Author Archives: Gary McCurdy

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 001131

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in finding the defendant ineligible under section 1172.75 where punishment for the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement was struck by the trial court at the time of the original sentencing.

First Holding:

Before the year 2020, former section 667.5 of the Penal Code instructed criminal sentencing courts to impose a one-year term for each prior separate prison term or county jail term the defendant had previously served for a felony. In an effort to reduce the societal and fiscal burdens of incarceration, the Legislature amended the Penal Code to eliminate these enhancements, except in cases involving prior terms for sexually violent offenses. It later made these changes retroactive.

The operative provision states that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision section 667.5(b) is legally invalid (with an exception not pertinent in this case).

Authority:

People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57, 60

Second Holding:

A defendant serving a term for a judgment that includes a now-invalid enhancement is entitled to resentencing. That resentencing must be a full resentencing, at which the trial court must consider a broad range of factors, including changes in law that reduce sentences and postconviction factors that inure in the defendant’s favor.

The resentencing shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety. Regardless, the resentencing shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57, 60

Third Holding:

The phrase ‘lesser sentence’ need not refer to a shorter sentence; rather, it can be understood to mean that the new sentence must eliminate whatever adverse effects flow from the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement, even if those effects do not take the form of a longer term of imprisonment.

Authority:

People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57, 62

Fourth Holding:

A true finding on a prior prison term allegation is a part of the sentencing order, even when the associated punishment is stricken. It follows that, as a matter of ordinary usage, an enhancement included in the sentence in a criminal case may be ‘imposed’ even if the punishment for that enhancement is stricken. Even punishment-stricken enhancements have potential adverse consequences should a court ever conduct a resentencing to correct other errors in the defendant’s sentence.

Authority:

People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57, 64-65

Fifth Holding:

The trial court concluded that the defendant was ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 because the punishment for the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement was struck at the original sentencing.

As explained by Espino, that reasoning was in error. The matter must be reversed and remanded with directions to the court below to hold a full resentencing hearing.

Authority:

People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 001130

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The denial of resentencing beyond striking the now invalid prior prison term enhancements is affirmed. As the defendant’s restitution fine is more than 10 years old, it must be vacated.

Holding:

Section 1465.9(d), effective in January 2025, mandates vacating a restitution fine after 10 years. 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.

A resentencing hearing under section 1172.75 does not restart section 1465.9’s 10-year clock. Because defendant’s restitution fine was imposed more than 10 years ago, any balance is unenforceable and uncollectible by operation of law, and the fine must be vacated. Accordingly, we shall modify the judgment to vacate the restitution fine imposed under section 1204.4(b). The identical $10,000 parole revocation restitution fine (sec. 1202.45) remains imposed but suspended unless parole is revoked.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600, rev. granted on other grounds Mar. 11, 2026, S295038, briefing deferred

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 17 [vacating balance of restitution fine under sec. 1465.9]

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001129

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion in denying mental health diversion. There was insufficient evidence to support the court’s determination that she was at risk of committing a super strike offense if treated in the community.

First Holding:

To qualify for pretrial diversion, criminal defendants must show they are both eligible and suitable for the program. A defendant is eligible for diversion if he or she has been diagnosed with a mental disorder that was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

Generally, a defendant is suitable for diversion if the defendant’s symptoms would respond to mental health treatment, the defendant consents to diversion and waives the right to a speedy trial, the defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion, and 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(a), (b)

People v. Bunas (2022) 79 Cal.App. 5th 840, 859-860

Second Holding:

Under section 1170.18(c), an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety means an unreasonable risk that the defendant will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv). Those violent felonies, commonly referred to as “super strikes,” include murder and attempted murder.

(Gary note: effective 1/1/2027, the language of 1001.36 changes–it drops the reference to section 1170.18, and instead states, “The defendant will not pose a substantial and undue risk to the physical safety of another person, if treated in the community.” That’s a much lower bar for the court to justify a finding that the person poses disqualifying risk.)

Authority:

PEN 1170.18

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

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App. 5th 787, 799

Third Holding:

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

Authority:

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

People v. Cluff (2001) 87 Cal.App. 4th 991, 998 [A trial court abuses its discretion when the factual findings critical to its decision find no support in the evidence]

Fourth Holding:

We conclude the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that defendant poses an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike if treated in the community. The court relied on the underlying charges and defendant’s limited criminal past to find defendant posed an unreasonable public safety risk. Defendant has no history of arrests or convictions for a super strike offense, and the underlying charges were not super strikes.

Authority:

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

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App. 5th 671, 690 [violent conduct alone is insufficient alone to support a finding defendant was likely to commit a super strike offense]

Fifth Holding:

Section 1001.36 provides the trial court with discretion to deny diversion even if it finds a defendant meets the statutory eligibility and suitability criteria. But residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law.

Authority:

People v. Cabalar (2025) 117 Cal.App. 5th 41, 53

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

Wade v. Superior Court (2019) 33 Cal.App. 5th 694, 710

Sixth Holding:

Here, although the trial court mentioned its residual discretion, its ultimate finding that defendant’s treatment plan was insufficient to address defendant’s mental health disorders did not reflect consideration of the underlying purposes of the statute nor did it explain why diversion would not meet those goals.

As such, we cannot conclude the court properly exercised its residual discretion.

Authority:

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

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App. 5th 124, 139

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Gary Musings, Sentencing

Case 001128

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the credit for time served. Although the court acknowledged that section 654 applied, it erroneously imposed concurrent sentences rather than staying any. The minute order mentions only that the two counts were stayed, and does not reflect the order for concurrent sentences. The abstract of judgment indicates that the counts were both stayed and to be served concurrently. Remanded for correction of these errors.

First Holding:

Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.

Authority:

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

People v. Mullins (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 594, 612

Second Holding:

Sentences must be stayed to the extent that section 654 prohibits multiple punishment.

An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. Section 654 bars multiple punishment for offenses arising out of a single occurrence where all the offenses were incident to one objective.

Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

In such circumstances, the court must impose but stay execution of sentence on all of the convictions arising out of the course of conduct except for one. It has long been established that the imposition of concurrent sentences is precluded by section 654 because the defendant is deemed to be subjected to the term of both sentences although they are served simultaneously.

(Gary Musing, of marginal historical interest: Prior to 1998, Penal Code section 654 had exactly the same language as it currently has, and a court was free to impose sentence on any one of the counts to which section 654 applied. See People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1. In response to that Supreme Court decision, the Legislature amended section 654 to require that the court impose sentence on the count containing the longest potential term.

(Through AB 518, effective 1/1/2022, the Legislature restored section 654 to its former language, returning to the court the discretion to choose on which count punishment should be imposed and executed.

(There is likely language in one or more of the cases cited below that were decided during the time frame requiring imposition of sentence on the count carrying the longest term. Don’t be misled by that, as the law has changed, restoring the court’s discretion to choose among the counts.)

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 353

People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 591

People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1208

People v. McCoy (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338

People v. Miller (1977) 18 Cal.3d 873, 887, abrogated on other grounds as stated in People v. Oates (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1048, 1067, fn. 8;

People v. Dowdell (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1413

Third Holding:

A sentencing court must award credits for all days in custody up to and including the day of sentencing. This includes partial days. Because an abstract of judgment represents the process and authority for carrying the judgment and sentence into effect, it is paramount that the abstract reflects the appropriate sentence and credits.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Bravo (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 729, 735

People v. King (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 882, 886

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

Fourth Holding:

At sentencing, the court imposed a $300 restitution fine, pursuant to section 1202.4(b), which it stayed. It also imposed and suspended a parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45. The abstract of judgment, however, erroneously lists the fines as $900. It also fails to state the restitution fine is stayed. We therefore order the errors in the amount of the restitution fines be corrected.

Authority:

People v. Lipscomb (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 9, 22 [a court may only impose one restitution fine per case, so it is error to impose a restitution fine as to each count]

Fifth Holding:

The court also imposed ancillary assessments. We remand to give the defendant an opportunity to demonstrate whether he has the ability to pay, under equal protection principles, inasmuch as the court has the authority to waive such fees entirely in civil matters.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 9, 30

Sixth Holding:

Due process does not require an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine. Instead, the excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines. Four factors are relevant to determining whether a fine is unconstitutionally excessive: (1) the defendant’s culpability; (2) the relationship between the harm and the penalty; (3) the penalties imposed in similar statutes; and (4) the defendant’s ability to pay.

Authority:

U.S. Const., Eighth Amendment

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11 & fn. 6, 23

United States v. Bajakajian (1998) 524 U.S. 321, 327–328

People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 707, 728

Duty of the court, Gary Musings, Sentencing

Case 001127

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Whether or not the court had the right to issue a protective order during the proceedings prior to entry of judgment, the court failed to terminate the protective order following the judgment. Remanded for that purpose.

First Holding:

The trial court issued a pretrial criminal protective order on behalf of the victim after the defendant entered his plea. The trial court did not make any findings on the record but ordered no contact with the victim and a 100-yard stay away order There were no objections from counsel. According to the criminal protect order, the orders remain in effect until further court order.

The court had no authority to issue a protective order under section 136.2(a) after sentencing, and it did not issue one. But the order that it made after the guilty plea stated it was to remain in effect until further order of the court, which the court never made. We therefore remand to the trial court to issue a proper notice of termination of protective order so that proper authorities will know that the order has expired.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 236

Second Holding:

Section 136.2 is limited to the pendency of a criminal action because section 136.2 is aimed at protecting only victims or witnesses.

Authority:

PEN 136.2(a)

People v. Selga (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 113, 118

People v. Stone (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 153, 159 superseded in statute as stated in Babalola v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 948, 960, related to the issuance of restraining orders in domestic violence cases

(Gary Musings:

(This case had an interesting twist. The attorney filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. A Wende brief is filed when appointed counsel determines that there are no arguable issues to raise in the appeal. After setting forth the statements of the case and facts sufficient to guide the Court of Appeal, the brief asks the appellate court to independently review the entire record to determine whether there are issues that counsel should brief. The defendant is given an opportunity to submit a supplemental brief in which the defendant argues whatever the defendant believes to be an issue.

(The Wende brief process is available only in appointed appeals, and applies only to the first appeal of right–essentially to the direct appeal from the conviction initiated within the timeframe for the filing of a notice of appeal following entry of judgment. Wende was California’s ultimate answer to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. In essence, I assume there was concern that appointed counsel may have less incentive to go the whole mile for the client.

(Keep in mind we’re talking about conditions more than 60 years ago, around the time Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335 extended the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. While I am certain that there were many attorneys who diligently sacrificed many hours for their indigent client, I also assume that there must have been concern that maybe not all attorneys put in as much effort on appointed cases as they would for their wealthy clients. The independent review of the record by the court was designed to protect the indigent defendants from inadequate effort.

(There’s probably much more to it than I stated, and perhaps I even have missed the mark on why Anders came about. But regardless of what was written, I suspect there was some wink wink nod nod behind the scenes recognizing that some cases demonstrated a tad bit of underrepresentation. Maybe I’m wrong. It doesn’t change the quirk in this case, however.

(By the way, the same concern–whatever it might have been–does not arise with retained counsel. Presumably retained attorneys have a financial incentive to do as much as they possibly can for their clients.

(All that is background–accurate or not–for the twist in this case. The defendant’s supplemental brief essentially was a challenge to his guilty plea. Thus, a certificate of probable cause would normally be required, under section 1237.5 and Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b). Had appointed counsel attempted to raise the arguments the defendant raised on his own, the court would not have been permitted to address the issues, because there is no latitude when an issue requires a certificate of probable cause and one has not been issued.

(But in this case, the court concluded that Wende requires it to conduct a full review of the record and to address with reasons all of the issues presented by the defendant in a supplemental brief. Specifically, in People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, the Supreme Court imposed a judicial principle that when an indigent defendant submits a supplemental brief following counsel’s filing of a Wende brief, the appellate court must address all of the issues raised and state reasons for its conclusions on their merits.

(In this case, the Court of Appeal concluded that the lack of a certificate of probable cause was not a bar to its review of the issues raised by the defendant himself in a supplemental brief, in compliance with Wende and Kelly.

(Keep in mind that this is NOT a published opinion, and thus cannot be cited to compel an appellate court to ignore the absence of a certificate of probable cause when reviewing a defendant’s post-Wende supplemental brief. But Wende and Kelly were published opinions, and there’s no reason that I am aware of that counsel could not urge the court to grant a petition for rehearing if the court declined to address the defendant’s supplemental brief issues because of a lack of a certificate of probable cause.)

Authority (the middle two only in Gary Musings):

People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335

Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738

People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106