Category Archives: Discretion

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000563

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The absence in this record of the necessary gang nexus requires the gang conditions of probation ordered here be stricken. The gang conditions were “25. Must not spend time with any person you know, or whom your probation officer tells you, is a gang member”; and “26. Must not wear or display any clothing, tattoos, or signs you know, or your probation officer tells you is evidence of affiliation with or membership in a gang. The word ‘gang’ means a criminal street gang as defined in California Penal Code Section 186.22.”

First Holding:

Crimes need not be gang-related to warrant the imposition of gang terms as conditions of probation.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1120–1121

Second Holding:

On appeal, we review conditions of probation for abuse of discretion. That is, a reviewing court will disturb the trial court’s decision to impose a particular condition of probation only if, under all the circumstances, that choice is arbitrary and capricious and is wholly unreasonable.

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 403

Third Holding:

A condition of probation will not be held invalid unless 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

Authority:

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

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118–1119 [applying the three-part Lent standard to juvenile probation conditions]

Fourth Holding:

Courts may impose conditions that have a relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted and may also impose conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety.

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120

Fifth Holding:

The conditions of probation aimed at rehabilitating the offender need not be so strictly tied to the offender’s precise crime as long as they are reasonably directed at curbing an offender’s future criminality. But there must be a strong connection between the burdens imposed by the challenged condition and a probationer’s criminal conduct or personal history. Conditions ordered may be properly based upon information in a probation report that raises concerns about future criminality unrelated to a prior offense. Thus, even if a condition of probation has no relationship to the crime of which a defendant was convicted and involves conduct that is not itself criminal, the condition is valid as long the condition is reasonably related to preventing future criminality.

Authority:

People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 404-405

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1120-1122

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 380

People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1121

Sixth Holding:

Nothing in the record suggests the offenses underlying the minor’s conduct were gang-related. Thus, we examine the record as a whole to determine if the gang conditions were reasonably related to preventing future criminality. In doing so, we find no indication of gang involvement. The record here presents no nexus sufficient to warrant the order of gang conditions

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379-380

In re Edward B. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1228, 1236 [striking gang conditions because any connection between the minor’s offense and gang activity is speculation]

Seventh Holding:

Though the prosecutor argued in favor of the gangs condition, without a more specific connection to the record, expert opinion, or the minor’s personal circumstances, a district attorney’s non-expert observations cannot reasonably justify the imposition of gang conditions.

Authority:

People v. Stanley (2006) 39 Cal.4th 913, 961 fn. 10 [It is axiomatic that argument is not evidence]

Discretion, Effective assistance of counsel, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000558

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The restitution amount is wrong, and the protective order is unauthorized.

First Holding:

Appellant contends changes to section 1001.36 that went into effect after she was denied pretrial diversion apply to her case. We agree. Appellant further contends this matter should be conditionally reversed and remanded so the trial court can exercise its discretion to determine her motion for pretrial diversion in light of the amendment. We disagree.

Appellant has forfeited this claim. Frahs, decided in 2020, made clear that recently enacted section 1001.36 applied in nonfinal cases. Thus, when the law was amended effective January 1, 2023, appellant should have known the amendments applied retroactively. Once the law was amended, appellant had more than three months before she pled and more than seven months before she was sentenced to seek reconsideration of the trial court’s denial of diversion. She did not.

Authority:

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 631-632

People v. Doron (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1, 6

People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 856

People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113, 128 [failure to seek reconsideration excused where amendment to statute effective after entry of plea but only 10 days before sentencing]

Second Holding:

In order to establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his or her counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the defendant suffered prejudice as a result of such deficient performance. The record is silent, however, why defense counsel failed to seek reconsideration under the amended law.

It is possible that counsel was unaware of the newly passed statute. It is also possible, however, that counsel had sound reasons not to pursue the issue. For example, appellant may have changed her mind and decided to refuse to accept the treatment required for participation in the diversion program. Because trial counsel’s reasons for not raising the issue are not readily apparent, the issue is more appropriately considered in a habeas corpus proceeding.

Authority:

People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181, 198

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-692

People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267

People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s restitution order for abuse of discretion. We apply the substantial evidence standard in a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to support a factual finding necessary for a victim restitution order. Sentencing judges are given virtually unlimited discretion as to the kind of information they can consider and the source from whence it comes because a hearing to establish the amount of restitution does not require the formalities of other phases of a criminal prosecution. The court may use any rational method of fixing the amount of restitution as long as it is reasonably calculated to make the victim whole. It may make a restitution order based on truncated evidence such as declarations or probation reports, business records, and checks.

Authority:

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 663

People v. Jessee (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 501, 507

People v. Hove (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1266, 1275

People v. Plains All American Pipeline L.P. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 872, 898-899

Fourth Holding:

The total restitution awarded to the victim includes two computational errors. The court erroneously included a $4,520 attorney fees bill twice and included $880 for an unknown reason. We will correct those errors.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 854

Fifth Holding:

Section 136.2(i) authorizes a court to issue an order restraining a defendant for up to 10 years when the defendant has been convicted of a qualifying crime. Appellant’s conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under section 245 is not a qualifying crime under section 136(i). The court did not have statutory authority to issue the protective order, therefore, the order must be stricken.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 901

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

Case 000556

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred by imposing consecutive terms on counts 1 through 3 because the underlying offenses did not occur on separate occasions under Penal Code section 667.6(d), and the court did not make findings on whether it was exercising its discretion to impose a consecutive sentence. We reverse and remand for resentencing.

First Holding:

Section 669(a) provides that when a person is convicted of two or more crimes, the trial court must determine whether the terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently or consecutively. For certain sex offenses the Penal Code establishes alternative sentencing frameworks, including section 667.6.

Authority:

People v. Catarino (2023) 14 Cal.5th 748, 752

Second Holding:

Under section 667.6(c), a full, separate, and consecutive term may be imposed for each violation of an offense specified in subdivision (e) if the crimes involve the same victim on the same occasion. Section 667.6(d)(1) provides a full, separate, and consecutive term shall be imposed for each violation of an offense specified in subdivision (e) if the crimes involve separate victims or involve the same victim on separate occasions. Although section 269 is not listed in section 667.6(e), section 269(c) provides that the court shall impose a consecutive sentence for each offense that results in a conviction on this section if the crimes involve the same victim on separate occasions as defined in section 667.6(d).

Authority:

PEN 667.6(c)

PEN 667.6(d)

PEN 269

Third Holding:

The One Strike law in section 667.61 provides an alternative sentencing scheme for certain forcible sex offenses and mandates an indeterminate sentence of 15 or 25 years to life in prison when the jury has convicted the defendant of a specified felony sex crime and has also found certain factual allegations to be true.

Authority:

People v. Carbajal (2013) 56 Cal.4th 521, 534

Fourth Holding:

In determining whether crimes against a single victim were committed on separate occasions under section 667.6(d), the court shall consider whether, between the commission of one sex crime and another, the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to reflect upon the defendant’s actions and nevertheless resumed sexually assaultive behavior. Neither the duration of time between crimes, nor whether or not the defendant lost or abandoned the opportunity to attack, shall be, in and of itself, determinative on the issue of whether the crimes in question occurred on separate occasions.

Further, a finding that a defendant committed sex crimes on separate occasions does not require there be a break of any specific duration or any change in physical location. In applying this standard, courts have held the offenses of placing a finger in the victim’s private area, kissing her private area and then placing his private part in her private area were but a single occasion. In contrast, where the offenses are interrupted by the defendant’s nonsexual activity, courts have found they occur on a separate occasion.

Authority:

PEN 667.6(d)(2)

People v. Jones (2001) 25 Cal.4th 98, 104

People v. King (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1325

People v. Dearborne (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 250, 265-266

People v. Corona (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 13, 15-16, 17-18

Fifth Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court. A court that is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no more exercise that informed discretion than one whose sentence is or may have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant’s record. In such circumstances, we have held that the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 419, 424

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391

Sixth Holding:

The trial court was aware of its discretion. The general rule is that a trial court is presumed to have been aware of and followed the applicable law.

Authority:

People v. Shiga (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 22, 40

People v. Brown (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1229

Seventh Holding:

When a trial court imposes consecutive sentences based on a finding under section 667.6(d), we may reverse only if there is no substantial evidence that the offenses were committed on separate occasions, that is, only if no reasonable trier of fact could have decided the defendant had a reasonable opportunity for reflection after completing an offense before resuming his assaultive behavior.

Authority:

People v. King (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1325

People v. Garza (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1092

Eighth Holding:

Regardless of whether section 667.6(c), applies to sentencing for a one strike offense under section 667.61 (which is not clear), under section 669, a trial court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences when a defendant is convicted of multiple crimes with indeterminate sentences.

Authority:

PEN 669(a)

People v. Midell (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1060, 1085

People v. Rodriguez (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1262

Ninth Holding:

It is well settled that in making sentencing choices pursuant to section 667.6(c), the trial court must state a reason for imposing a consecutive sentence in deciding whether to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence.

Authority:

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 729

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000543

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court did not understand that it had the jurisdiction to strike prior strikes at a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75. Remanded for the court to consider how to exercise its discretion. It must also recalculate the defendant’s credit for time served.

First Holding:

Because a trial court’s power under section 1385(a) to dismiss or strike a strike prior is independent of either the Three Strikes law or the subsequent Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, any exercise of that power at a resentencing proceeding under section 1172.75 does not offend either.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 362

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497

Second Holding:

The full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant.

Authority:

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424-425

Third Holding:

Section 1172.75 is a permissible alternative resentencing method for third strike offenders, and upon recall, defendants like the defendant in Guevara were no longer presently serving indeterminate third strike sentences.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 854

Fourth Holding:

We express no opinion on the merits of the motion, which rest in the trial court’s sound discretion to evaluate.

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377-378

Fifth Holding:

Defendant is entitled to recalculation of custody credits at the close of the hearing, whether the trial court resentences him to 25 years to life or imposes a different sentence.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 41

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000541

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and evading an officer with reckless driving. There was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the two crimes had separate objectives and remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to exercise its discretion under section 654 to stay the sentence on either count.

First Holding:

Section 654(a) provides that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. A defendant may be charged with—and in some cases convicted of—multiple crimes arising out of the same conduct but cannot receive multiple punishments for the same act or omission. When section 954 permits multiple conviction[s], but section 654 prohibits multiple punishment[s], the trial court must stay execution of sentence on the convictions for which multiple punishment is prohibited.

Authority:

PEN 654

PEN 954

People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224, 1226−1227

Second Holding:

Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an act or omission may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective. If we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single intent and objective or multiple intents and objectives.

Authority:

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311

Third Holding:

The determination of whether there was more than one objective is a factual determination, which will not be reversed on appeal unless unsupported by the evidence presented at trial. We review the trial court’s determination in the light most favorable to the respondent and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Saffle (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 434, 438

People v. Vang (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 912, 916

Fourth Holding:

Because the trial court sentenced the defendant on both counts, we presume the trial court made an implied finding that section 654 did not apply, and that the two crimes had separate objectives.

Authority:

People v. Kelly (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 886, 904 [When there is no explicit ruling by the trial court at sentencing, we infer that the court made the finding appropriate to the sentence it imposed.]

Fifth Holding:

We conclude there was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the two crimes had separate objectives.

Authority:

In re L.J. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 37 [The evidence does not support a finding that the minor’s assaults on the officers were based on different intents and objectives than the minor’s overall purpose of trying to evade the police officers.]

People v. Jimenez (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 409, 426 [defendant had a different intent and objection when driving “head on” towards an officer]