Category Archives: Amelioration

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000847

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the court failed to award credit for the time the defendant served in custody. The court imposed a restitution fine that should have been vacated. The court imposed repealed fees. Remanded for the trial court to correct these errors, along with errors in the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

Where a defendant has served any portion of his sentence under a commitment based upon a judgment which judgment is subsequently declared invalid or which is modified during the term of imprisonment, such time shall be credited upon any subsequent sentence he may receive upon a new commitment for the same criminal act or acts.

A court resentencing a defendant must credit the defendant with all actual days he had spent in custody, whether in jail or prison, up to that time. The updated total of credit must then be added to the abstract of judgment.

Here, the most recently amended abstract reflects no credit for time served. On remand, the trial court will need to recalculate the number of days the defendant spent in custody from the initial sentencing through the date of the resentencing and prepare an updated abstract of judgment.

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the correct date that the new sentence was pronounced at the resentencing hearing, not the date of the original sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

PEN 2900.5

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

People v. Phoenix (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125, 1129-1130

Second Holding:

The restitution fine imposed under section 1202.4 at the original sentencing in 2011 must be vacated. Section 1465.9(d) provides that upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to Section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Third Holding:

The trial court was not authorized to impose fees under former Government Code section 29550.2. The Legislature repealed that statute effective July 1, 2021. (Stats. 2020, ch. 92, sec. 25.) Even if Government Code section 29550.2 were still in effect, the Legislature has declared such fees unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated. Accordingly, we vacate the main jail booking fee and the main jail classification fee imposed by the trial court.

Authority:

GOV 6111(a)

Fourth Holding:

We note a clerical error in the most recently amended abstract of judgment. The abstract includes a solitary numeral “1” in section 3 of the enhancements section. The numeral is listed without an identifying label and is not included in the aggregate sentence. Presumably, this numeral is left over from the prior prison term enhancement that was stricken by the trial court at resentencing and should be deleted. We will direct the trial court to correct the amended abstract of judgment by deleting this errant numeral.

(Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for its order directing correction of the abstract of judgment, but the law is clear that it has that authority. I have listed below some cases the court could have cited as authority.)

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000846

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing under section 1172.75, the court erred in failing to update the credit for time served. Remanded for the court to calculate the correct number of days and to correct the abstract of judgment that reflected the credit as of only the original sentence date.

First Holding:

The trial court incorrectly calculated his custody credit, and the abstract of judgment following the resentencing hearing does not reflect the actual days of custody credit as of the date of resentencing. We therefore remand the matter so the court may recalculate Smith’s actual days of custody credit and prepare an amended abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23

Second Holding:

(Gary note: The appellate court otherwise affirmed the sentence imposed on resentencing, but announced principles worthy of mention here, though they did not support any relief on appeal for this defendant.)

We review the trial court’s sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. We interpret relevant statutes and review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo.

Authority:

People v. Moseley (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 870, 874

People v. Mayfield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 142, 199

People v. Terwilligar (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 585, 595

Amelioration, Discretion, Duty of the court, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000842

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In the prior appeal, the appellate court reversed the denial of the defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 and ordered the trial court to grant the petition. On remand, the trial court granted the motion and redesignated the offense as three counts, and imposed the upper term.

It was error to resurrect and redesignate for sentencing counts that were dismissed in the original plea negotiations. It was also error to impose the upper term on circumstances in aggravation that were not submitted to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

When the trial court granted the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, his judgment became nonfinal and was subject to the retroactive application of AB 333. AB 333 made changes to the law on gang enhancements and narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang.

The defendant’s admission under the former law does not satisfy the elements now required under the current law. The stipulation at the preliminary hearing that the [named gang] was an ongoing street gang that engages in a pattern of criminal activity pursuant to section 186.22(f) is insufficient under any standard to prove either the gang enhancement or the gang offense under current law.

Authority:

People v. Trent (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 251, 262–263 [once petition for resentencing under sec. 1172.6 is granted, judgment is no longer final]

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 393 [AB 333 is retroactive to nonfinal judgments]

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740

People v. Silva (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 505, 526–527

Second Holding:

When a murder or attempted murder conviction is set aside under section 1172.6, the petitioner’s conviction shall be redesignated as the target offense or underlying felony for resentencing purposes if the murder or attempted murder was charged generically, and the target offense was not charged.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(e)

Third Holding:

Section 1172.6 does not define what constitutes an underlying felony or target offense, but our high court in Arellano held that the meaning of these terms is clear—an underlying felony refers to the felony underlying a felony-murder theory, and the target offense refers to the offense the natural and probable consequence of which was murder.

Authority:

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457

People v. Lara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1005 [the trial court erred by resurrecting counts dismissed in the parties’ plea agreement on resentencing]

Fourth Holding:

Application of the trial court’s resentencing discretion under section 1172.6(e) here is circumscribed by the prosecution’s exercise of charging discretion in the original proceeding. Here, that limitation is the district attorney’s election to dismiss all charges involving [victim 1] as well as the substantive gang count in return for the defendant’s plea to a single count of attempted second degree murder of [victim 2].

Authority:

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 476 [deeming it unlikely the Legislature intended to allow the prosecution to effectively revisit its charging decisions  every time a petitioner succeeds in setting aside a  conviction under section 1172.6]

People v. Lara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1005, 1026

Fifth Holding:

There is no dispute that there is no qualifying felony for which the prosecutor could have proceeded under a theory of felony murder in this case.

Thus when resentencing the defendant, the trial court was required to redesignate his offense as a target offense—the offense of which the natural and probable consequence was the attempted murder.

In this case, conviction for attempted murder of [victim 2] was properly redesignated as assault with a semiautomatic firearm on [victim 2]. We conclude that the trial court erred by resurrecting counts stemming from conduct that the district attorney plainly chose to dismiss as part of the negotiated settlement.

These dismissed counts cannot form the predicate for relief for the defendant’s petition for resentencing. Because the defendant did not plead to any other offenses than the attempted murder of [victim 2], the target offense underlying the attempted murder of one named person is not two assaults with a firearm on two persons. Courts may not impose uncharged and unproven sentence allegations or enhancements when resentencing a successful petitioner under section 1172.6e).

Authority:

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 475, 477

People v. Lara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1005, 1027

Sixth Holding:

Though not applicable here, had the prosecution alleged and proved a target offense in addition to the attempted murder, on successful petition under section 1172.6, the court would be limited to sentencing the defendant on the charged target offenses that were proved. The trial court under section 1172.6(d)(3) would not have been otherwise entitled to resentence the defendant on charges that could have been [but were not] established by the evidence.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(d)(3)

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 470

Seventh Holding:

The trial court erred by imposing an upper term for the count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm on [victim 2] without holding a jury trial as requested.

Under section 1170(b), when a statute specifies three possible terms, the trial court shall, in its sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, unless circumstances in aggravation that justify an upper term sentence have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

However, a trial court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)

Eighth Holding:

After the defendant’s resentencing, the California Supreme Court decided Wiley. Relying on Erlinger, our high court held that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury determination on aggravating factors related to a defendant’s criminal history, such as whether a defendant’s convictions were of increasing seriousness under rule 4.421(b)(2), and whether the defendant’s prior performance on probation was unsatisfactory under rule 4.421(b)(5).

Wiley concluded that a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm. 

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1086

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 834 [virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty plea]

Ninth Holding:

where a defendant was deprived of a jury trial on aggravating factors used at sentencing, we must apply the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard in Chapman.

Under this standard, we must reverse the judgment unless we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1087

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

Tenth Holding:

The trial court relied on the defendant’s rap sheet to determine that the crimes were of increasing seriousness and were numerous under rule 4.421(b)(2). According to defendant’s rap sheet, he had a juvenile adjudication in 2007 [for specified offenses], 2010 juvenile adjudications for [different offenses] and a 2014 conviction for [a different offense].  

Based on these series of offenses, a rational jury could have disagreed as to whether it demonstrated criminal conduct of increasing seriousness. Likewise, a rational jury could have also found that the defendant’s prior convictions were not particularly numerous. The failure to submit these aggravating factors to the jury was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant is entitled to reversal of the upper term sentence.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1089

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 848

 

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000841

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The Court of Appeal treated this appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and struck the enhancement for the now-invalid prison term enhancement.

Habeas was necessary because the defendant’s name did not appear on a list prepared and maintained by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), so the defendant was not eligible to apply for resentencing under section 1172.75.

The court granted the writ, directing that the prior prison term enhancement be stricken, and also ordered correction of an error contained in the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75, effective in 2022, provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid.

The statute also establishes a process for recalling sentences that include now-invalid prior prison term enhancements and resentencing affected defendants. It requires the Secretary of the CDCR and the county correctional administrator of each county to identify those persons in their custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in section 1172.75(a) and to provide the name of each person, along with the person’s date of birth and the relevant case number or docket number, to the sentencing court that imposed the enhancement.

Upon receiving this information, the court shall review the judgment and verify that the current judgment includes a sentencing enhancement described in section 1172.75(a). If the judgment includes such an enhancement, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

Any review and verification by the court in advance of resentencing is only triggered by receipt of the necessary information from the CDCR Secretary or a county correctional administrator, not by any individual defendant.

Section 1172.75 does not contemplate resentencing relief initiated by any individual defendant’s petition or motion.

While defendant’s petition is not sufficient to authorize the trial court to act pursuant to section 1172.75, jurisdiction can be found if the CDCR provided the court with a list identifying defendant while his petition was pending.

In this case, the CDCR never identified defendant to the trial court as someone eligibile for section 1172.75 resentencing, and the trial court did not have jurisdiction to resentence the defendant under section 1172.75. Therefore, the trial court’s resentencing and related abstract of judgment and minute order are void.

Authority:

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 384

People v. Cota (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 318, 332 [trial court is statutorily authorized to act once trial court receives defendant’s identification information from CDCR]

People v. Escobedo (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 440, 447–448

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

People v. Chavez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 771, 780

Third Holding:

On appeal from a void judgment or order, we must reverse the trial court’s void acts because simply dismissing the appeal would leave intact the void judgment.

Authority:

People v. Gray (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 148, 170

People v. Alanis (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1477, fn. 5

Fourth Holding:

Where, as here, execution of sentence has commenced and the judgment is final, the trial court is generally deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant.  To obtain resentencing on a final judgment, a defendant generally must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus (see ) or proceed by way of a special statutory procedure (e.g., §§ 1170.18, 1170.91, 1172.1, 1172.2, 1172.6, 1172.7, 1172.75). 

Authority:

People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 339

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

Dix v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 455

People v. Hernandez (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 323, 326

People v. Hernandez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1118

Fifth Holding:

A trial court may recall and resentence a defendant on its own motion, within 120 days of the date of commitment or at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law, provided the new sentence, if any, is no greater than the initial sentence.

A defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under this section. If a defendant requests consideration for relief under this section, the court is not required to respond.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1(a)(1)

Sixth Holding:

A defendant may, however, invite the court to exercise its discretion under section 1172.1.

However, appellate courts have uniformly held that a trial court’s summary decision not to take up a defendant’s invitation under section 1172.1 is not an appealable order and that any such appeal fails to confer jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal.

There is no indication in the record that the trial court intended to grant defendant’s invitation to recall and resentence him pursuant to section 1172.1.

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 375

People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1047

People v. Roy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 991, 1001

People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687, 695–696

People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 996

Seventh Holding:

The record does reflect that a prior prison term enhancement was imposed illegally (because it was imposed AFTER the statute was amended declaring such prior prison term enhancements to be invalid).

Both parties have requested that we treat defendant’s appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus with respect to the sentence he is still serving, and we exercise that discretion.

Accordingly, for the sake of judicial economy, we shall deem defendant’s appeal, in part, a petition for writ of habeas corpus and order that the abstract of judgment be modified to strike defendant’s former section 667.5 enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 928, fn. 4

Eighth Holding:

The abstract of judgment erroneously reflects that the firearm enhancement is attached to count II instead of count I, which it was actually attached to. Having reviewed the record on appeal, we shall order the abstract of judgment corrected.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000838

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the court did not follow the required procedures for adjudicating the petition brought under section 1170.91, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. We also direct the superior court to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

We interpret the requirements of section 1170.91 de novo.

Authority:

People v. Bonilla-Bray (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 234, 237

Second Holding:

Section 1170.91(b)(1) provides that a person currently serving a sentence for a felony conviction, whether by trial or plea, who is, or was, a member of the United States military and who may be suffering from sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or mental health problems as a result of the person’s military service may petition for a recall of sentence, before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in the case, to request resentencing if the circumstance of suffering from sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or mental health problems as a result of the person’s military service was not considered as a factor in mitigation at the time of sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1170.91

Third Holding:

If the trial court finds the defendant satisfies the criteria for relief, the court may, in the interest of justice, do either of the following: (1) reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment by modifying the sentence; or (2) vacate the conviction and impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense, whether or not that offense was charged in the original pleading, and then resentence the defendant to a reduced term of imprisonment with the concurrence of both the defendant and the prosecution.

Authority:

PEN 1170.91(b)(3)(A)–(B)

Fourth Holding:

Upon receiving a section 1170.91 petition for resentencing, the trial court must hold a public hearing to determine whether the defendant satisfies the statutory criteria for relief. The prosecution, the defense, and any victim must be given at least 15 days’ notice of the hearing. At that hearing, the prosecution shall have an opportunity to be heard on the defendant’s eligibility and suitability for resentencing. The trial court erred by denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing without holding a properly noticed public hearing as required by section 1170.91(b)(3).

Authority:

PEN 1170.91(b)(3)

People v. Bonilla-Bray (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 234, 239

Fifth Holding:

Though the original version of section 1170.91 limited its application to those serving a determinate sentence, the Legislature amended the section in 2022 to remove the limitation.

Authority:

People v. Sherman (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 325, 330 [In 2022, the Legislature amended

again. The 2022 amendment expanded subdivisions (a) and (b) to include those serving indeterminate sentences]

People v. Harrison (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1145, 1154 [same]

Sixth Holding:

There is a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. It states that the defendant was convicted of grand theft of a vehicle pursuant to section 487h(a), when in fact he was convicted of the lesser included offense of unlawful driving of a vehicle pursuant to Vehicle Code section 10851(a).

If not already done, the abstract of judgment must be amended to correct this error.

Authority:

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

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

Case 000833

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court’s true findings on three of the four strike priors and three of the four prior serious felony enhancements must be vacated and the matter remanded to the court for any retrial of these allegations, because there is insufficient evidence to support the finding defendant’s three 2016 convictions qualify as serious or violent felonies for purposes of three of the four strike priors and three of the four prior serious felony enhancements under the 2022 amendments to section 186.22 enacted by AB 333.

First Holding:

Under the Three Strikes law, defendants previously convicted of serious or violent felonies are subject to increased prison terms: if a defendant has one prior conviction for a serious or violent felony, the defendant’s term of imprisonment is doubled, and if a defendant has two or more such strike priors, the defendant may receive life imprisonment.

The Three Strikes law defines “serious or violent” felony to include any offense defined as a serious felony under section 1192.7(a). Section 1192.7 defines “serious felony” to include, among other things, any felony offense that would also constitute a felony violation of section 186.22.

Authority:

PEN 1170.12

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

Second Holding:

Section 186.22(a) makes it unlawful to actively participate in a criminal street gang with knowledge that its members engage in, or have engaged in, a pattern of criminal gang activity, and to willfully promote, further, or assist in felonious criminal conduct by members of that gang.

Section 186.22(b) provides for enhancements if a person commits a felony for the benefit of such a gang. Section 186.22 also defines the terms criminal street gang and pattern of criminal gang activity as well as benefitting a gang.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

Third Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 333 narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang, the definition of a pattern of criminal activity, and what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang.

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 former section 186.22(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 that 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 offense 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. Moreover, because these changes are ameliorative in nature, they apply to nonfinal judgments on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

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

Fourth Holding:

Fletcher held that, 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.

Whether a prior conviction was for an offense that constitutes a felony violation of section 186.22 is determined by applying the current version of section 186.22.

Authority:

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

Fifth Holding:

On appeal, a reviewing court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the judgment to ascertain whether it is supported by substantial evidence. In other words, the reviewing court determines whether a rational trier of fact could have found the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the elements of the sentence enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt.

The People must prove all elements of an alleged sentence enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the mere fact of conviction under a particular statute does not prove the offense was a serious felony, otherwise admissible evidence from the entire record of the conviction may be examined to resolve the issue.

Authority:

People v. Miles (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1074, 1082, 1083

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1067

Sixth Holding:

The inquiry concerning whether a prior conviction qualifies as a serious felony is a determination regarding the nature or basis of the defendant’s prior conviction—specifically, whether that conviction qualified as a conviction of a serious felony.

If the prior conviction was for an offense that can be committed in multiple ways, and the record of the conviction does not disclose how the offense was committed, a court must presume the conviction was for the least serious form of the offense.

In such a case, if the statute under which the prior conviction occurred could be violated in a way that does not qualify for the alleged enhancement, the evidence is thus insufficient, and the People have failed in their burden.

Authority:

People v. McGee (2006) 38 Cal.4th 682, 706

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1065 (superseded by statute on another ground, as stated in People v. Frahs (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 784, 795)

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

Case 000831

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court should have recalculated the defendant’s custody credits. Further, the abstract of judgment erroneously indicates that the court reimposed the restitution fine and suspended it. In fact, the court did not reimpose the fine, and thus this is clerical error that must be corrected.

First Holding:

The abstract of judgment erroneously includes a restitution fine. Section 1465.9(d) provides that 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.

In fact, the trial court did not reimpose the restitution fine, so this appears to have been a clerical error. Therefore, we remand so the court may correct the abstract of judgment.

(Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for its order directing correction, but there are many cases the court could have relied on. I have set forth several below the Penal Code section in the Authority section below.)

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

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

Second Holding:

There was an error in calculating the defendant’s days of custody credit. Remanded for the court to calculate the correct number of days.

(Gary note: Again, the court cited no authority for this obvious solution, so I have set forth a few below.)

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

PEN 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 33–34

People v. Dean (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 391, 396–397

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000822

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On the defendant’s resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the court erroneously denied the defendant’s petition, concluding that he was not eligible because the now-invalid enhancement for a prior prison term had been imposed but stayed.

Holding:

While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Rhodius, in which it held that a person whose sentence included a now-invalid enhancement for a prior prison term is eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75, even if the enhancement was stayed at the initial sentencing.

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000803

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by believing that, because the defendant pleaded guilty to attempted murder after the original the original effective date of section 1172.6., the defendant was ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law.

First Holding:

We review de novo a trial court’s denial of a section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

People v. Lovejoy (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 860, 865

Second Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 eliminated natural and probable consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting and limited the scope of the felony-murder rule. SB 1437 also established a procedure for convicted individuals to retroactively seek resentencing relief if they had been convicted under either the natural and probable consequences doctrine or felony murder rule, as set forth in what is now section 1172.6.

Section 1172.6(c) provides that after the submission of a petition for relief, the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief. If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause. A denial of the petition at the prima facie stage is appropriate only if the record of conviction demonstrates that the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957

People v. Ervin (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 90, 101

Third Holding:

The trial court erred in denying the defendant relief at the prima facie stage. If the court issues an order to show cause it must then hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to vacate the murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter conviction and to recall the sentence and resentence the petitioner on any remaining counts in the same manner as if the petitioner had not previously been sentenced.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(d)

Fourth Holding:

Ordinarily, section 1172.6 resentencing relief would be unavailable as a matter of law to a petitioner who, like the defendant here, was convicted after the effective date of SB 1437. However, in the years immediately following the passage of SB 1437, there was considerable controversy among the Courts of Appeal as to whether it eliminated the natural and probable consequences theory in connection with the crime of attempted murder.

This controversy was resolved upon the passage of SB 775, effective January 1, 2022, which among other things clarifies that persons who were convicted of attempted murder or manslaughter under a theory of felony murder and the natural probable consequences doctrine are permitted the same relief under section 1172.6 as those persons convicted of murder under the same theories.

Authority:

People v. Lezama (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 583, 590

People v. Alaybue (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207, 222 [summarizing the split of opinions between various Courts of Appeal]

Fifth Holding:

The defendant’s attempted murder guilty plea here was entered during the interim period between the effective dates of Senate Bill No. 1437 and Senate Bill No. 775, when the law was unsettled as to whether an individual could be convicted of attempted murder based on the natural and probable consequences theory.

Because the People struck the “willful, deliberate, and premeditated” allegation from the attempted murder charge to which the defendant pled guilty, it is possible that the prosecution proceeded under the now-disallowed theory of natural and probable consequences, which would entitle the defendant to resentencing under section 1172.6.

Authority:

People v. Estrada (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 328, 337-338 [where defendant did not plead to a particular type of malice in connection with his attempted murder plea, or a specific theory of guilt in connection with his voluntary manslaughter plea, the prosecution could have proceeded under any theory of liability, including a natural and probable consequences theory]

Amelioration, Sentencing, Vicarious liability

Case 000802

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the record of conviction did not establish the defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law, we reverse and remand for the trial court to set an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6(d).

First Holding:

In 2019, the legislature enacted SB 1437, which amended the state’s murder laws to ensure culpability was commensurate with liability. The legislature later expanded its amendments with SB 775. SB 775 allowed defendants to seek resentencing if their convictions rested on any theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime, and they could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.

To seek such relief, a defendant must file a petition under what is now section 1172.6. If petitioners make a prima facie showing that they are eligible for relief, the trial court must set an evidentiary hearing. If the record of conviction shows that the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law, the court may deny the petition at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971

Second Holding:

Because the trial court was incorrect there was no theory presented to the jury under which malice could have been imputed, we reverse.

Authority:

People v. Maldonado (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1257

Third Holding:

In Maldonado, the court traced how a defendant could be convicted of first degree murder without a requirement that the jury find the defendant harbored malice. It noted that CALCRIM No. 401 only requires an intent to aid and abet a crime. In the murder context, this instruction can muddy the waters because the crime is not necessarily the act that caused the death or may not be an act that would require a conscious disregard of human life.

Authority:

People v. Maldonado (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1257, 1264-1268

People v. Langi (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 972

Fourth Holding:

Whether instructional error could have been raised on direct appeal is immaterial to the section 1172.6 analysis.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2026) 19 Cal.5th 639, 649

Amelioration, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000792

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1170(d), because (a) it incorrectly concluded that section 1171 barred resentencing where the original sentence was agreed on by the parties, and (b) it incorrectly believed that the parties had originally agreed to the sentence imposed. Reversed and remanded.

Because the trial court did not consider whether, despite the availability of youthful offender parole, the defendant’s determinate sentence is a de facto LWOP sentence, we leave that issue for the trial court to consider in the first instance.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 1171 [effective 1/1/2025] does not bar modification of plea agreements in resentencing. To the contrary, the section expressly authorizes modification after a plea. It states that, absent a more specific statutory rule, in a postconviction proceeding to modify a sentence pursuant to an ameliorative statute the court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the defendant’s sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea.

The statute then provides that a plea bargain may not be rescinded based upon such modification: Any change to a sentence shall not be basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement. Thus, section 1171 expressly authorizes trial courts to modify sentences imposed after a plea bargain and prohibits rescission of bargains based on such modification. The trial court erred in ruling that section 1171 barred resentencing because of the defendant’s plea agreement

Authority:

PEN 1171(a), (c)(2) and (c)(3)

Second Holding:

Section 1170(d), under certain circumstances, provides for the recall and resentencing of juvenile offenders [who were tried as adults] with LWOP sentences.

(Gary note: without citation to published authority directly discussing this point, the unpublished opinion concludes that the use of the term “life without the possibility of parole” in section 1170(d) does not mention any specific statutes imposing LWOP sentences, such as section 190.5.

(This court infers from that lack of specificity that the Legislature must have intended that section 1170(d) apply whenever a candidate has received a sentence that, effectively, precludes parole in his or her lifetime. In other words, this unpublished opinion’s reasoning on this point is that section 1170(d), by its very terms, contemplates both express LWOP sentences and de facto LWOP sentences (sentences whose terms cannot be completed within a reasonable lifetime).

(The court states, “Thus, the Legislature appears to have intended section 1170(d) to be interpreted in a practical rather than technical manner to apply not only to formal LWOP sentences but also to de facto LWOP sentences that effectively render a juvenile offender ineligible for parole before they are expected to die.”

(Keep in mind that my description of this part of the holding is placed in a bracketed “Gary note,” and I may be oversimplifying and even misstating the court’s reasoning on this point. I simply thought it was an interesting approach that may prove useful.

(Also, the county’s District Attorney “invited” the Supreme Court to grant review on its own motion.  I suspect it is because the Attorney General actually represented the People in this appeal, and the DA would have had no standing to file a petition for review.  The Supreme Court has granted itself to a date in October 2026 to decide whether to grant review on its own motion.)

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)(5)

Third Holding:

A practical interpretation of section 1170(d) is also supported by constitutional considerations. At least four Court of Appeal decisions have held that restricting resentencing under Section 1170(d) to juvenile offenders with formal LWOP sentences is irrational and violates equal protection, though others have disagreed.

Authority:

People v. Cabrera (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 650, 653

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 450-454

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1054-1061

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 631-634

Contra: People v. Baldwin (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 978, 1002-1006

Contra: People v. Thompson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1075-1081, review granted Sept. 24, 2025, S292540

Fourth Holding:

Nonetheless, interpreting section 1170(d) to be limited to formal LWOP sentences plainly raises a serious constitutional question, and it is well-established that statutes should be construed to avoid constitutional questions where they are reasonably susceptible to a reasonable alternative interpretation that do not raise such questions. Accordingly, we conclude that section 1170(d) should be interpreted to apply to de facto as well as formal LWOP sentences.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 862 [If a statute is susceptible of two constructions, one of which will raise serious and doubtful constitutional questions, the court will adopt the construction which, without doing violence to the reasonable meaning of the language used, will render it free from doubt as to its constitutionality.]

People v. Miracle (2018) 6 Cal.5th 318, 339 [A statute must be construed, if reasonably possible, in a manner that avoids a serious constitutional question.]

Fifth Holding:

The trial court held that the defendant was not serving a de facto LWOP sentence because he is eligible for youthful offender parole under section 3051 and, in fact, already has received a youthful offender parole hearing. We disagree. Youthful offender parole is available to all juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences, whether formal or not.

Moreover, the Legislature extended youthful offender parole hearings to juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences in 2017, five years after enacting section 1170(d). In so doing, the Legislature did not indicate that it intended to end resentencing for juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences under section 1170(d), and, as the Supreme Court has long recognized, absent an express declaration of legislative intent, we will find an implied repeal only when there is no rational basis for harmonizing the two potentially conflicting statutes.

Accordingly, in determining whether an individual was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole under section 1170(d), youthful offender parole should be disregarded.

Authority:

PEN 3051(b)(4)

People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 845

Garris v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 477

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 447-448

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1061

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 628-629

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000784

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to recall his sentence under section 1172.6. The evidence was insufficient to prove he is guilty of murder and attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

SB 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder to ensure a person’s sentence is commensurate with his or her criminal culpability. Specifically, it amended section 188 by adding a requirement that, except as stated in section 189(e), all principals to murder must act with express or implied malice to be convicted of that crime. SB 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) extended relief to defendants convicted of attempted murder, but only if their convictions were based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Authority:

PEN 188(a)(3)

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-843, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 869

Second Holding:

SB 1437 also created a procedural mechanism for defendants with eligible murder convictions to seek retroactive relief under the amended law. Under section 1172.6, if a petitioner makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the trial court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing.

At that hearing, the court sits as an independent fact finder and the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of murder or attempted murder under the amended law. The parties may offer new or additional evidence at the hearing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 960

People v. Garrison (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 735, 743

Third Holding:

Under direct aiding and abetting principles, an accomplice is guilty of an offense perpetrated by another [e.g., murder] if the accomplice aids the commission of that offense with knowledge of the direct perpetrator’s unlawful intent and with an intent to assist in achieving those unlawful ends. The defendant must not only know the direct perpetrator’s intent to commit murder, but he or she must share that intent. And, aiding and abetting the commission of a crime requires some affirmative action. The word aids refers only to overt or affirmative forms of assistance.

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 463

People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1118

People v. Partee (2020) 8 Cal.5th 860, 868

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s denial of a section 1172.6 petition for substantial evidence. Under this standard, we review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence — that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value — such that a reasonable trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a direct aider and abettor in the murder and attempted murders.

Authority:

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

Fifth Holding:

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Malice may be express or implied. The difference between express malice and implied malice is the former requires an intent to kill but the latter does not.

Authority:

PEN 187(a)

PEN 188(a)

People v. Soto (2018) 4 Cal.5th 968, 976

Sixth Holding:

Although intent to kill is certainly blameworthy, it is insufficient standing alone to render a person culpable for another’s acts. The aider and abettor must know the direct perpetrator intends to commit the murder and intend to aid the direct perpetrator in its commission. It is this mental relationship to the perpetrator’s acts that confers liability on the aider and abettor.

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 453

Seventh Holding:

We cannot presume that because members of the defendant’s group belonged to the same gang, they must have known each other’s intent. Indeed, the law does not recognize a rule of guilt by association. We insist on proof of a defendant’s knowledge of, and specific intent to further, the group’s unlawful ends. Without knowledge of his cohort’s intent to kill, any of the defendant’s subsequent acts cannot constitute the actions necessary to establish aider and abettor liability.

Authority:

People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 165