Author Archives: Gary McCurdy

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 000945

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by finding the defendant’s prior conviction for gang participation constituted a prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. The true findings on the prior strike conviction and prior serious felony conviction are vacated and the case is remanded.

First Holding:

The trial court agreed with the prosecution that AB 333 was not before the court for consideration at the trial on whether the defendant suffered a prior strike conviction and a serious felony conviction. he court declined to consider the effect of AB 333 on the prior conviction and found true that the defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction and a prior serious felony conviction.

This was error. AB 333 applies to the determination of whether a prior conviction qualifies as a serious or violent felony. The true findings that the defendant suffered a prior strike conviction and a prior serious felony conviction are vacated and the matter is remanded.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

On remand, if the People decide not to retry the enhancements, or at the conclusion of such a retrial, Jones will be entitled to a full resentencing. The court has a duty to ensure that all components of a sentence are authorized by the law and the facts at the time any new sentence is imposed.

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.]

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

 

Sentencing

Case 000944

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The jury convicted the defendant of grand theft of personal property and embezzlement by a clerk for stealing money from his employer. One of the convictions must be vacated, because they constitute different statements of the same offense.

First Holding:

The was improperly convicted of two theft offenses (grand theft and embezzlement by a clerk) in violation of section 954 because they were different statements of the same offense. Convictions for both grand theft by larceny (sec. 484(a)) and embezzlement (sec. 503) based on the same course of conduct cannot stand under section 954.

Authority:

People v. Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632, 635, 649-651

Second Holding:

Appellate courts have employed different approaches for remedying a section 954 violation.

Under the circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to follow the Shiga approach. We will therefore reverse the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to reinstate the conviction on one of the two counts to be selected by the People, then resentence the defendant on only a single count of conviction.

At the resentencing, any fees imposed by the court must also reflect the appropriate amounts for only a single count of conviction.

Authority:

People v. Shiga (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 466, 481, 483–484 (Shiga) [reversing two duplicative arson convictions and remanding for resentencing with instructions to trial court to reinstate the conviction on the one selected by the People]

People v. Coyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 209, 217–218, 219 [consolidating three duplicative special circumstance murder counts into single count, reversing and vacating the other two murder convictions, and affirming the judgment as modified]

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000943

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is entitled to a remand for the trial court to determine whether his strike prior is valid under current law, in light of the AB 333 changes to the gang activity law since the convictions of the purported strike offenses.

First Holding:

The defendant is entitled to a remand for the trial court to determine whether one of his strike priors satisfies the current requirements of the gang statute.

Authority:

AB 333

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583

Second Holding:

AB 333 amended section 186.22 to provide, among other things, that an offense committed on behalf of a gang may support a substantive gang offense, gang enhancement, or, by definition, a gang special circumstance finding, only if the common benefit to members of a gang is more than reputational. AB 333 applies retroactively to cases pending on appeal

Authority:

PEN 186.22

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

Third Holding:

Where a defendant has suffered a conviction under the prior version of section 186.22, AB 333 applies to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements.

If the record contains no indication that the defendant’s prior conviction was obtained under AB 333’s more stringent requirements, and the evidence used to prove the existence of the strike prior does not alone prove the elements of the alleged prior serious felony and strike prior enhancements beyond a reasonable doubt, the remedy is to provide the People an opportunity to retry the strike allegation under the current law.

And, if the People elect not to retry the strike prior or fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it satisfies the requirements of AB 333, the trial court must dismiss the allegation and conduct a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583, 607

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

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000942

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in failing to follow this court’s instructions in the defendant’s prior appeal to dismiss the enhancement imposed under section 12022.53(e) unless the prosecution successfully retries under the gang allegations–necessary for that enhancement–under the provisions as amended by AB 333. The prosecution chose not to retry the allegations, so the enhancement must be vacated.

Holding:

(Gary note: this did not actually affect the sentence because punishment for the affected enhancement had previously been imposed but stayed by the trial court. Vacating the enhancement merely vacated a sentence for it that was already stayed.

(Also, the nature of the order did not require citation to case authority, as it was simply an observation that a previous order of the appellate court had not been carried out, so it ordered the court to carry out the appellate court’s previous order. But the court did cite cases relevant to its reason for the initial order that the gang-reliant enhancements must be retried if punishment for them is to be imposed.)

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 327, 347–348, disapproved of on other grounds in People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 764, fn. 8 [Because the sec. 12022.53(e) firearm enhancement depended on the jury finding a violation of sec. 186.22(b), vacating that finding in light of AB 333 required vacating sec. 12022.53(e) enhancement]

Appellate Principles, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000941

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The minor challenges several conditions of probation. We modify two of them.

First Holding:

The juvenile court has wide discretion to select appropriate probation conditions and may impose any reasonable condition that is fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced. The juvenile court’s discretion, while broad, 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.

In order to invalidate a condition of probation under this Lent test, all three factors must be found to be present. A condition of probation that would be unconstitutional or otherwise improper for an adult probationer may be permissible for a minor under the supervision of the juvenile court.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889

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

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

Second Holding:

We review a juvenile court’s imposition of a probation condition for an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

In re Daniel R. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1, 6

Third Holding:

Hearsay can at least sometimes be considered at dispositional hearings, and courts may base probation conditions upon information in probation reports.

Authority:

In re Vincent G. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 238, 243–244

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

Fourth Holding:

Probation conditions are to be given the meaning that would appear to a reasonable reader. We modify the probation condition that the minor not be around anyone known to him to be in possession of any dangerous or deadly weapons by inserting “known to him to be unlawfully in possession of the same.”

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 382

(Gary note: Olguin supports the first sentence of that summary of the holding. The court did not cite any specific authority in the paragraphs in which it modified the language of that condition itself. However, In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889, authorizes an appellate court to modify conditions of probation to render them constitutional.)

Fifth Holding:

A probation condition that imposes limitations on a person’s constitutional rights must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad. The essential question in an overbreadth challenge is the closeness of the fit between the legitimate purpose of the restriction and the burden it imposes on the defendant’s constitutional rights.

People have a constitutional right to self-defense. The condition that “The minor shall not commit any act of violence against anyone” must be tailored to, “The minor shall not commit any act of violence against anyone, except for acts of lawful self-defense.”

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 1

In re Carlos C. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 997, 1002, 1004

People v. McDonnell (1917) 32 Cal.App. 694, 704

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000940

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant filed a petition for recall under section 1172.6, challenging his convictions for murder. The petition was denied, and the denial was affirmed on appeal. The opinion noted that the defendant had not challenged his convictions for attempted murder. The defendant then filed a section petition to challenge his convictions of attempted murder in light of legislation enacted to encompass attempted murder under section 1172.6. The trial court summarily denied that petition on the grounds that he had already filed a petition that had been denied.

That was error.

First Holding:

On January 1, 2019, SB. 1437 eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a basis for murder and limited the scope of the felony murder rule. SB 1437 also created the resentencing procedure at issue here. The defendant filed his first section 1172.6 petition seeking resentencing of his conviction for second degree murder pursuant to the changes to the law effectuated by SB 1437.

On January 1, 2022, while the defendant’s first petition was pending, SB 775 further amended the Penal Code to eliminate the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a theory of liability for attempted murder.

Authority:

SB 1437

SB 775

PEN 1172.6

Second Holding:

The defendant’s first petition sought resentencing of the murder conviction only. This court expressly did not consider the attempted murder convictions as they had not been presented for resentencing in the trial court.

The denial of the first petition did not prevent the defendant from subsequently seeking resentencing of the attempted murder convictions once that relief became available due to changes in the law. The second petition was not the same as the first.

We therefore reverse the trial court order denying the defendant’s second petition for resentencing. On remand, the trial court must appoint counsel for the defendant and conduct further proceedings under section 1172.6 as to his attempted murder convictions.

Authority:

People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 949–951

Duty of the court, Fines and fees

Case 000939

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter must be remanded for resentencing for the trial court to state the statutory basis for the imposed fines and fees.

First Holding:

The matter must be remanded for the trial court to orally pronounce the applicable statutory citations for each imposed fine and fee in the case and for the corresponding probation minute order to be amended accordingly. The absence of statutory citations for the $165 “restitution fine” and the $40 “[c]ourt [s]ecurity [f]ee” and the absence of a statutory citation for the $35 “infraction fee” in the minute order must be corrected.

Authority:

People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192

Second Holding:

Although a detailed recitation of all the fees, fines and penalties on the record may be tedious, California law does not authorize shortcuts. An order of probation, like an abstract of judgment, must specify the statutory basis of each fine or fee imposed. A trial court’s failure to specify the amount and statutory basis for each fine, fee, and penalty assessment imposed is legal error. Such error may be reviewed on appeal even in the absence of an objection.

Authority:

People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200

People v. Eddards (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 712, 715

People v. Hartley (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 620, 637

Third Holding:

A court may adequately pronounce judgment by imposing a specific fine and generally referring to the applicable penalty assessments. However, the responsibility then falls to the trial court clerk to specify the penalties and surcharge in appropriate amounts in the minutes and, more importantly, the abstract of judgment or the probation minute order. This includes providing a statutory basis of each fine or fee imposed.

Authority:

People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1373

People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 864

People v. Eddards (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 712, 715, 718

Fourth Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Fifth Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Sixth Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000938

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We modify the judgment to vacate the booking fee imposed pursuant to former Government Code section 29550.2.

Holding:

The main jail booking fee (former Gov. Code, sec. 29550.2), imposed by the trial court at the early 2021 sentencing hearing and reimposed at the 2025 hearing, was repealed by the passage of AB 1869, effective July 1, 2021 AB 1869 enacted Government Code section 6111, which provides that on and after July 1, 2021, the unpaid balance of any court-imposed costs pursuant to section 29550.2 is unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated. (Gov. Code, sec. 6111(a).) Accordingly, the main jail booking fee reimposed at the 2025 sentencing hearing must be vacated.

Authority:

GOV 6111(a)

Former GOV 29550.2

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000937

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In this appeal by the People following the resentencing of the defendant under section 1172.75, we affirm the lower court’s granting of a new trial on the gang-related special circumstances and gang enhancement allegations in light of AB 333.

First Holding:

The People contend the trial court erred in granting respondent’s motion for new trial because the evidence at trial demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury would have rendered the same verdict absent the instructional error created by the passage of AB 333.

The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a new trial motion, and its decision will be disturbed only for clear abuse of that discretion. The People recognize this general rule, but contend independent review is more fitting given that the court below was not the original trial judge and based its review on a cold transcript and exhibits.

Authority:

People v. Ault (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1250, 1260

Second Holding:

Presumptions on appeal are in favor of the order, and the appellate court does not independently redetermine the question whether an error was prejudicial. As our Supreme Court explained in Ault, the trial court’s order granting a new trial will not be disturbed if fairly debatable, even if a reviewing court itself, addressing the issues de novo, would not have found a basis for reversal. We will review the trial court’s order for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Ault (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1250, 1262-1263

Third Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature passed AB 333, which became effective January 1, 2022. The new legislation made several changes to the definition of section 186.22 gang enhancements.

First, it narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons.

Second, whereas section 186.22, former subdivision (f) required only that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang, AB 333 requires that any such pattern have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang. (

Third, AB 333 also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Fourth, AB 333 narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be ‘more than reputational.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

Fourth Holding:

Although AB 333 does not expressly address the gang-murder special circumstance set forth in section 190.2(a)(22), the latter statute defines criminal street gang by express cross-reference to section 186.22(f). The same is true for a firearm enhancement alleged pursuant to section 12022.53(e)(1).

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 461

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 746

Fifth Holding:

When a substantive change occurs in the elements of an offense and the jury is not instructed as to the proper elements, the omission implicates the defendant’s right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment, and reversal is required unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same in the absence of the error. To prove harmless error under the Chapman standard, it is not enough to show that substantial or strong evidence existed to support a conviction under the correct instructions. Rather, the question is whether the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the omitted element.

(Gary note: The court then proceeded to examine the written opinion of the trial judge, and discussed the judge’s reasoning and statements of findings that led the trial court to the conclusion that a new trial was warranted. Those facts and that analysis are beyond what these summaries are designed to present, because the facts relied on in an unpublished opinion cannot be related to control a result in another case, and neither can the trial court’s reasoning be cited as authority, persuasitive or otherwise.)

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1207

People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 504

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 668

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 449

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 417

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

Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000936

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court should have stayed the defendant’s eight-month sentence for count 4 under section 654. The sole objective in possessing the firearm (count 3) and the ammunition (count 4) was to have an operable firearm. Accordingly, the possession offenses were part of an indivisible course of conduct and cannot be separately punished. We otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

During the defendant’s sentencing hearing, the court concluded that because the .22-caliber ammunition was not loaded into the .22 rifle, section 654 does not prohibit a separate punishment. And because possession of ammunition increases the ability to use the firearms and the danger, the court imposed sentences of one-third the middle term, or eight months, for each of counts 3 and 4.

Section 654(a) protects against multiple punishment where the crimes arise from either (1) the same act or omission or (2) an indivisible course of conduct united by a single intent and objective. Whether a course of conduct is indivisible depends upon the intent and objective of the actor. If all the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

On the other hand, if the evidence discloses that a defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives that were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for the independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.

A trial court’s implied finding that a defendant harbored a separate intent and objective for each offense will be upheld on appeal if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

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

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 551

People v. Blake (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 509, 512

Second Holding:

Courts have found section 654 prohibits punishing a defendant for both being a felon in possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition when all of the ammunition in question was loaded into the firearm or had been fired from it.

Authority:

People v. Broadbent (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 917, 922

Third Holding:

Here, the .22-caliber rifle giving rise to count 3 and the same-caliber ammunition giving rise to count 4 were found in close proximity to each other. The defendant argues the only difference between this case and Broadbent and similar cases is that he safely stored the firearm separately, but in the same room as the ammunition. He contends that this difference is immaterial and does not demonstrate separate intents and objectives. We agree that drawing a distinction on this basis parses the objectives too finely.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 132, 138

Fourth Holding:

Because the record is devoid of evidence to support the court’s implicit finding that the defendant harbored two different objectives in possessing both a rifle and nearby compatible ammunition, we conclude on this record that section 654 precludes multiple punishment for the defendant’s possession of a firearm as well as several rounds of ammunition just feet away.

Although not raised by the parties, section 1170.1(a)’s one-third the middle term rule does not apply to a sentence stayed under section 654. We therefore modify the stayed 8-month consecutive sentence to a stayed middle term of two years.

Authority:

People v. Relkin (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1188, 1197-1198

Defenses, Jury instructions, Jury trial, Standard of review

Case 000935

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by instructing the jury that a person may lose the right to self-defense if he was the initial aggressor or a mutual combatant (CALCRIM No. 3471), or if he contrived the claim as a pretext to assault the victim (CALCRIM No. 3472). Given the evidence in this case, no reasonable jury could find these instructions applicable.

Although the error was harmless as to the instructions on mutual combat and contrived self-defense—as the jury was readily able to see the irrelevance of these instructions—the record reveals a reasonable likelihood that the jury was misled by the initial aggressor instruction. We therefore reverse the defendant’s murder conviction and remand for retrial.

First Holding:

The prosecution argues that the claim was forfeited by lack of objection. The defendant argues the issue is reviewable insofar as the challenged instructions directly undermined his self-defense claim and thus impaired his substantial rights.

Alternatively, he claims defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to fully object to both instructions.

We must address the defendant’s contention on its merits to determine whether there was an impairment of his substantial rights or ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

PEN 1259

People v. Anderson (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 919, 927

Second Holding:

It is settled that in criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, the trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence.

The general principles of law governing the case are those principles closely and openly connected with the facts before the court, and which are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.

The corollary to this mandate is equally well-established: a trial court is not obligated to give an instruction if the evidence presented at trial is such as to preclude a reasonable jury from finding the instruction applicable. Indeed, it is error to give a jury instruction that is legally correct but has no application to the facts of the case.

Authority:

People v. St. Martin (1970) 1 Cal.3d 524, 531

People v. Schultz (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 535, 539

People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129

Third Holding:

Giving an inapplicable instruction is subject to the traditional Watson test for prejudice, under which reversal is required if it is reasonably probable the result would have been more favorable to the defendant had the error not occurred.

Such an error is generally only a technical error that does not constitute ground for reversal because juries are fully capable of analyzing the evidence, determining the facts, and realizing that an instruction does not apply. Juries are routinely told that some of the instructions may not apply, depending on their findings about the facts of the case and are directed to follow the instructions that do apply to the facts as they find them.

That being said, in some cases, the presence of an extraneous instruction may be confusing enough to become prejudicial.

Authority:

People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1130

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

People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 67

People v. Schultz (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 535, 539-540

Fourth Holding:

Regarding the instruction on initial aggressor, there are two problems. First, the paragraph the jury received on sudden escalation was written in terms of a defendant initiating an altercation with nondeadly force, the victim responding with deadly force, and then the defendant using deadly force in return.

But the evidence here suggested a different scenario, in which (arguably) the victim initiated with nondeadly force, the defendant responded with deadly force, the victim subsequently used deadly force, and then the defendant used deadly force in return. In other words, the standard language did not quite fit the facts here.

Second, and more to the point, we agree with the defendant that no reasonable jury could find the initial aggressor concept applicable—even with tailored sudden escalation language—given the timelapse between the two encounters. The reason that a defendant forfeits his claim to self-defense when he initiates a deadly attack is because the victim is then legally justified in using deadly force against the defendant. But no one is justified in using deadly force absent fear of imminent death or great bodily injury. 

(Gary note: The appellate court describes the facts as the defendant initially pointing a gun, then the altercation is over, but an hour later the victim shows up and starts throwing rocks at the defendant, who responds with deadly force. “Accordingly, the defendant’s conduct during the first encounter did not limit his self-defense claim; he did not have a duty to withdraw during the second encounter.”)

On this record, we discern a reasonable likelihood that at least one juror would have accepted that the defendant actually believed he needed to defend himself from imminent death or great bodily injury, but was misled into thinking the defendant lost his right to make that claim since he pulled the gun on the victim an hour earlier, and he did not communicate an intent to stop fighting during the second, fatal encounter.

We therefore conclude that giving the initial aggressor instruction was prejudicial, and accordingly reverse the murder conviction.

Authority:

In re Christian S. (2015) 7 Cal.4th 768, 773, fn. 1 [self-defense and imperfect self-defense may not be invoked by a defendant who, through his own wrongful conduct (e.g., the initiation of a physical assault or the commission of a felony), has created circumstances under which his adversary’s attack or pursuit is legally justified]

People v. Vasquez (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1179–1180 [imperfect self-defense is available when the victim’s use of force against the defendant is unlawful, even when the defendant set in motion the chain of events that led the victim to attack the defendant]

People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082 [for either perfect or imperfect self-defense, the fear must be of imminent harm]

Fifth Holding:

To the extent the prosecution contends that any error in instructing the jury on the limits of self-defense was harmless since the jury found the defendant guilty of first degree murder, we note that killing in self-defense is not necessarily inconsistent with premeditation and deliberation.

Authority:

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 265 (conc. opn. of Liu, J.)

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000934

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It is not clear whether the court intended to run count 2 concurrently or consecutively. The court stated it was to be run concurrently, but when stating the sentence imposed, it appeared to run the counts consecutively. We remand for clarification of the court’s actual intended sentence.

Holding:

In the course of explaining the sentence to be imposed, the trial court stated that, under section 1170.15, but the trial court said that under Woodworth, it had discretion to impose a concurrent sentence (it said a “current” sentence), and that it was doing so.

On all the remaining counts, the court imposed the sentences concurrently. But when the court announced the sentence, the calculation was based on running count 2 full term consecutively. It appears appropriate under these circumstances to reverse the sentence and remand the matter to permit the trial court to clarify its sentence.

Authority:

Pen 1170.15

People v. Woodworth (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1473

People v. Garcia (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 834, 838-839