Category Archives: Appellate Principles

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case 000951

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On remand from the Supreme Court, we reconsider our earlier decision denying relief on the defendant’s appeal from the denial of his petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6. We reverse the lower court’s denial and remand for the court to conduct a full evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6.

(Gary note: The Court of Appeal earlier had concluded that the defendant is not eligible to petition for relief under section 1172.6, because he could have raised the issue on direct appeal. The Supreme Court granted review and held it pending its opinion in People v. Lopez. Once that was decided–holding in a case with a similar procedural posture that Lopez was not ineligible despite not raising the issue on his direct appeal–it returned this case to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings consistent with the Lopez decision.)

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature passed SB 1437, effective January 1, 2019, which among other things amended the definition of felony murder in section 189. This amended felony-murder rule restricted culpability for murder to actual killers, aiders and abettors, and anyone who was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life unless the victim was a peace officer.

SB 1437 also added section 1170.95, later renumbered to section 1172.6, which allows a person convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts, if, among other things, the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder because of the changes to the law wrought by SB 1437.

SB 775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) amended section 1172.6 further to expand eligibility for resentencing to persons convicted of murder pursuant to a theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime.

Authority:

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 724

Second Holding:

We review the trial court’s decision at the prima facie stage de novo.

Authority:

People v. Bodely (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1193, 1200

Third Holding:

The jury instructions permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty by imputing malice to him as an accomplice rather than finding that he shared the principal’s intent and therefore independently harbored malice. The ambiguous instruction couches direct aiding and abetting liability in terms of the aider and abettor knowing the perpetrator intended to commit the crime, and the aider and abettor of implied malice murder need not intend the commission of the crime of murder. It conveyed that the defendant need only intend the commission of the perpetrator’s act, the natural and probable consequences of which are dangerous to human life, intentionally aid in the commission of that act and do so with conscious disregard for human life.

(Gary note: Presumably because the appellate court had gone through the review of the case law in the proceedings before it went up to the Supreme Court and came back down, there was little full discussion of the problem with the instruction. Powell, relied on by the court, does address the aiding and abetting issue, and Reyes (whose citation I listed below but was not cited in this opinion) approved the reasoning of Powell that, for aiding and abetting murder liability, the relevant act is the act that proximately causes death.

(The court remanded to the lower court to hold an evidentiary hearing, at which it will be determined whether the defendant can be found guilty under current law.)

Authority:

People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 714

People v. Lopez (2026) 19 Cal.5th 639, 658-668

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990-992

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000942

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

Holding:

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

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

Authority:

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

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

Case 000941

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

First Holding:

The juvenile court has wide discretion to select appropriate probation conditions and may impose any reasonable condition that is fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced. The juvenile court’s discretion, while broad, is not unlimited.

A probation condition is invalid if it: (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality.

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

Authority:

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

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

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

Second Holding:

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

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

Fourth Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

Fifth Holding:

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

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

Authority:

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

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

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

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000940

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

That was error.

First Holding:

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

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

Authority:

SB 1437

SB 775

PEN 1172.6

Second Holding:

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

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

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

Authority:

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

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case 000923

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The instructional errors were prejudicial regarding the multiple-murder and lying-in-wait special circumstance findings attached to counts 1, 2 and 3.

We reverse those findings, but the prosecution may retry these special circumstance allegations.

The firearm enhancements found true as to counts 1, 2 and 3 must be reversed due to prejudicial error, including pleading deficiencies and insufficiency of the evidence. Retrial of the firearm enhancements is barred by principles of double jeopardy.

The trial court also erred by denying the defendant’s renewed motion for a transfer hearing in juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 as amended by AB 2361 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.).

Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the judgment and remand the matter with directions to refer the case to the juvenile court for a transfer hearing under current law.

First Holding:

In setting forth the relevant pertinent facts in an appellate opinion, we view the record in the light most favorable to the judgment.

Authority:

In re Jesus O. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 859, 861

People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578

Second Holding:

In counts 1 through 3, the jury convicted appellant of first degree murder. The jury found true four special circumstance allegations: (1) lying in wait; (2) multiple murders; (3) murder in the commission of robbery; and (4) murder in the commission of burglary. Because of the special circumstance findings, appellant was sentenced to three consecutive LWOP terms.

There were several instructional errors, but many we find to have been harmless error. The instructional errors were prejudicial regarding the multiple-murder and lying-in-wait special circumstance findings attached to counts 1, 2 and 3.

We reverse those findings, but the prosecution may retry these special circumstance allegations. Even if the People do not elect to do so, however, a full resentencing is required.

(Gary note: The opinion concluded that some of the instructions permitted finding guilt on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, which has been abolished. Cutting to the chase in this summary, the court stated in its analysis whether the instructional error was harmless, the court stated, that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that appellant acted as a major participant in these crimes and with his own reckless indifference to human life. It was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that any rational juror who convicted appellant of first degree murder would have necessarily found the facts required under section 189(e)(3).

(Also, the jury was erroneously told at times that, if appellant was not an actual killer, the lying-in-wait and the multiple-murder special-circumstance allegations could be found true merely if he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. This was legally incorrect. If appellant was not the actual killer, then the prosecution was required to prove that he acted with an intent to kill for each murder in order to establish these special circumstance allegations. The court did not find the error harmless on those instructions, and reversed those special circumstances, allowing the prosecution to retry them.)

Authority:

PEN 188(a)(3) [Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime]

PEN 190.2(c) and (d)

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 449

People v. Hallock (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 595, 607 [conviction reversed for instructional error may be retried if supported by sufficient evidence]

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [when part of a sentence is stricken on review, a full resentencing is required so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances]

Third Holding:

We reject the prosecution’s contention that the defendant has forfeited claims of instructional error by failing to object. Trial courts have a sua sponte duty to correctly instruct on the elements of the charged offenses and on special circumstance allegations.

No objection is required to preserve a claim for appellate review when the jury instructions omit an essential element of a charge.

Moreover, a court may review any question of law involved in an instruction which affects the substantial rights of the defendant. As alleged, the instructional errors in this matter altered the mens rea and actus reus elements that the jury was required to find.

Accordingly, we decline to find forfeiture, and we will review this claim on its merits.

Authority:

PEN 1259

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 409

People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56, 91 [declining to rely on forfeiture doctrine where alleged instructional errors would have impacted defendant’s substantial rights].

Fourth Holding:

The instructional errors impacted appellant’s constitutional rights because they permitted the jury to convict him on an invalid legal theory. Accordingly, we must reverse the convictions unless, after examining the entire cause—including the evidence and considering all relevant circumstances—we determine the errors, including the disputed ones, were all harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

In re Ferrell (2023) 14 Cal.5th 593, 602

People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 13

Fifth Holding:

When a jury is instructed on both a legally valid theory and a legally invalid theory of guilt, harmlessness can be shown if the jury verdict on other points effectively embraces the valid theory or if, based on the evidence, it is impossible to have found what the verdict did find without also finding the facts underlying the valid theory.

To make this assessment, we must rigorously review the evidence to determine whether any rational juror who found the defendant guilty based on an invalid theory, and made the factual findings reflected in the jury’s verdict, would necessarily have found the defendant guilty based on a valid theory as well.

We must be convinced that the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and we must be satisfied that this standard is beyond serious debate.

We have rigorously reviewed the totality of the record to determine whether, based on the evidence, it is impossible for a rational juror to have found what the verdicts did find without also finding the facts underlying a valid theory.

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 443-444

In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562, 568

In re Ferrell (2023) 14 Cal.5th 593, 602

Sixth Holding:

Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court’s instructions.

Authority:

People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852

Seventh Holding:

Section 12022.53(d) requires personal discharge by the defendant; it does not impose vicarious liability for another principal’s firearm discharge. Vicarious firearm liability is available only when a gang enhancement is proven. Once the gang allegations were dismissed on motion of the prosecution, the vicarious theory was unavailable.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53(d) and (e)

PEN 186.22(b)(1)

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

Eighth Holding:

Because personal discharge by appellant was neither charged nor expressly found true by the jury in the verdict forms, the court could not supply that missing fact at sentencing. Any fact increasing punishment must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

The trial court lacked authority to stay the count 1 enhancement merely as an exercise of sentencing discretion. The court was only authorized to strike or dismiss the enhancement, not to stay it even based on its own discretionary sense of justice. Based on principles of double jeopardy, retrial is barred.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53(j)

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 355, 364

Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 132–133 [“Because the prosecution had a full opportunity to prove the facts necessary for a conviction but failed to do so, double jeopardy bars a second bite at the apple”]

Curry v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 712 [jeopardy attaches when a defendant is placed on trial in a court of competent jurisdiction on a valid accusatory pleading]

Ninth Holding:

In January 2011, appellant was 16 years old when he committed the present crimes. In 2012, he was charged directly in adult court. In 2016, appellant filed a motion for remand to the juvenile court and a transfer hearing under Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57). Proposition 57 was passed in November 2016, and it prohibited prosecutors from charging crimes against juveniles directly in adult court.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 303

Tenth Holding:

Before sentencing occurred in this matter, AB 2361 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. These changes were effective January 1, 2023.

AB 2361 increased the burden of proof the prosecution was required to establish in order for a juvenile to be prosecuted in adult criminal court.

Under the newer heightened standard, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that a juvenile should be transferred to adult criminal court.

These developments materially changed the requirements for transfer in effect when the defendant originally waived his right to a transfer hearing. AB 2361 applies retroactively to nonfinal cases.

Authority:

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 416

In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1284

Eleventh Holding:

A person who is eligible to have his case proceed in juvenile court may knowingly waive this statutory right. A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.

A criminal defendant cannot be deemed to have waived or forfeited a legal argument that was not recognized at the time of his trial. Even where a right may be waived, a waiver generally does not include protections that were not reasonably available or contemplated at the time.

The matter must be remanded to the juvenile court to conduct a transfer hearing.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1620

People v. Johnson (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 123, 132 [legal counsel may waive the right to a juvenile fitness hearing for an accused who has reached adulthood]

Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) 304 U.S. 458, 464

People v. Cardenas (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1468, 1479

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 48 [in a negotiated plea, waiver of right to jury trial on charged offenses does not extend to proof of aggravating circumstances when no such jury right was recognized at time of plea]

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 85 [general waiver of right to appeal from a negotiated plea agreement will not bar the appeal of sentencing errors occurring subsequent to the plea]
People v. Becerra (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 178, 188 [defendant cannot knowingly and intelligently waive right to appeal an issue not contemplated at time of waiver].

 

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Racial Justice Act, Standard of review

Case 000916

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant filed a habeas corpus petition in the superior court, alleging that his 1992 convictions for first degree murder and robbery were obtained “on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin” in violation of the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (RJA). He also requested, pursuant to the RJA, appointment of counsel and disclosure of evidence to support his claims.

The trial court denied the discovery request and the habeas petition, concluding that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case for relief under the RJA.

The court erred. We grant the petition and issue a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying the habeas petition, appoint counsel for the defendant, and conduct a new hearing to reconsider his discovery request in a manner consistent with this opinion.

(Gary note: The court outlined in several paragraphs the specific allegations the defendant set forth in his petition that, if true, arguably demonstrated that his arrest and prosecution were affected by factors disallowed by the RJA. As these summaries are designed to highlight principles and the cases or statutes supporting the principles, I am not going to include the facts of the case on which the appellate court concluded that the defendant had demonstrated a sufficient showing to warrant appointment of counsel and discovery.)

First Holding:

Ordinarily, mandate does not lie to correct judicial errors by the superior court in habeas corpus proceedings.

However, where, as here, the trial court failed to perform its required duty to conduct an independent assessment of whether the petitioner was entitled to have counsel appointed under newly adopted procedures enacted by the Legislature, then mandate may be used to compel the performance of that duty.

Authority:

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 46-47

Second Holding:

Several have concluded that writ review of the trial court’s discovery rulings in RJA cases is appropriate because such rulings involve novel legal issues of widespread interest.

The RJA is a recent legislation that has been amended multiple times since its inception, and although its command is simple, its implementation is somewhat complex.

We therefore agree with the court in Young that exercising our discretion to review discovery rulings under the RJA is appropriate to provide general guidelines for future cases.

(Gary note:  I find that last sentence regarding guidelines for future cases a bit amusing, because this is an unpublished opinion, and the only “future case” it will ever affect is THIS particular defendant’s instant case.  But hey.  Maybe the “to publish or not to publish” colloquy occurred after the opinion was written.)

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 147, 156

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 36, 53-54

McDaniel v. Superior Court (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 228, 238

Third Holding:

Because management of discovery lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, we review discovery rulings for abuse of discretion. We review the factual underpinnings of a discretionary determination for substantial evidence, but where such a determination rests on incorrect legal premises, our review is de novo.

A discretionary order based on an application of improper criteria or incorrect legal assumptions is not an exercise of informed discretion and is subject to reversal.

Authority:

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

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

Fourth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2021, the Legislature enacted the RJA (AB 2542 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.)) to eliminate racial bias from California’s criminal justice system; to ensure that race plays no role at all in seeking or obtaining convictions or in sentencing; and to ensure that individuals have access to all relevant evidence, including statistical evidence, regarding potential discrimination in seeking or obtaining convictions or imposing sentences.

To achieve these objectives, the RJA added and amended Penal Code sections to allow defendants whose judgments are final or who are no longer in custody, respectively, to seek relief for RJA violations.

Authority:

PEN 745

PEN 1473

PEN 1473.7

In re Lynex (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 756, 767

People v. Wilson (2024) 16 Cal.5th 874, 945

Fifth Holding:

The RJA provides that the state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. The statute further sets forth four categories of conduct, any of which, if proved, is enough to establish a violation of the RJA.

Authority:

PEN 745(a)

Sixth Holding:

The court shall appoint counsel if the petitioner cannot afford counsel and the petition alleges facts that would establish a violation of section 745(a). In AB 1071, the Legislature reaffirmed that this threshold is extremely low. (Stats. 2025, ch. 721, sec. 1, subd. (b).)

AB 1071 states that courts have imposed on RJA petitioners higher burdens than the Legislature intended to meet the threshold to secure counsel and denied counsel to litigants raising RJA claims far more than they have appointed counsel.

The new legislation clarifies that the court shall appoint counsel to all indigent postconviction litigants who allege a plausible claim of an RJA violation, which does not require a prima facie showing and should be construed as a minimal pleading requirement.

Authority:

PEN 1473(e)(5)

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

Seventh Holding:

The RJA defines a prima facie showing to mean that the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation of the RJA occurred.

By contrast, to be entitled to counsel in RJA habeas proceedings, petitioners are required only to allege facts that would establish a violation of the RJA.

Authority:

PEN 745(h)(2)

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 45

Eighth Holding:

Regarding the showing necessary for discovery, a defendant is required only to advance a plausible factual foundation, based on specific facts, that a violation of the RJA could or might have occurred in his case.

The burden at the discovery stage is a good cause showing, the burden at the prima facie stage is higher, and the burden at the evidentiary hearing is higher still—proof of an RJA violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

As the least onerous of the statute’s burdens of proof, the plausible justification standard should not be difficult to meet. Where the defendant makes a showing of plausible justification that there was or could have been a violation of the RJA, thus triggering access to all relevant evidence concerning a potential violation of section 745(a), it will likely be an abuse of discretion to totally foreclose discovery.

Authority:

PEN 745(c), (d), and (e)

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 159, 168-169

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 36, 61

Ninth Holding:

At the discovery stage, as at the prima facie stage, the court should not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations, except in the rare case where the record irrefutably establishes that the allegations are false.

Authority:

Finley v. Superior Court (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 12, 23–24

McDaniel v. Superior Court (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 228, 246, fn. 8 [A trial court’s review of supporting evidence at the discovery stage, which imposes even a lower burden of proof on defendants than the prima facie stage, must be more lenient]

Tenth Holding:

Although the defendant has offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate a plausible factual foundation for discovery under the RJA, a question remains regarding the appropriate scope of his request.

When determining if a petitioner is entitled to the requested discovery, the court must still consider and balance the so-called Alhambra factors:

(1) whether the material requested is adequately described;

(2) whether the requested material is reasonably available to the governmental entity from which it is sought (and not readily available to the defendant from other sources);

(3) whether production of the records containing the requested information would violate (i) third party confidentiality or privacy rights or (ii) any protected governmental interest;

(4) whether the defendant has acted in a timely manner;

(5) whether the time required to produce the requested information will necessitate an unreasonable delay of the defendant’s trial; and

(6) whether the production of the records containing the requested information would place an unreasonable burden on the governmental entity involved.

Authority:

City of Alhambra v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1118, 1134

Eleventh Holding:

In addition, the court must consider whether the requests for disclosure may give rise to relevant evidence, meaning that the court must determine whether they are reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence probative of a section 745(a) violation.

The trial courts in exercising their discretion should keep in mind that the Legislature has suggested that, where possible, the courts should impose partial limitations rather than outright denial of discovery.

Authority:

McDaniel v. Superior Court (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 228, 248

Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 559

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Racial Justice Act, Sentencing

Case 000913

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the defendant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, we conclude that his claim under the Racial Justice Act (RJA) is not cognizable on appeal.

We agree, however, that the abstract of judgment requires correction. So we will direct the clerk of the superior court to correct the abstract of judgment and affirm.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted the RJA in 2020, effective January 1, 2021—more than a year before the preliminary hearing in this case. Under the RJA, the state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin.

The defendant argues that expert testimony at the preliminary hearing exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin. Alternatively, if his RJA claim is forfeited due to counsel’s failure to object below, he argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Although an RJA claim may be raised on direct appeal, the gravamen of the defendant’s RJA claim is that he should be relieved of his otherwise knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea agreement as it was obtained in violation of the RJA.

Because his claim thus goes to the validity of his plea, it is not cognizable on appeal absent a certificate of probable cause.

When the judgment appealed from was obtained by the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest, the sole exceptions to the requirement of a certificate are for appeals solely on noncertificate grounds postplea matters not challenging his plea’s validity and/or matters involving a search or seizure whose lawfulness was contested pursuant to section 1538.5.

Authority:

PEN 745

PEN 1237.5

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 694

Second Holding:

Section 1237.5’s requirement of a certificate of probable cause should be applied in a strict manner, as it lays down a condition precedent to the taking of an appeal within its scope. Its assumption is that, as a general matter, a judgment of conviction entered on a defendant’s plea of guilty or nolo contendere does not present any issue warranting relief on appeal, and hence should not be reviewed thereon.

Authority:

People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1097-1098

Third Holding:

The defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance arises from counsel’s performance before entry of the plea, and courts have consistently held that claims of ineffective assistance deriving from counsel’s preplea acts require a certificate.

Authority:

People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1092 [deeming counsel’s failure to request a hearing on competency a certificate issue]

People v. Moore (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 90, 94 [claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to request pretrial mental health diversion requires certificate of probable cause]

People v. Stubbs (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 243, 244–245 [challenge that counsel’s preplea performance was deficient requires a certificate of probable cause]

Fourth Holding:

Nor can we find any suggestion that the Legislature intended to exempt RJA claims from the requirements of section 1237.5.

Had the Legislature intended for RJA claims to be decided on their merits whenever raised, it would not have required RJA motions to be made as soon as practicable and would have exempted such motions from the traditional rules of appellate forfeiture.

Requiring a defendant to obtain a certificate of probable cause to challenge grounds going to the legality of the proceedings after a plea is neither novel nor new, and the Legislature is deemed to be aware of existing laws and judicial constructions in effect at the time legislation is enacted.

Authority:

People v. Midell (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1060, 1076

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 634

Fifth Holding:

The purpose for requiring a certificate of probable cause is to discourage and weed out frivolous or vexatious appeals challenging convictions following guilty and nolo contendere pleas.

Thus, a trial court must issue the certificate if the defendant’s statement under section 1237.5 presents any cognizable issue for appeal which is not clearly frivolous and vexatious. If a court refuses to issue a certificate of probable cause, the defendant may seek a writ of mandate from the appellate court.

This low bar for issuance of a certificate would not hinder defendants from validly challenging their convictions based on alleged RJA violations.

Authority:

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 75

People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 676

Sixth Holding:

Because the defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, our review of his claims is thus limited to those issues that do not require a certificate.

Authority:

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(3)

Seventh Holding:

The abstract of judgment contains a clerical error. Although the defendant admitted a firearm enhancement under section 12022.53(c), the trial court ultimately elected to impose a lesser enhancement under section 12022.53(d), as permitted in Tirado. The abstract of judgment, however, erroneously lists a section 12022.53(c) enhancement. We therefore direct the clerk of the superior court to correct the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [a reviewing court may correct a clerical error in an abstract of judgment at any time]

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000911

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals from the trial court’s order denying his request for resentencing under section 1172.1. We dismiss the appeal as taken from a nonappealable order but order the superior court to correct the abstract of judgment.

(Gary note: This is not exactly a win, and yet it may be in a way. I include it because it contains another example of an abstract of judgment that does not reflect the actual judgment, albeit the error favors the defendant in one respect, while doing him a disservice in another. The opinion contains an interesting aspect that possibly could result in a resentencing of the defendant through a different means.)

First Holding:

Under section 1172.1, a trial court may recall a sentence and resentence a defendant at any time upon the recommendation of various designated correctional or law enforcement authorities, including the Secretary or the Board of Parole Hearings, the county correctional administrator, the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, or the Attorney General. The trial court may also recall and resentence a defendant on its own motion within 120 days of the date of commitment.

In addition, pursuant to an amendment effective January 1, 2024, a trial court now also has jurisdiction to recall a sentence and resentence a defendant on its own motion at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1

People v. Olea (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 889, 896-897

Second Holding:

Section 1172.1 expressly denies defendants the right to file a petition for resentencing under that section, and expressly excuses the trial court from acting on any such request that a defendant might nevertheless file.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1(c) [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.]

People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1046

People v. Olea (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 889, 896-897

People v. Roy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 991, 998-999 [sec. 1172.1 does not entitle a defendant to petition the court for relief and a petition filed by defendant is best viewed as merely inviting the court to consider whether it wishes to exercise its discretion under section 1172.1]

Third Holding:

Because a defendant has no right to a superior court ruling when he or she requests consideration for relief under section 1172.1, the court’s choice not to act on the defendant’s petition does not deprive the defendant of a substantial right. Accordingly, a superior court’s decision declining a defendant’s invitation to recall his sentence under section 1172.1 is not appealable.

Because the defendant initiated the section 1172.1 petition and the superior court declined to act on it, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.

Authority:

People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1046

People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687, 697 [there is no appellate jurisdiction over an order declining to act on a defendant’s unauthorized section 1172.1 petition]

Fourth Holding:

The superior court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that Steele’s sentence includes a one-year prior prison term enhancement under section 667.5, former subdivision (b), that was imposed but stayed.

Authority:

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 790-791 [the court has inherent power to correct a clerical error at any time]

Fifth Holding:

(Gary note: This is the part where the appellate court gives a strong clue to the defendant on how he might proceed at this point. The Fourth Holding described that the failure of the abstract of judgment was that it did not indicate the imposition and staying of what is now an invalid prior prison term enhancement under section 667.5(b). Here’s the benefit to the defendant that may flow from the appellate court’s direction that the abstract be amended to include that imposed-but-stayed now-invalid prior prison term enhancement. What should happen next is the receipt by CDCR of the amended abstract of judgment that reflects the now-invalid enhancement, which should trigger a notice from CDCR to the court that the defendant appears to be eligible for a full resentencing under section 1172.75.)

Although it is not reflected in the abstract for judgment, the minute order from the defendant’s sentencing reflects that the trial court imposed but stayed the one-year prior prison term enhancement under section 667.5, former subdivision (b). The California Supreme Court recently held that, in this circumstance, a defendant is entitled to recall and resentencing under section 1172.75(a) to have the stayed prior prison term enhancement stricken and to receive a full resentencing at which the superior court must consider a broad range of factors, including changes in law that reduce sentences and postconviction factors that inure in the defendant’s favor.

We have no jurisdiction at this juncture to address the defendant’s eligibility for resentencing under section 1172.75. However, we direct the superior court to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that the defendant’s sentence includes a one-year prior prison term enhancement under section 667.5, former subdivision (b), that was imposed but stayed. Without this correction, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would be unable to satisfy its duty to identify and notify the sentencing court that the defendant is a person serving a term for a judgment that includes a section 667.5, former subdivision (b), enhancement.

Authority:

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

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000906

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the trial court struck the one-year prior but otherwise declined to reduce the defendant’s sentence. The trial court did not apply the correct standard of law and therefore abused its discretion. We reverse the order.

First Holding:

SB 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess. amended section 667.5b) to allow courts to impose one-year prior prison term enhancements only for specified sexually violent offenses. Thereafter, SB 483 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) made the amendment retroactive to final cases and added what is now section 1172.75.

Section 1172.75 sets forth the process for recalling sentences and resentencing. If a judgment includes a qualifying enhancement, the trial court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. Resentencing shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed inclusive of the enhancements unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.

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

Authority:

PEN 667.5(b)

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

Unless the court originally imposed the upper term, the court may not impose a sentence exceeding the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and those facts have been stipulated to by the defendant, or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

At a hearing under section 1172.75, the resentencing court shall apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(2)

Third Holding:

As relevant here, SB 81 (2021–2022) effected a change in law by adding subdivision (c) to section 1385. That subdivision provides that, notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute. In exercising its discretion under this subdivision, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present.

Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. ‘Endanger public safety’ means there is a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)

Fourth Holding:

Section 1385(c) sets forth several mitigating circumstances for consideration. Two of them are relevant in this case. Under section 1385(c), absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a court retains the discretion to impose or dismiss enhancements provided that it assigns significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances when they are present.

Stated simply, if the court does not conclude that dismissal would endanger public safety, then mitigating circumstances strongly favor dismissing the enhancement. But ultimately, the court must determine whether dismissal is in furtherance of justice.

This means that, absent a danger to public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1029, 1038

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s sentencing decision under section 1172.75 for abuse of discretion and ask whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether its rulings of law are correct, and whether its application of the law to the facts was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

We similarly review a trial court’s decision not to dismiss a sentencing enhancement for an abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 857

Nazir v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 478, 490

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

Sixth Holding:

We reject the Attorney General’s argument that the defendant forfeited this contention because he failed to raise it below. The defendant did not have to ask the trial court to apply the correct standard of law to preserve a claim on appeal that the trial court applied an incorrect one. Rather, a defendant is entitled to sentencing decisions based on the sentencing court’s informed discretion, including one informed by the correct law. In any event, we may review any question of law involved in any ruling or order that affects the defendant’s substantial rights, even if the defendant did not object below.

(Gary note: The court proceeded to analyze the trial court’s treatment or lack thereof of facts specific to this defendant that demonstrated the abuse of discretion.)

Authority:

PEN 1259

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000893

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the judge to stay the section 12022.1 enhancement under section 1385(b)(1). An enhancement may be stricken or imposed, unless there is some other legal reason it must be stayed rather than imposed.

First Holding:

Ordinarily, an enhancement must be either imposed or stricken in furtherance of justice under section 1385. Section 1385(b)(1) adds that, if the court has the authority pursuant to subdivision (a) to strike or dismiss an enhancement, the court may instead strike the additional punishment for that enhancement in the furtherance of justice in compliance with subdivision (a).

The trial court has no authority to stay an enhancement, rather than strike it—not, at least, when the only basis for doing either is its own discretionary sense of justice.

There are exceptions to this rule that permit courts to stay the punishment imposed for an enhancement, for example section 654 and rule 4.447 of the California Rules of Court. These exceptions are not discretionary; they are limited to the situation in which an enhancement that otherwise would have to be either imposed or stricken is barred by an overriding statutory prohibition. In that situation—and that situation only—the trial court can and should stay the enhancement.

Authority:

PEN 1385(b)(1)

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 355, 364

Second Holding:

According to the transcript of the sentencing hearing, the trial court here relied on section 1385(b)(1) when it purported to stay the section 12022.1 enhancement. It does not appear that any overriding statute prohibits imposition of the enhancement in this case.

As a result, the court lacked the authority to stay the enhancement. In general, we presume a trial court knew and followed the law. Based on the statutory provision cited by the court, we conclude the court intended to strike the punishment for the enhancement rather than imposing an unauthorized stayed sentence.

The minute order from the sentencing hearing supports this conclusion by indicating that the court struck the enhancement, though it suggests the court did so at a prior hearing, which is not supported by the transcript. We will modify the judgment accordingly.

Authority:

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000888

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage. There could be no rational tactical reason for defense counsel to concede that the defendant was ineligible.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature amended the definition of felony murder in section 189 to restrict culpability for murder to actual killers, aiders and abettors, and anyone who was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life unless the victim was a peace officer.

At the same time, the Legislature added section 1170.95, later renumbered to section 1172.6, which allows a person convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, to file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts, if, among other things, the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder because of the changes to the law wrought by SB 1437. I

f the petition makes a prima facie case for relief the court must hold an evidentiary hearing. At this hearing, the People have the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is guilty of murder under the law as it exists now, with the trial judge sitting as factfinder.

Authority:

PEN 189

PEN 1172.6

Second Holding:

When conducting a prima facie review, the court takes the petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.

If the record of conviction does not conclusively demonstrate that the defendant engaged in the requisite acts and had the requisite intent to be convicted on a theory of murder that remains valid, denying relief at the prima facie stage is improper.

A preliminary hearing transcript is part of the record of conviction for these purposes, and courts may rely on them when reviewing petitions at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

People v. Eynon (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 967, 975

People v. Barboza (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 955, 965-966

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 568 [there is no dispute that the record of conviction the parties may consult at the prima facie stage includes a preliminary hearing transcript preceding a guilty plea.]

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s decision at the prima facie stage de novo. Reviewing de novo, we therefore find that the defendant established a prima facie case for relief, and the trial court should not have denied his petition for failing to do so.

Authority:

People v. Bodely (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1193, 1200

Fourth Holding:

At the hearing, the defendant’s counsel stated that he was appointed to determine eligibility pursuant to 1172.6, and concluded the defendant was not eligible.

The defendant’s counsel cited cases involving defendants who made a prima facie showing for the proposition that a guilty plea is a judicial admission. That it’s an admission that he was, in fact, the killer, and therefore the defendant could not state a prima facie case for relief. Based on this, the court summarily denied the defndant’s petition.

Contrary to the court’s and counsel’s understanding below, a guilty plea (without more) is not an admission to any particular theory of guilt, and therefore cannot render a defendant ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

Moreover, the record of conviction, including the preliminary hearing transcript, does not contain any facts definitively foreclosing the defendant’s eligibility for relief. It is undisputed that the defendant was not the sole participant in either the burglary or murder of the victim.

Nor is there any clear evidence the defendant was the actual killer—indeed, the only evidence presented suggests that the co-defendant, not not the defendant, was the actual killer.

Authority:

People v. Eynon (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 967, 977 [By pleading guilty, the defendant admitted every element of the charged offense but the defendant did not admit facts supporting liability on any particular theory. Accordingly, the guilty plea did not constitute an admission that the defendant acted with malice.]

Fifth Holding:

The People assert the doctrine of invited error. The doctrine of invited error is an application of the estoppel principle and applies when a party invites the court or the jury to commit error.

Under the doctrine of invited error, when a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on appeal that the judgment should be reversed because of that error. It is designed to prevent an accused from gaining a reversal on appeal because of an error made by the trial court at his behest.

However, for the doctrine to apply, it must be clear that counsel acted for tactical reasons and not out of ignorance or mistake. In order to apply the doctrine, the record must show only that counsel made a conscious, deliberate tactical choice, it need not additionally show counsel correctly understood all the legal implications of the tactical choice.

In other words, the invited error doctrine applies so long as counsel made a conscious, tactical choice even if such choice was based on a misunderstanding of the law.  We conclude that on this record defense counsel’s decision to concede that the defendant is ineligible for relief was not a deliberate tactical choice.

Put simply, there was no possible tactical purpose for counsel’s decision to concede the matter. The defendant did not stand to receive any possible benefit from this concession, and therefore the decision to concede could only have been a genuine mistake.

Authority:

People v. Midell (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1060, 1072

Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 212

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

People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 83

People v. Duncan (1991) 53 Cal.3d 955, 970

People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 658

Sixth Holding:

Even if the invited error doctrine did apply, we would still reach the merits.

Because a deliberate tactical choice by counsel may be an incompetent one, courts have recognized that defendants barred from raising error under the invited error doctrine may instead claim they received ineffective assistance of counsel.

However, courts may also address the merits of an otherwise procedurally barred claim in order to avert any claim of inadequate assistance of counsel. T

hus, even if we concluded the defendant had invited the error he now complains of, we would exercise our discretion to reach the merits anyway to avoid the same result obtaining through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

We reverse the order denying the defendant’s section 1172.6 petition and remand. On remand, we direct the trial court to issue an order to show cause and to conduct further proceedings as required under section 1172.6.

Authority:

People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610,

People v. Yarbrough (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 303, 310

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000886

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

1n 1991, for a crime committed in 1989, the defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). When his case came up for resentencing under section 1172.75 in 2025, the court believed its only discretion was to impose less than the upper term on the determinate portion of his sentence. Defense counsel agreed. This was error. The court also erred in its calculation of credit for time served. And the restitution fine must be struck.

First Holding:

Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5(b) required trial courts to impose a sentence enhancement of one additional year for each of a defendant’s prior prison or jail terms. Section 1172.75(a) now provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, under section 667.5(b) is legally invalid.

Section 1172.75(b) and (c) mandate that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identify eligible individuals whose sentences include now-invalidated section 667.5 enhancements, and that the trial court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

While conducting the resentencing, section 1172.75(d)(2), provides the express instruction that the court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1054

Second Holding:

Section 190.2(a) provides that where there has been a finding of certain enumerated special circumstances in connection with a defendant who has been found guilty of first degree murder, the penalty is death or LWOP. Section 1385 previously provided the trial court with the discretion to strike or dismiss the special circumstances.

Although the statute only authorizes such relief upon motion of the court or application of the prosecution, the defendant nevertheless has the right to invite the court to exercise its power by an application to strike a count.

Failure by a defendant to make such a request under section 1385 results in forfeiture of the issue. In the interests of justice, and in consideration of defendant’s alternative argument of ineffective assistance of counsel, we exercise our discretion to reach a question that has not been preserved for review by a party.

Authority:

PEN 190.2(a)

PEN 1385

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141, 1144

People v. Coleman (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 709, 724

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6

Third Holding:

Contrary to Section 1385, however, section 1385.1 provides that a judge shall not strike or dismiss any special circumstance which is admitted by a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or is found by a jury or court as provided in Sections 190.1 to 190.5, inclusive. The section was enacted as of June 6, 1990, via voter initiative Proposition 115. The dispute here centers around whether section 1385.1 serves as a bar to the trial court’s discretion to strike section 190.2 special circumstances when the court is resentencing a defendant pursuant to section 1172.75 for a pre-June 6, 1990, crime.

Authority:

PEN 1385.1

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141

Fourth Holding:

Ordinarily, we review the trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. However, defendant argues pursuant to McDavid that the trial court necessarily abused its discretion when it failed to strike his special circumstances because it was unaware that it had any discretion to do so.

We therefore examine whether the trial court had any discretion in this regard, which is a question of statutory interpretation to be reviewed de novo.

Authority:

People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 757

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1023

Fifth Holding:

The Nguyen court noted that section 1385.1 operates only prospectively, therefore, a trial court may dismiss a special circumstance allegation attached to any murders committed before June 6, 1990, the date that section 1385.1 became effective. Nguyen specifically relied upon Tapia.

In Tapia, Proposition 115 took effect while the defendant was in the process of being prosecuted for first degree murder. The defendant challenged the trial court’s decision to conduct voir dire pursuant to the new Proposition 115 procedures.

In examining whether Proposition 115’s provisions could be applied to crimes committed prior to its effective date after consideration of ex post facto concerns, the Supreme Court separated the provisions into four separate categories depending on their impact upon defendants.

Relevant to this inquiry, the high court expressly categorized section 1385.1 as falling within the category of provisions that change the legal consequences of criminal behavior to the detriment of defendants and therefore cannot be applied to crimes committed before the measure’s effective date.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141

Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 286-287, 297

Sixth Holding:

The mandate in section 1172.75(d)(2), that the trial court apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion” evidences a legislative intent that defendants are to be treated with more leniency, not less, when being resentenced pursuant to this statute. Because the trial court clearly expressed more than once its belief that it did not have any discretion with respect to the LWOP sentence on Count 1, we deem the court to have abused its discretion and reverse.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(2)

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1023 [A court acting while unaware of the full scope of its discretion is deemed to have abused it.]

Seventh Holding:

The court court failed to award the defendant 2 days of credit for time served, and we modify the judgment accordingly.

(Gary note: The court did not cite any authority, but it seems obvious that the court has the power to modify the credit for time served to the correct number. I have cited authority the court could have relied on. The issue does not seem so much a matter of the trial court refusing to award credit; rather, it was a mathematical error. I speculate that perhaps the court did not award credit for the first day in custody. Counting days is different than determining the number of days between dates. From January 1 through January 31 is 31 days, counting. But if you subtract January 1 from January 31, you will realize only 30 days.  For credit for time served, the correct number is the counting number–31 in my example.)

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

Eighth Holding:

As part of defendant’s original 1991 sentencing, the court ordered him to pay $10,000 to the state Restitution Fund pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4 (formerly Govt. Code sec. 13967(a).) In light of section 1465.9, which compels that restitution fines older than 10 years be vacated, we vacate that fine. In Salstrom, the court determined that the reference to 10 years is from the date the restitution fine was originally ordered.

Resentencing does not reset the 10-year limitation. Applying section 1465.9 to reduce defendant’s sentence as part of a section 1172.75 resentencing hearing gives effect to both statutes.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 652-653 [detailing the history of the restitution statutes]

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 599-601, review granted on unrelated issues, March 11, 2026, S295038

Mejia v. Reed (2000) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663 [when two codes are to be construed, they must be read together and so construed as to give effect, when possible, to all the provisions thereof]