Category Archives: Appellate Principles

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000669

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erroneously stated that all of the aggravating factors had been found true by the jury. The only aggravating factor alleged, and found true by the jury was that the victims were particularly vulnerable. The sentence is reversed and the court is directed to consider the sentence in light of the only aggravating factor found true by the jury. Further, the court must consider the defendant’s ability to pay the restitution fines and ancillary fees.

First Holding:

In theory, the aggregate prejudice from several different errors occurring at trial could require reversal even if no single error was prejudicial by itself.

Authority:

In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 483

Second Holding:

Section 1170(b)(2) states that when imposing a sentence under a statute that allows for a low, middle, and high term, the court shall impose the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances 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.

A Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established.

The violation is prejudicial unless an appellate court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court to justify an upper term sentence, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statutory requirements. If the reviewing court cannot so determine, applying the Chapman standard of review, the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024)16 Cal.5th 730, 768

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

Third Holding:

To the extent a potential aggravating circumstance at issue in a particular case rests on a somewhat vague or subjective standard, it may be difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court.

The determination of whether the crime involved sophistication and planning rests on a vague and subjective standard. Accordingly, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found true the two remaining aggravating factors upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified.

We therefore reverse the sentence and remand for the trial court to hold a new sentencing hearing during which it shall only consider aggravating factors that were found true by the jury as part of its analysis of whether to impose an upper term sentence.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024)16 Cal.5th 730, 775

Fourth Holding:

Where a trial court imposes fines exceeding the statutory minimum of $300 under section 1202.4(b), and section 1202.45, it must consider the defendant’s ability to pay. Before imposing ancillary costs pursuant to section 1465.8(a)(1) and Government Code section 70373, equal protection principles require the trial court to, on defendant’s request, consider a defendant’s inability to pay such costs.

Authority:

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000668

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It is unclear whether the court intended to impose as the base term the low term of 16 months or the middle term of two years, we remand for the court to clarify its intended sentence, as well as to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

At the sentencing hearing, the court stated it was imposing the low term, two years in prison. It doubled that term as it was a two-strikes sentence, and added three years for an injury enhancement, and stated the total sentence was seven years. The low term for the crime, however, carries a triad of 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years. Thus, the low term is 16 months, and two years is the middle term.

The matter must be remanded for the court to clarify whether it intended to impose the low term (in which case the sentence must be recalculated) or the middle term (in which case the sentence will remain the same as orally pronounced as two years doubled plus three years for the enhancement for a total of seven years).

We stress that, if the court indeed intended to impose the seven-year total sentence based on the middle term of two years, doing so was not an abuse of the court’s discretion considering the relevant sentencing factors considered by the court on the record. A sentence based on the low term of 16 months would also not be an abuse of the court’s sentencing discretion.

Authority:

People v. Sarmiento-Zuniga (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1216, 1226 [trial court does not abuse its discretion by imposing the presumptive middle term rather than the low term where the court sets forth on the record the facts and reasons for choosing the sentence imposed at time of sentencing, and that decision does not fall outside the bounds of reason under applicable law and relevant facts]

Second Holding:

Though the conviction was by plea, no certificate of cause is required for the defendant to raise his challenges to the sentence in this case. Section 1237.5 provides a defendant may not appeal from a guilty or no contest plea without a certificate of probable cause for an appeal based on reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. Even without a certificate of probable cause, a defendant may nonetheless appeal issues related to post-plea matters, such as the sentence, that do not challenge the plea’s validity.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

However, even when a defendant purports to challenge only the sentence imposed, a certificate is required if the challenge goes to an aspect of the sentence to which the defendant agreed as an integral part of a plea agreement, as such a claim is, in substance, a challenge to the validity of the plea. Thus, where a defendant enters a negotiated plea in which the parties agree the court will impose a specific, agreed-upon sentence, any challenge to that sentence is a challenge to the validity of the plea and requires a certificate of probable cause.

(Gary note: This is a direct appeal from the original sentencing. It should not be confused with an appeal from a resentencing under one of the recent ameliorative provisions, such as 1172.75. Where it is an appeal from such a resentencing, it is important to review section 1171, effective 1/1/2025, which states in subdivision (c)(3) that “Any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement.” I have not seen any instances in which there was discussion of the need for a certificate of probable cause in appeals from decisions in the ameliorative provisions context, but section 1171(c)(3) seems to me to specifically address (and countermand) those aspects of the Stamps decision regarding setting aside the plea.

(I would argue that Stamps also would not be authority to require a certificate of probable cause to appeal a ruling on the application of ameliorative provisions where there was a stipulated sentence, given the legislation that, in essence, not only doesn’t challenge the plea agreement, it specifically states that application of the ameliorative provisions will not result in the setting aside of the plea itself. As I said, I have not noticed the question of certificates of probable cause in appeals from hearings involving ameliorative sections such as–but not limited to–1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75. See my comment in case 000532 for a more extensive discussion on section 1171, including the observation that the Supreme Court transferred a case with a Stamps issue back to the Court of Appeal with instructions to consider the impact of the then-recently added section 1171.)

Authority:

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

People v. Hurlic (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 50, 55

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 79

Fourth Holding:

By contrast, a certificate of probable cause is not required to challenge the exercise of individualized sentencing discretion within an agreed maximum sentence, absent contrary provisions in the plea agreement, as long as the defendant is not challenging the trial court’s authority to impose a sentence within a negotiated lid or maximum.

Authority:

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 790

People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 763

Fifth Holding:

No certificate of probable cause is needed to challenge a court’s failure to strike a prior strike where striking a strike would still result in a sentence that falls within the range contemplated by the plea.

Authority:

People v. Cole (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 850, 872

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 790-791, 777, 786-787

Sixth Holding:

The abstract must also be corrected to remove the notation “YTL” (for “years to life”), as no indeterminate life term was imposed in this case.

(Gary note: The court listed no authority for that correction, but there is plenty it could have relied on, some of which I list 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

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000664

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We order the trial court to correct its minute order to accurately reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of the travel ban probation condition.

First Holding:

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a condition of probation that defendant was not to leave the state of California without the consent of the probation officer. However, the corresponding minute order lists the condition as “Do not leave California.” As such, the minute order does not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement of the court.

A court has inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records so as to make these records reflect the true facts. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Errors in the court’s minute orders are clerical errors that may be corrected at any time.

Authority:

In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705

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

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–186

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000658

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was an improper delegation of authority to impose a condition of probation that left it up to the probation officer to decide whether treatment should be residential or outpatient. There was also error regarding imposition of fees.

First Holding:

Though the defendant did not object to the condition at the time, the issue is not forfeited on appeal. His claim is cognizable because it is a facial constitutional challenge presenting a pure question of law that does not depend on the underlying factual record. We thus address defendant’s constitutional challenge on the merits, which we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 901 [a facial constitutional challenge may be considered for the first time on appeal because it does not depend on the underlying factual record]

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 884–886

Second Holding:

Under the separation of powers doctrine, judicial powers may not be delegated to nonjudicial officers. While the probation officer may properly specify the details necessary to effectuate the court’s probation conditions, it is the court’s duty to determine the nature of the requirements imposed on the probationer.

A court may dictate the basic policy of a condition of probation, leaving specification of details to the probation officer, but the court’s order cannot be entirely open-ended. It is for the court to determine the nature of the prohibition placed on a defendant as a condition of probation. By leaving key determinations to be decided ad hoc, a vague probation condition may result in an impermissible delegation of authority to the probation officer.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. III, sec. 3

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902

In Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 919

Third Holding:

A condition requiring the defendant to enter a residential drug treatment program but authorizing probation to select which residential program may be upheld. We remand for the trial court to either strike the condition, or modify it to specify the type of treatment program in which defendant is directed to participate, including whether it requires defendant to undergo residential treatment. The court’s decision may be informed by the results of any assessment and additional information provided by the parties.

Authority:

People v. Penoli (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 298, 307–308

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 903, 905,

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 13

Fourth Holding:

Appellants implicitly concede a respondent’s argument by failing to respond in their reply brief to the respondent’s argument on that point. A court may assume respondent’s claim was correct if the defendant did not dispute respondent’s claim in his reply.

Authority:

Rudick v. State Bd. of Optometry (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 77, 89–90

Reygoza v. Superior Court (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 514, 519 and fn. 4

Fifth Holding:

An order of probation, like an abstract of judgment, must specify the statutory basis of each fine or fee imposed.

Authority:

People v. Eddards (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 712, 716

Sixth Holding:

In general costs of prosecuting and rehabilitating criminals are not recoverable absent express statutory authority to the contrary. The Legislature repealed section 1203.1b (which authorized to court to impose an order for the cost of probation services, depending on ability to pay, and it could not be a condition of probation) and enacted section 1465.9, which states in relevant part, that on after July 1, 2021, the balance of any court-imposed costs pursuant to section 1203.1b [among numerous other statutes] shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

People v. Baker (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 550, 559–560

Seventh Holding:

The abstract of judgment contains an error. It states that the jury found true the enhancement for great bodily injury under section 12022.7. This conflicts with the actual oral statement of the judge (who conducted a court trial on the enhancement), in which the judge stated “I am not going to find true the allegation of great bodily injury.”

Where, as here, discrepancies exist between the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order, the oral pronouncement controls. The trial court should thus modify the probation order to conform to its oral pronouncement.

Authority:

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

Appellate Principles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000655

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The probation condition ordering treatment but permitting the probation officer to decide whether such treatment should be residential was an improper delegation of the court’s authority.

First Holding:

Under the state constitution, judicial powers may not be delegated to nonjudicial officers. Allowing the probation officer discretion to decide whether the probationer had to attend a residential program, as opposed to outpatient treatment, improperly delegated judicial authority in violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902-903

Second Holding:

The defendant did not object to this probation condition with the trial court, but his appellate claim is not forfeited because he claims a facial constitutional violation.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888–889 [appellate claim that a probation condition was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad was not forfeited by failure to object below where the facial challenge was a pure question of law]

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Due process, Elements of crime, Pleading, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000654

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed the wrong sentence for the consecutive term.

First Holding:

In one count, the defendant was convicted of second degree robbery (sec. 211). At sentencing, the trial court imposed an aggravated term of five years, which was ordered to be served consecutively at a subordinate term of one year four months. Because the robbery was a second degree felony, the middle term is three years in prison. As such, the consecutive subordinate term must be one-third the middle term, or one year. Thus, the sentence on that count must be reduced from 16 months to one year. We may correct this unauthorized sentence on appeal without remanding for a full resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1(a)

PEN 1260

People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 171–172

Second Holding:

The defendant argues that he should have been charged with only one count of attempting to dissuade a witness rather than the 10 charged and found true. The ten calls all occurred on the same day over a span of six hours. The issue is whether appellant may be lawfully subject to multiple convictions. We review this claim de novo.

Authority:

PEN 954

People v. Duffy (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 257, 261

Third Holding:

Section 954 defines what charges can be joined in one action. This statute does not permit multiple convictions for the same offense based on the same act or course of conduct. However, section 954 authorizes multiple convictions for different or distinct offenses. As a result, a defendant may be convicted of multiple counts of the same crime, such as grand theft, based on separate and distinct criminal acts, even if the acts were all part of a single overarching scheme.

Authority:

PEN 954

People v. Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632, 650

People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733, 74

Fourth Holding:

Determining whether a defendant has committed one or more criminal acts requires identifying what the Legislature intended to punish as a single offense under the relevant statute. Courts refer to this inquiry as determining the statute’s unit of prosecution. Courts should look to the characteristics of the crime, including both (1) the factual circumstances of the defendant’s criminal conduct and (2) the elements of the crime as defined by the Legislature in the relevant statute.

Authority:

Moore v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 441, 461

People v. Wilson (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 193, 199-200

People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733, 744 (conc. opn. of Liu, J.)

Fifth Holding:

Section 136.1(a)(2) makes it a crime to knowingly and maliciously attempt to prevent or dissuade a witness from attending or giving testimony at a trial, proceeding or inquiry authorized by law. In relevant part, malice is defined under this statute as an intent to thwart or interfere in any manner with the orderly administration of justice. This crime is completed upon any attempt.

Authority:

PEN 136.1

People v. Kirvin (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1519

Sixth Holding:

A trial court’s decision whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. A defendant bears the burden to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. In the absence of such a showing, a reviewing court presumes the trial court acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on appeal. Moreover, a decision will not be reversed merely because reasonable people might disagree. Instead, the decision must be so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.

Authority:

PEN 669(a)

People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 71–72

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376–377

Seventh Holding:

Once a trial court lawfully decides to impose consecutive sentences on convictions for violating section 136.1, section 1170.15 applies. If a person is convicted of a felony, and of an additional felony that is a violation of section 136.1 or 137 and that was committed against the victim of, or a witness or potential witness with respect to, or a person who was about to give material information pertaining to, the first felony the Penal Code provides that those subordinate terms shall consist of the full middle term.

Authority:

PEN 1170.15

Eighth Holding:

In relevant part, the rule against the dual use of facts prohibits a trial court from relying on the same fact “to impose both the upper term and a consecutive sentence. Only a single factor in aggravation is needed to support imposition of an upper term. Likewise, only one relevant and sustainable fact may explain a series of consecutive sentences. We presume the trial court acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 350, fn. 12

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 730

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376-377

Ninth Holding:

There is a developing split of authority regarding application of the forfeiture doctrine regarding the low term presumption under section 1170(b)(6). We need not decide that issue. Although the court did not specifically mention subdivision (b)(6), we presume it knew of that provision.

Authority:

People v. Achane (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1037, 1039, 1044 [forfeiture doctrine applied when defendant failed to raise in the trial court the presumption in favor of a lower term]

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 994, fn. 8 [sec. 1170 mandates application of the lower term presumption and is not subject to forfeiture]People v. Caparrotta (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 874, 905

Tenth Holding:

Under the cumulative error doctrine, errors that are individually harmless may nevertheless have cumulative prejudice. A claim of cumulative error is essentially a due process challenge. The issue is whether the defendant received a fair trial. Here, appellant’s claim of cumulative prejudice is without merit because we have rejected the individual claims. After reviewing the entire record, we are confident that appellant received due process throughout the entire proceeding, including sentencing.

Authority:

In re Avena (1996) 12 Cal.4th 694, 772, fn. 32

People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1436

People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1057

People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1009 [a defendant is “entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one”]

Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000647

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court should have granted the defendant’s motion to vacate the restitution fine, which was more than 10 years old.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 (Stats. 2024, ch. 805, sec. 1) amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d). The statute now provides: “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:

Defendant’s restitution fine was effectively vacated when section 1465.9(d) went into effect. The defendant’s motion, however, was filed a few months before the law took effect. For the statute to apply, it is not clear that a motion is even required, as the law declares the fine uncollectible and that any portion of a judgment imposing those fines is to be vacated. In the interests of judicial economy, we will direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that the restitution fine has been vacated.

Authority:

In re Mattison (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1069

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000635

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is remanded for the court to consider the recent decision in Kopp on the imposition of fines and fees, and also to conduct a full resentencing in light of this remand for resentencing.

First Holding:

Kopp clarified the standards applied when a defendant challenges the imposition of certain fines and fees on the grounds that they are unlawful because he cannot afford to pay them. We remand the matter to the trial court to apply those standards regarding its imposition of various fines and fees.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 31

Second Holding:

Because his conviction is not final on direct review, the defendant may be entitled to the benefit of various intervening changes in the law, including AB 333 (gang allegations) and the Racial Justice Act. AB 333, for example, limits what predicate offenses the People can now use to prove a group is a criminal street gang under Penal Code section 186.22.

On remand, the defendant can ask the trial court to provide relief under relevant intervening ameliorative sentencing laws, including but not limited to SB 81, 483, 567, and 1393; AB 333 and 518, as well as any appropriate challenges under the Racial Justice Act. But this court need not decide which intervening laws apply retroactively and whether their application requires any retrial or change in sentence.

Authority:

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 448

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 400

People v. Buza (2018) 4 Cal.5th 658, 693 [courts abide by a cardinal principle of judicial restraint—if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more]

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000633

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in calculating the defendant’s pretrial custody credits and awarded him too few. The judgment is modified accordingly.

Holding:

We independently review whether a trial court has correctly awarded custody credits. A defendant accrues actual custody credits pursuant to section 2900.5 for time spent in custody prior to sentencing. Actual custody credits are calculated by adding together “all days of custody” the defendant has served. The failure to award earned custody credits results in an unauthorized sentence, which we may correct. Because the amount of presentence credits appears from our record, we may modify the award of presentence credits to reflect the correct amount.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Arevalo (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 821, 827

People v. Anaya (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 608, 611

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 65–71

People v. Jones (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 485, 493

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000631

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The sentence for either the attempted murder or the domestic violence should have been stayed pursuant to section 654, because both convictions were based on the same act, namely, the defendant’s act of running over the victim with his SUV.

First Holding:

This matter had previously been remanded for the court to consider its discretion on the application of section 654 as to which count should be sentenced on and which should be stayed. The original judge had retired. The resentencing judge’s statements make clear that in determining whether to stay the sentence on count 1 or count 2, he was deferring to and believed himself to be bound by the sentencing choices already made by the original sentencing court. He did not exercise his own discretion to decide which sentence should be stayed under section 654. Rather, he expressed the belief that the original sentencing judge had already made the relevant determination.

That was error. The original sentencing judge declined to apply section 654 at all, so she never exercised her discretion to decide which sentence should be stayed under section 654. To date, no judge has exercised their discretion on that issue. Because the record does not clearly indicate which sentence the resentencing judge would have stayed had he exercised his discretion, the judge’s failure to exercise his discretion is not harmless.

(GARY note #1: The court did not readdress what section 654 does. As noted, this is the second appeal in the case. The unpublished opinion in the first appeal dealt exclusively with the application of section 654, and the court likely felt it was unnecessary to repeat itself in this second appeal, because its application was not the new question. Instead, it was the failure of the resentencing judge to act independently from the original judge’s views. Under section 654, a single act, or multiple acts during a course of action with a single intent and objective, may result in conviction of multiple crimes, but may be punished under only one of them. The court may choose which count to impose and execute sentence on, and must stay execution on the other count(s) to which section 654 applies. Imposition of a concurrent term is not an option.)

(GARY note #2: The court did not discuss the significance of a trial court’s failure to exercise discretion. But there is ample authority discussing the steps for an appellate court to deal with situations where the lower court did not recognize that it had discretion and it appears that there could have been a different outcome had the judge recognized it and exercised its discretion in an informed manner. I have set out some of the statements from some such cases below as Second Holding and Third Holding, but they were not cited in this opinion, likely because, as this court stated in the unpublished opinion, no judge had ever actually exercised the discretion required under section 654. Always keep in mind, however, that when I use the term “likely” in my notes, it is pure speculation on my part.)

Authority:

PEN 654

Second Holding:

The failure to exercise discretion is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 744

Dickson Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 449

Third Holding:

Where a sentencing court was not fully aware of the scope of its discretionary powers, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the court would have reached the same conclusion even it had been aware it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 878, fn. 16

People v. Leon (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1026 [relief from a trial court’s misunderstanding of its sentencing discretion is available on direct appeal when such misapprehension is affirmatively demonstrated by the record]

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case 000625

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In the prior appeal, we reversed on the basis that the sentence was the functional equivalent of a term of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), and remanded for the trial court, as we specified in the remittitur, to consider the defendant’s application for resentencing under section 1170(d) as a person serving the functional equivalent of LWOP.

On remand, the trial court declined to find the defendant was serving the functional equivalent of LWOP, based on an opinion from another district subsequent to the case we relied on in our first opinion. The court had no jurisdiction to go outside the limits of our remittitur, and we remand the case to the lower court to carry out the directions in our remittitur. The matter is remanded to the trial court with the direction to find the defendant eligible for relief and to consider the merits of his petition.

First Holding:

This court has held that offenders sentenced to functionally equivalent LWOP terms are entitled to section 1170(d) relief under the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, in agreement with Heard. Another district has held otherwise.

Authority:

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 440

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

People v. Isayev (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1117, 1123, review granted November 12, 2025, S292860 [Holding that the availability of a youth offender parole hearing under section 3051, which requires such a hearing to be held no later than 25 years into the juvenile’s sentence, precludes finding that the juvenile has a sentence functionally equivalent to life without parole, and is thus ineligible for recall and resentencing under section 1170(d)]

Second Holding:

The remittitur both terminates the reviewing court’s jurisdiction of the case and proscribes the remaining jurisdiction of the receiving court. After the remittitur, the appellate court has no further jurisdiction of the appeal and all orders necessary to carry the judgment into effect shall be made by the court to which the certificate is remitted.

Authority:

PEN 1265

Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 701 [The order of the reviewing court is contained in its remittitur, which defines the scope of the jurisdiction of the court to which the matter is returned]

Snukal v. Flightways Manufacturing, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 754, 774, fn. 5 [The terms of the remittitur define the trial court’s jurisdiction to act]

Third Holding:

The trial court is bound by the directions given and has no authority to retry any other issue or to make any other findings. Its authority is limited wholly and solely to following the directions of the reviewing court. The order of the appellate court as stated in the remittitur, is decisive of the character of the judgment to which the appellant is entitled.

A trial court may not exceed the specific directions of a court of review in remanding a cause after a reversal. Action that does not conform to the appellate court’s directions is void. The trial court was not free to depart from the instructions in the remittitur, as the trial court must follow a remittitur even if it believes the decision was wrong or has been impaired by subsequent decisions.

Authority:

Rice v. Schmid (1944) 25 Cal.2d 259, 263

Hampton v. Superior Court (1952) 38 Cal.2d 652, 655-656

People v. Dutra (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1367

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000624

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding unlawful detention or unlawful arrest. The judgment is reversed. Because there was sufficient evidence that a properly instructed jury could have returned the same verdict, double jeopardy principles do not apply and the matter may be retried.

First Holding:

All criminal defendants have the right to a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the essential elements of the charged offense.

A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.

Similarly, if the trial court decides to provide supplemental instruction to the jury during deliberation, we review de novo the legal accuracy of any supplemental instructions provided.

Authority:

People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824

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

People v. Parker (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1261, 1271

Second Holding:

Section 69 provides that every person who attempts, by means of any threat or violence, to deter or prevent an executive officer from performing any duty imposed upon the officer by law is punishable by a fine or by imprisonment. Similarly, section 148(a)(1) prohibits resisting an officer in the performance of duty, though the resistance need not be forceful or violent.

Authority:

PEN 69

PEN 148

People v. Hupp (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 946, 950

In re A.L. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 15, 22

Third Holding:

The lawfulness of an officer’s conduct is an essential element of both offenses because there is no distinction between performing a duty and lawfully performing a duty, since an officer who is acting unlawfully cannot be said to be performing his or her duty. And the prosecution has the burden of proving the lawfulness of the officers’ conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the lawfulness of the officers’ conduct is an essential element upon which the trial court had a sua sponte duty to properly instruct the jury.

Authority:

In re A.L. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 15, 25

People v. Southard (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 424, 435

Fourth Holding:

To convict defendant of a violation of section 69 or 148, the prosecution was required to prove, and the jury was required to find, that officers were engaged in the lawful performance of their duties. The pattern jury instructions include definitions for various scenarios in which an officer can be considered engaged in a lawful performance of duty, including during a detention, an arrest without a warrant, and an arrest for a misdemeanor offense. (CALCRIM 2670.)

However, the trial court did not give any of these definitions to the jury. Nor did the trial court offer its own definition for the jury to consider. In essence, the trial court instructed the jury that it was required to find that the officers were engaged in a lawful performance of duty but provided no definitions or guidance to the jury regarding how to make this finding. This was clearly error.

Authority:

People v. Serrano (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 902, 913 [Where a term or phrase has a special definition for purposes of a statute, the failure to define it for the jury is error.]

People v. Reyes (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1598, 1601 [Failure to define terms essential to an element of an offense is “equivalent to the omission of an element from the definition of the crime given to the jury.]

Fifth Holding:

The question of reasonable or probable cause is ordinarily one for the court and, where there are disputed facts to be resolved by a jury, the jury is to be told that if it finds the facts in a designated way such facts do or do not amount to probable cause.

Authority:

Roberts v. City of Los Angeles (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 625, 629-630

Sixth Holding:

Whether an offense has been committed in an officer’s presence is determined by whether the officer could testify to actual knowledge to every element of the offense.

Authority:

People v. Garrison (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 549, 557

In re Alonzo C. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 707, 714

People v. Welsch (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1038, 1044

Seventh Holding:

When the jury is misinstructed on an element of the offense reversal is required unless we are able to conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In such cases, a reviewing court must determine whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have rendered the same verdict absent the error. Here, we cannot say with any confidence that the jury would have reached the same verdict had it been properly instructed in this case.

Authority:

People v. Wilkins (2013) 56 Cal.4th 333, 348

People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 831

Eighth Holding:

It has long been settled that the Double Jeopardy Clause’s general prohibition against successive prosecutions does not prevent the government from retrying a defendant who succeeds in getting his first conviction set aside, through direct appeal or collateral attack, because of some error in the proceedings leading to conviction. However, a settled exception to this rule permitting retrial after a successful appeal occurs when a conviction has been reversed due to insufficiency of the evidence.

Thus, even where reversal is required based on instructional error, an appellant’s arguments regarding insufficiency of the evidence should be considered to determine whether retrial is barred by double jeopardy principles. The inquiry at this stage is to determine whether, if properly instructed, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 852-853

People v. Wetle (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 375, 388

People v. Hallock (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 595, 608-609;

In re Martinez (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1216, 1224 [Where instructional error occurs, retrial is barred if defendant can show there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction even when the law is properly construed.]

Ninth Holding:

While an offense may be considered a “wobbler” punishable as either a misdemeanor or felony, its status as a wobbler has no bearing on the lawfulness of a warrantless arrest. This is because the commission of a wobbler is a felony at the time it is committed and remains deemed a felony unless charged as a misdemeanor by the People or reduced to a misdemeanor by the sentencing court.

Authority:

People v. Moomey (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 850, 857-858

People v. Statum (2002) 28 Cal.4th 682, 685