard that was not consistent with Gonzalez. The record does not demonstrate that the superior court considered whether the defendant would endanger public safety if the enhancements were stricken and he was still subject to the indeterminate term. We conclude that the superior court abused its discretion by failing to consider his future dangerousness if the enhancements were stricken within the context of his indeterminate sentence.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 228

Sixth Holding:

The Attorney General argues that we should presume that the superior court correctly applied the law and conducted a forward-thinking inquiry as to the defendant’s dangerousness. But the superior court did not have the benefit of Gonzalez on the date of resentencing. We cannot presume the trial court knew a standard that did not yet exist.

Authority:

People v. Brugman (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 608, 637

People v. Chambers (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 444, 457 [presumption does not apply when the sentencing law is not yet established]

People v. Jones (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1076, 1092

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Vicarious liability

Case: 000260

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the defendant’s hearing on his petition filed under section 1172.6 for recall of sentence in light of the changes in homicide law, the trial court denied the defendant’s resentencing petition on the ground the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt he aided and abetted an implied malice murder. The trial court did not conclude that the defendant was the direct perpetrator or an aider and abettor in an express malice murder. The trial court misidentified the relevant life-endangering act and thereby used an incorrect legal standard for determining the defendant’s mens rea for aiding and abetting implied malice murder.

We therefore reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to conduct a new evidentiary hearing using the correct life-endangering act and consistent with this opinion. The trial court did not address the defendant’s convictions on counts 2 through 4 for attempted murder. Sentencing relief under section 1172.6 extends to attempted murder. In conducting a new evidentiary hearing following remand, the court shall make findings and rule on the defendant’s resentencing petition on the attempted murder convictions. The amended abstract of judgment indicates that the defendant pleaded guilty to second degree murder. That is incorrect: He was convicted by a jury, not pursuant to a plea agreement. The abstract of judgment must be corrected accordingly.

First Holding:

The trial court denied the defendant’s resentencing petition on the ground the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt he aided and abetted an implied malice murder. The trial court did not conclude that the defendant was the direct perpetrator or an aider and abettor in an express malice murder.

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. A defendant may directly aid and abet an implied malice murder. Notwithstanding Senate Bill 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. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 143

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

Second 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.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990-991

Third Holding:

A life-endangering act is the act that proximately causes death. 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. Here, the life-endangering act was the shooting by the co-defendant at the vehicle carrying the victim.

Authority:

People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 713, fn. 27

People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 643

Fourth Holding:

Although a homicide might have more than one proximate cause, to suffice for implied malice murder, the perpetrator’s act must not merely be dangerous to life in some vague or speculative sense; it must involve a high degree of probability that it will result in death.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 956, 963

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

Fifth Holding:

The co-defendant perpetrator’s act of bringing the gun to the anticipated confrontation with the other gang did not in itself give rise to a high probability that death would result. Rather, that act merely created a dangerous situation in which death was possible depending on how circumstances unfolded. Deeming a life-endangering act to be the act of the co-defendant perpetrator bringing the gun to the fight comes precariously close to a natural and probable consequences theory of liability: Bringing the gun to a gang fight becomes life endangering only because a natural and probable consequence of doing so is the gun is fired and someone is killed. [GARY NOTE: Implicit in that example is that the change in the homicide law eliminated the natural and probable consequences rationale as supporting a murder conviction of the non-killer.]

Authority:

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

Sixth Holding:

By misidentifying the life-endangering act committed by the perpetrator, the trial court used the incorrect legal standard for determining mens rea for aiding and abetting implied malice murder.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990–991 [using incorrect life-endangering act constitutes legal error]

Seventh Holding:

We have the ability to order the correction of clerical errors in an abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–187