Category Archives: Appellate Principles

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000370

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

Holding:

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

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

Authority:

PC 1172.6(d)(3)

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

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

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

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000352

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in not conducted a full resentencing under section 1172.75 after striking the now-invalid prior prison term enhancements and in conducting the hearing in the absence of the defendant without his express consent.

First Holding:

A defendant is entitled to a full resentencing hearing under section 1172.75.

Authority:

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402 [by its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements]

Second Holding:

Absent a valid waiver under section 977, defendant is entitled to be present physically or by remote appearance at resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Velasco (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 663, 673-674

Third Holding:

Resentencing under section 1172.75 ordinarily must be initiated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), by the CDCR notifying the trial courts—no later than December 31, 2023—of all incarcerated individuals who may be entitled to relief under the statute. Compare Burgess with Cota–two cases discussing different circumstances under which a defendant-initiated resentencing petition is improper, but the CDCR’s failure to notify trial court by deadline does not preclude full resentencing hearing. Here, it appears the trial court’s early, but incomplete action granting defendant some resentencing relief by striking his section 667.5(b) prison-prior terms in 2022 made it unlikely defendant would appear on the CDCR resentencing-eligibility lists submitted to the trial court in 2023. That defendant may have fallen through the cracks in this manner does not deprive him of full resentencing eligibility under section 1172.75. To the extent necessary for procedural regularity, we deem defendant’s appeal here a petition for habeas corpus to secure the resentencing hearing the People concede is necessary.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(b) and (c)

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 379-382

People v. Cota (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1131

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 71-72 [appeal may be treated as a habeas corpus petition in the interest of judicial economy]

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000350

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Section 654 applied and it was error to impose sentence on more than one of the three counts of human trafficking, pimping, and pandering.

First Holding:

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.

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

Second Holding:

Section 654 does not preclude multiple convictions but only multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. The proscription against double punishment is applicable where there is a course of conduct that violates more than one statute and comprises an indivisible transaction punishable under more than one statute. The divisibility of a course of conduct depends upon the intent and objective of the actor. If all the offenses are incident to one objective, then the defendant may be punished for any one of them but not for more than one. Accordingly, the trial court should have stayed the sentences on two of the counts pursuant to section 654.

Authority:

People v. Miller (1977) 18 Cal.3d 873, 885

Third Holding:

Here, the defendant was convicted in three counts of human trafficking, pimping, and pandering, each related to one victim and each during the same period. Given the specific factual scenario presented here, including that all three offenses were charged for the same period and that none relied on one specific act, the pimping offense was incidental to the pandering offense, and the intent to pander was an essential element of the human trafficking charge.

Authority:

People v. Deloach (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 323, 337 [as a general rule, any acts of prostitution that follow directly or proximately from the pandering are incident to a single objective and therefore constitute an indivisible transaction with it; that is, the subsequent sex offenses are incidental to the commission of the pandering, and are facilitated by it]

People v. Dearborne (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 250, 263 [As charged under the facts of this case, the human trafficking and pandering were part of the same criminal intent and objective, and thus the court was required to stay the sentence on the pandering count. The human trafficking charge literally has an element of an intent to pander.]

Fourth Holding:

The defendant asks us to remand the matter for resentencing based on this error, but we agree with the People that resentencing is not necessary. Rather, we exercise our authority to modify the judgment to reflect that the punishments on [named counts] are stayed pursuant to section 654.

Authority:

PEN 1260 [appellate court may reverse, affirm, or modify judgment]

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473, [court may exercise its authority to modify a judgment based on an unauthorized sentence under section 1260 in the context of section 654]

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Jury instructions, Standard of review

Case 000344

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred and violated his due process rights by failing to provide a self-defense instruction as to the lesser included battery offense. We reverse defendant’s misdemeanor simple battery conviction.

First Holding:

The trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 239

Second Holding:

We independently review claims of instructional error. We examine the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579

People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218

People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1229

Third Holding:

Under appropriate circumstances a trial court may be required to give a requested jury instruction that pinpoints a defense theory of the case. But a trial court need not give a pinpoint instruction if it is argumentative , merely duplicates other instructions , or is not supported by substantial evidence. However, a defendant bears the burden of requesting a pinpoint instruction; a trial court has no sua sponte duty to provide one.

Authority:

People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 558

People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 824

Fourth Holding:

Furthermore, a trial court must instruct the jury sua sponte on general principles of law applicable to the case, including any defense supported by substantial evidence that is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case. In deciding whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the evidence, but only whether there is evidence which, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt.

Authority:

People v. Villanueva (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 41, 49

People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 195

People v. Orlosky (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 257, 269-270

Fifth Holding:

Generally, a party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language. But that rule does not apply when the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law. Moreover, a failure to object to instructional error will not result in forfeiture if the error affects the defendant’s substantial rights. In this instance, the trial court on its own modified the instruction on the lesser included offense of battery by omitting the element of lack of self-defense, and directing the jury to consider self-defense solely on the question of whether he acted in self-defense on the greater offense of inflicting corporal injury. The instruction affirmatively and erroneously precluded the jury from considering the self-defense evidence in connection with the lesser included battery charge.

Authority:

People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1011-1012

People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579

People v. Townsel (2016) 63 Cal.4th 25, 60

Sixth Holding:

The California Supreme Court has yet to determine whether a trial court’s failure to instruct on a requested affirmative defense instruction supported by substantial evidence is federal constitutional error or state law error. We need not resolve the question in this case, because the error was prejudicial even under the state law standard. Under that standard, reversal is warranted if it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error. In this context, a probability does not mean more likely than not, but merely a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 186, 199

People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 984

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [federal harmlessness standard]

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836-837 [state law harmlessness standard]

Richardson v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1040, 1050

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000343

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The true finding on the defendant’s prior felony strike conviction must be reversed in light of changes to the gang criminal activity statute by AB 333. Defendant’s sentence, as well as the true finding that defendant’s prior conviction qualifies as prior serious felony conviction under the Three Strikes law, is vacated. The matter is remanded to the trial court for any retrial of that allegation, applying the elements of section 186.22 as amended by AB 333 and for resentencing.

First Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature amended section 186.22 with the passage of AB 333. AB 333 changed the elements of gang offenses and enhancements by narrowing the definitions of criminal street gang, pattern of criminal activity, and what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang. AB 333 is ameliorative legislation that applies to nonfinal judgments under the rule of Estrada.

Authority:

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

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

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

Second Holding:

In Fletcher, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether AB 333 applies to a sentencing court’s determination of whether a defendant’s conviction under the prior version of section 186.22 qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction for purposes of prior serious felony enhancements. It concluded that where a defendant has suffered a prior conviction under the earlier 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. It also held that it applies retroactively to cases in which the judgment is not yet final.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

That the defendant admitted the prior conviction does not forfeit the issue. Defendant’s admission cannot be construed as knowingly and/or intelligently made because it was prior to the decision in Fletcher. The true finding on defendant’s strike prior should be reversed, and the matter remanded to the trial court for any retrial of the strike allegation, applying the elements of section 186.22 as amended by AB 333. Notwithstanding the admission of the prior conviction in the trial court, we have discretion to reach the merits.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [an appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party]

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 400 [an appellate court may reach the merits of a forfeited issue in order to forestall a cognizable ineffective assistance of counsel claim]

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000318

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was sentenced to prison terms of 60-to-life plus 13 years under both the Three Strikes law (section 667) and the Habitual Offender provisions of section 667.7. The sentence included 13 years for enhancements. The judgment is modified to strike the great bodily injury enhancement imposed under section 12022.7(a) and the two prior serious felony enhancements imposed under section 667(a). On the amended abstract of judgment form, the court should indicate in section No. 8 that the defendant was sentenced pursuant to both section 667.7 and the Three Strikes law.

First Holding:

As relevant here, section 667.7 defines a habitual offender as any person convicted of a felony in which the person inflicted great bodily injury as provided in section 12022.53 or 12022.7, or personally used force which was likely to produce great bodily injury, who has served two or more prior separate prison terms as defined in section 667.5 for the crime of assault with a deadly weapon. A habitual offender with two prior separate prison terms shall be sentenced to life in prison and shall be ineligible for parole for a period of time calculated as the longest of three options: (1) 20 years; (2) the determinate term that would be imposed under section 1170, including any enhancements; or (3) any period prescribed by Section 190 or 3046. In other words, a habitual offender is not eligible for parole for a minimum of 20 years and for at least the duration of the sentence that would otherwise be imposed for the crime, including applicable enhancements.

[Gary note: The minimum term was set at 60 years, which was arrived at by tripling the minimum 20 years to life set by section 667.7 in keeping with section 667(e)(2)(A)(i), which sets the minimum term for Three Strikes sentences at “three times the term otherwise provided as punishment for each current felony conviction” if that produces the greatest Three Strikes sentence. The third option listed above–the reference to section 3046–is what makes that the applicable minimum term under section 667.7.]

Authority:

PEN 667.7

PEN 3046(a)(2) [(a) An inmate imprisoned under a life sentence shall not be paroled until he or she has served the greater of the following: … (2) A term as established pursuant to any other law that establishes a minimum term or minimum period of confinement under a life sentence before eligibility for parole.]

Second Holding:

Section 667.7 is a self-contained sentencing scheme for habitual violent offenders. Because section 667.7 ensures that a habitual offender’s parole ineligibility lasts at least as long as the corresponding determinate sentence would, including enhancements, a sentencing court may not impose determinate sentence enhancements to further lengthen this period of parole ineligibility.

Authority:

People v. Jenkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 234, 241

People v. Victor (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 518, 524-526

People v. Tuggle (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 147, 157-158, disapproved on another ground in Jenkins, at p. 252

Third Holding:

Permitting determinate enhancements to be imposed on top of a habitual offender life sentence would lead to absurd, anomalous, results. Section 667.7 expressly authorizes courts to use applicable enhancements to calculate the offender’s hypothetical determinate sentence. If the total exceeds 20 years, the determinate sentence defines the offender’s minimum parole eligibility. Thus, if the determinate sentence, including enhancements, for habitual offender A equaled 21 years, this would become his minimum term. Since the enhancements were used to calculate this actual minimum term, the court could not recycle the enhancements to add another five or ten years. If the determinate sentence, including enhancements, for habitual offender B, a less serious offender, did not exceed 20 years, then B would be hit twice. First, as the Legislature intended, his minimum term would be the statutory floor, 20 years. Second, the same enhancements, which were not enough to put his determinate term over 20 years, would then be added on top of the statutory floor. This is not what the Legislature intended.

Authority:

People v. Victor (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 518, 524-525

People v. Jenkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 234, 253 [noting that engrafting a term of enhancement onto the life term would lead to a result inconsistent with the statute’s methodology for setting the minimum period of required imprisonment, and nothing in the statute suggests that the Legislature intended that those same enhancements be used again to add an additional term of imprisonment onto the life term]

Fourth Holding:

An appellate court may correct a sentence that is not authorized by law. Accordingly, we will strike the unauthorized enhancements from the defendant’s sentence.

Authority:

In re Ricky H. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 176, 191

In re Sandel (1966) 64 Cal.2d 412, 417-419

People v. Skeirik (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 444, 468-469

Fifth Holding:

On the amended abstract of judgment form, the court should indicate in section No. 8 that the defendant was sentenced pursuant to both section 667.7 and the Three Strikes law.

[Gary note: The court cited no authority for its directive for the correction of the abstract of judgment. It isn’t entirely clear that the abstract was incorrect, but a fair reading led me to that conclusion. In any event, there is much authority supporting the court’s ability to order correction of abstracts of judgment and minute orders, and I have set out some below.]

Authority:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000305

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The order denying the petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is reversed.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. It accomplished this by amending sections 188 and 189. Section 188(a)(3) now prohibits imputing malice based solely on an individual’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a principal of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule in section 189(e). Section 189 requires the prosecution to prove the defendant was the actual killer; an aider and abettor to murder who acted with the intent to kill; or a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

PEN 189

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

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 868–869

Second Holding:

The Legislature, to provide relief to those with existing murder convictions dependent on theories of the crime it had rejected, devised a path to resentencing. It has since expanded this path to allow relief for those with attempted murder convictions based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558

Third Holding:

If the record of conviction establishes ineligibility for resentencing as a matter of law, the petition is properly denied at the prima facie stage. However, the petition and record of conviction must establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 970-972

People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, 14

Fourth Holding:

We independently review a trial court’s determination whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief.

Authority:

We independently review a trial court’s determination whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief.

Fifth Holding:

We conclude the defendant has made a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief. The record of conviction does demonstrate a possibility that he was convicted of second degree murder under an imputed malice theory, that is, that he was guilty of murder based solely on his participation in the robbery. In assessing section 1172.6 petitions, the jury instructions will be critical. Indeed we look at the jury’s verdicts, viewed in light of the court’s jury instructions, to assess whether a defendant has made a prima facie showing for relief under section 1172.6.

Authority:

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 731

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 441

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000301

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though affirming the trial court’s reimposition of the original sentence (minus the now-invalid enhancements for prior prison terms), it remanded the matter to the trial court to expressly state which fines and fees it was imposing, as it was not clear from the record.

First Holding:

The abstract of judgment lists several fines and fees, some of which are mandatory. The trial court, however, imposed only direct restitution (which is also listed in the abstract). A superior court’s failure to orally impose mandatory fines or assessments results in an unauthorized sentence that the appellate court may correct on appeal. But we do not believe the superior court sufficiently addressed ability to pay. It mentioned ability to pay only in the context of the direct restitution. It sidestepped the issue of ability to pay, treating it as irrelevant to the issue of direct victim restitution. As the court did not orally impose any additional fines or fees, the defendant had no meaningful opportunity to raise his ability to pay with respect to them.

Authority:

People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1153–1157

People v. Pack-Ramirez (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 851, 859 [ability-to-pay principles have not been extended to a victim restitution payment under section 1202.4(f)]

People v. Abrahamian (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 314, 338

People v. Evans (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 771, 777

Second Holding:

By statute, restitution fines and probation restitution fines under section 1202.4(b) and section 1202.45 that exceed the $300 minimum shall account for ability to pay. And because of equal protection principles, a court must consider ability to pay before imposing ancillary assessments under section 1465.8(a)(1) and Government Code section 70373. As to the remaining fine in the defendant’s case, under section 1202.5, the parties do not dispute the fine must be set with ability to pay in mind, but is mandatory if affordable. Given this, we will order a limited remand for the superior court to consider the mandatory fines and assessments omitted from its oral sentencing pronouncements in connection with defendant’s ability to pay.

Authority:

PEN 1202.5

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

Third Holding:

Regarding restitution fines, section 1465.9 has recently been amended to provide 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. At least one Court of Appeal has held a court conducting a section 1172.75 resentencing cannot reimpose a restitution fine that is more than 10 years old and has held, instead, the fine should be stricken. As no restitution fine has been properly imposed, we are in no position to consider striking it, and the superior court can consider these developments on remand.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 601, review granted Mar. 11, 2026, S295038

Fourth Holding:

Walker approved Court of Appeal decisions that viewed section 1385 as calling for holistic balancing with special emphasis on the enumerated mitigating factors. Gonzalez did not create a new rule of law, but rather corrected a superior court’s misunderstanding regarding the term endangerment to public safety in section 1385(c)(2). The statute defines the term as a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others, which does not contemplate a laser-like focus on dangerousness at the time of sentencing. The superior court in Gonzalez had expressly limited its consideration to the defendant’s current dangerousness despite the call of the statute, a mistake not present here.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)(2)

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

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

Fifth Holding:

We need not, and typically do not, address arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.

Authority:

People v. Dunn (2025) 18 Cal.5th 129, 183, fn. 13

People v. Adir Internat., LLC (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 275, 298

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Retroactivity, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case: 000295

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There are two defendants, both convicted of murder and other matters. We reverse all counts of the conviction of Defendant A because of instructional error. It is therefore not necessary for us to consider the other errors urged by Defendant A. As to Defendant B, we reverse the conviction on the firearm offenses because of instructional error, and agree that the jury’s true findings on gang enhancements and related gang-related firearm enhancements must be vacatedand remanded because of changes in the law of gang criminal activity.

[GARY NOTE: The opinion is 70 pages long and goes into extensive discussion of the elements of murder. The reversals were based on the absence of proper jury instructions. I have chosen to summarize only a few of the pronouncements in the opinion rather than present a treatise on the elements of murder. I will, however, send the opinion to attorneys on request.]

First Holding:

Due to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the meanings of “willfully,” “deliberately,” and “with premeditation,” or with the instructions describing aider and abettor liability for murder, Defendant A’s conviction for first degree murder requires reversal.

To be guilty of first degree murder as an aider and abettor, the jury must be instructed that a person aids and abets the commission of a crime when he or she, acting with (1) knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator; and (2) the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the offense, (3) by act or advice aids, promotes, encourages or instigates, the commission of the crime.

Authority:

People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 561

Second Holding:

We evaluate the failure to instruct the jury on an element of an offense for prejudice under Chapman. Under this standard, we must reverse the conviction unless after examining the entire cause, including the evidence, and considering all relevant circumstances, it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.

Authority:

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

People v. Beck and Cruz (2019) 8 Cal.5th 548, 642

People v. Swain (1996) 12 Cal.4th 593, 607

Third Holding:

We review a claim of instructional error de novo. Review of the adequacy of instructions is based on whether the trial court fully and fairly instructed on the applicable law. Generally, the trial court is required to instruct the jury on the general principles of law that are closely and openly connected with the evidence and that are necessary to the jury’s understanding of the case. It also has a duty to refrain from giving incorrect instructions or instructions on principles of law that are irrelevant and that would have the effect of confusing the jury or relieving it from making findings on the relevant issues. The trial court’s duty in this regard extends to lesser included offenses that find substantial support in the evidence. In determining the correctness of jury instructions, we consider the entire charge of the court, in light of the trial record.

Authority:

People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 581, 584

People v. Barber (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 787, 798-799

People v. Thomas (2023) 14 Cal.5th 327, 388–389

People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 162

People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 926

Fourth Holding:

An erroneous failure to instruct on a lesser included offense requires reversal of a conviction if, taking into account the entire record, it appears reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable outcome had the error not occurred. In a noncapital case, a failure to instruct sua sponte on a lesser necessarily included offense that is supported by the evidence is state law error that we review for prejudice under Watson. Under Watson, a defendant must show it is reasonably probable a more favorable result would have been obtained absent the error. We also consider the instructions as a whole, the jury’s findings, and the closing arguments of counsel.

Authority:

People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 169, 178

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

People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 716

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

People v. Beltran (2013) 56 Cal.4th 935, 955

People v. Larsen (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 810, 831

Fifth Holding:

We determine whether a jury instruction correctly states the law under the independent or de novo standard of review. When we review a purportedly erroneous instruction, we consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution.

Authority:

People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088

People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028

Sixth Holding:

AB 333 amended section 186.22, by, among other things, modifying the definitions of “pattern of criminal activity” and “criminal street gang,” as well as clarifying what is required to establish that an offense benefits, promotes, furthers, or assists a criminal street gang. Section 186.22 now requires proof of the following additional requirements with respect to predicate offenses: (1) the offenses must have commonly benefited a criminal street gang where the common benefit is more than reputational; (2) the last predicate offense must have occurred within three years of the date of the currently charged offense; (3) the predicate offenses must be committed on separate occasions or by two or more gang members, as opposed to persons; and (4) the charged offense cannot be used as a predicate offense.

To benefit, promote, further, or assist means to provide a common benefit to members of a gang where the common benefit is more than reputational. Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational may include, but are not limited to, financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting a perceived or actual gang rival, or intimidation or silencing of a potential current or previous witness or informant.

Authority:

People v. Perez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 192, 206

People v. Lopez (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 327, 345

Seventh Holding:

Because the changes to the criminal street gang statute in AB 333 are ameliorative,those changes apply retroactively to defendants whose convictions are not yet final.

Authority:

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

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Pleading, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000291

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This was a People’s appeal from the trial court’s grant of a motion under section 995 to set aside counts and enhancements in the information that the magistrate found insufficient evidence to support at the preliminary hearing. Grant of section 995 motion affirmed.

[GARY NOTE: This opinion went into depth analyzing the sufficiency of evidence on the question of gang common benefit and whether the members collectively engaged in the pattern of criminal gang activity that the statute requires. It discussed several published cases as example that guided its decision. I have not included the discussion or the cases cited, as that depth is beyond the scope of this blog. I’m happy to provide the full opinion to any attorney who asks me for it.]

First Holding:

Under section 995, an information will be set aside if the defendant was committed without reasonable or probable cause. To establish probable cause sufficient to withstand a section 995 motion to dismiss, the People must make some showing as to the existence of each element of the charged offense. Reasonable or probable cause’ means such a state of facts as would lead a [person] of ordinary caution or prudence to believe, and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused. Probable cause signifies a level of proof below that of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or even proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The showing required at this stage is exceedingly low, and an information should be set aside only when there is a total absence of evidence to support a necessary element of the offense charged.

Authority:

Hale v. Superior Court (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 268, 271 [a defendant may utilize section 995 to strike invalid enhancement allegations]

People v. Chapple (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 540, 545

People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 473

People v. Superior Court (Mendez) (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 268, 276

People v. Garcia (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 864, 870–871

Second Holding:

When we review a section 995 motion, we disregard the ruling of the superior court and directly review the determination of the magistrate. We must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the information and decide whether there is probable cause to hold the defendants to answer, i.e., whether the evidence is such that a reasonable person could harbor a strong suspicion of the defendant’s guilt.

Authority:

People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 654 [reviewing denial of sec. 995 motion made after magistrate struck special circumstance allegation]

Lexin v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1050, 1072

Third Holding:

As here with respect to the gang evidence presented by the prosecution, where the facts are undisputed, the determination of probable cause constitutes a legal conclusion which is subject to independent review on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Farley) (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 315, 326

People v. Scully (2021) 11 Cal.5th 542, 582 [independent standard of review applies when magistrate determines that the People did not put forth sufficient evidence to support the charges]

Fourth Holding:

Not every crime committed by gang members is related to a gang. Concerned with lax interpretations of the prior gang law that allowed for overly expansive application of gang enhancements, the Legislature amended section 186.22 effective January 1, 2022. The amendments to section 186.22 narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang and increased the prosecution’s burden of proof by altering the definition of a criminal street gang and instituting new requirements to prove that a criminal street gang engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity.

Authority:

People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 744

People v. Renteria (2022) 13 Cal.5th 951, 961, fn. 6

Fifth Holding:

For the reasons stated in this opinion, we conclude that there was insufficient evidence that a reasonable person could harbor a strong suspicion that gang’s predicate offenses were either committed for the gang’s common benefit or that the gang members collectively engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity as defined under section 186.22. Finding insufficient evidence that the gang meets the definition of a criminal street gang under section 186.22, we discern no error in the trial court’s partial grant of the section 995 motion as to the gang enhancements and gang related firearm enhancements as to all defendants.

Authority:

Lexin v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1050, 1072

Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000287

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We modify the judgment to vacate the balance of the $200 restitution fine pursuant to section 1465.9(d).

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, the Legislature amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), which 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)

Second Holding:

We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. If the language of the statute contains no ambiguity, we presume the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute governs. The 10-year period starts with the original imposition of the fine and does not restart on resentencing. We modify the judgment to vacate the balance of the restitution fine.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 354

People v. The North River Ins. Co. (2025) 18 Cal.5th 1, 13

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 601 review granted 3/11/2026 (S295038)

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000283

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, it was error for the court to impose and execute sentence on a count that had been stayed under section 654 at the original sentence.

First Holding:

The law of the case doctrine precluded the trial court from reimposing the one-year sentence on count four that was stayed pursuant to section 654. Under that doctrine, when an appellate court states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal.

Authority:

People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 786

People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 246

Second Holding:

Where the facts are undisputed, the application of section 654 raises a question of law.

Authority:

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 312

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

Third Holding:

In defendant’s initial appeal, this court determined that the sentence on count 4 should be stayed pursuant to section 654. That point is now law of the case and the trial court was therefore precluded from reimposing the one year sentence on that count. The Attorney General concedes the cause should be remanded for a full resentencing, and because that will be our disposition, we need not discuss defendant’s contention that the trial court did not account for amendments to section 654 (AB 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) when it last sentenced defendant. That contention can be presented to the trial court in the first instance.

Authority:

PEN 654