Category Archives: Discretion

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000178

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36. The People concede that the court erred in finding the him ineligible for diversion. The judgment is conditionally reversed, the order denying the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion is vacated, and the matter is remanded for the trial court to reconsider his diversion motion consistent with this opinion. If the trial court again denies the motion, the judgment shall be reinstated.

First Holding:

A trial court may grant mental health diversion to defendants who satisfy the eligibility and suitability requirements set forth in the statute. A defendant is eligible for diversion if he or she has been diagnosed with a qualifying mental disorder and that disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense. A defendant is suitable for diversion if the defendant’s symptoms would respond to mental health treatment, the defendant consents to diversion and waives the right to a speedy trial, the defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion, and the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s denial of mental health diversion for 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. When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true. In making this assessment the appellate court must view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011

Third Holding:

Under the statute, a trial court must presume that a defendant’s diagnosed mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the crime, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. The prosecution bears the burden of presenting such clear and convincing evidence. The absence of evidence proving that a defendant’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses is not substantial evidence supporting a finding by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant’s mental disorder was not a factor in the commission of the offenses.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 404

Discretion, Duty of the court

Case: 000174

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After reviewing the petition and the parties’ briefing, we conclude that, at a pretrial hearing in May 2024, the court erred in denying petitioner’s request for a bail review hearing after petitioner showed changed circumstances entitling him to such a review. Therefore, we grant the petition and direct the trial court to hold a new bail review hearing. The court held that circumstances had changed between the former bail hearing and the current because a Court of Appeal published an opinion disagreeing with another appellate court’s conclusion that pretrial detention is the only option if bail is set at a level the defendant can reasonably afford but is not sufficient to protect the state’s compelling interests. In failing to address the conflict between the two opinions, the court abused its discretion.

First Holding:

Under section 1289, after a defendant has been admitted to bail upon an indictment or information, the court in which the charge is pending may, upon good cause shown, either increase or reduce the amount of bail. Such good cause must be founded on changed circumstances relating to the defendant or the proceedings.

Authority:

PEN 1289

In re Alberto (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 421, 430

Second Holding:

If the court properly determines nonfinancial conditions are insufficient to protect the state’s interests, but that imposing a money bail condition (alone or in combination with nonfinancial conditions) would adequately protect the public and the victims and ensure the arrestee’s presence in court, the court must consider the individual arrestee’s ability to pay and set bail at a level the arrestee can reasonably afford. If money bail set at a level the defendant can reasonably afford is not sufficient to protect the state’s compelling interests, then the trial court’s only option is to order pretrial detention, assuming the evidentiary record is sufficient to support the findings necessary to justify such an order.

Authority:

In re Brown (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 296

In re Humphrey (2021) 11 Cal.5th 135

Third Holding:

The appellate court held that circumstances had changed between the former bail hearing and the current because a Court of Appeal published an opinion disagreeing with another appellate court’s conclusion that pretrial detention is the only option if bail is set at a level the defendant can reasonably afford but is not sufficient to protect the state’s compelling interests. In failing to address the conflict between the two opinions, the court abused its discretion. The Kowalczyk court had disagreed with the Brown court’s earlier conclusion that a pretrial detention order is the only option when a bail amount the defendant can afford is insufficient to protect the public and ensure the defendant’s presence in court. The Kowalczyk court concluded that under Humphrey, if a court makes the findings necessary to support a detention, the court may set bail in an amount higher than a defendant can afford.

Authority:

In re Kowalczyk (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 667

Discretion, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000168

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2024, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) sent the trial court a letter providing it with authority to resentence defendant pursuant to section 1172.1 in light of the court’s newfound discretion to dismiss prior serious felony enhancements. The court appointed defendant counsel and set the matter for a hearing. After the hearing, the court stated it was not going to exerciseits discretion, that it was leaving the sentence in play as originally sentenced, and it denied the motion.

The trial court erred in denying recall and resentencing without finding that the defendant currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in section 1170.18(c), as required to overcome the presumption in favor of recall and resentencing provided for in section 1172.1(b)(2). The trial court failed to understand the proper scope of its discretion in light of the mandated presumption in favor of recall and resentencing. Thus, it abused its discretion in rendering its order denying relief. We deem it appropriate, here, to remand the matter to the trial court for reconsideration of the CDCR’s recommendation pursuant to section 1172.1.

First Holding:

A court may at any time upon the recommendation of the secretary [of CDCR] or the Board of Parole Hearings in the case of a defendant incarcerated in state prison recall the sentence and commitment previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced, whether or not the defendant is still in custody, and provided the new sentence, if any, is no greater than the initial sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1

Second Holding:

Where such a resentencing request is made, there is now a presumption in favor of recall and resentencing of the defendant, which may only be overcome if a court finds the defendant is an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in 1170.18(c).

Authority:

PEN 1172.1(b)(2)

People v. McMurray (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1035, 1040

Third Holding:

“Unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” is defined as an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv). Those offenses—known as super strikes—include, among others, any homicide and any serious or violent felony offense punishable in California by life imprisonment or death.

Authority:

PEN 1170.18(c)

People v. Braggs (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 809, 818

People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 351

Fourth Holding:

Where the CDCR recommends recall and resentencing, the court is also now required to hold a hearing (unless the parties otherwise stipulate), state on the record its reasons for its decision, provide notice to the defendant, and appoint counsel for the defendant. Furthermore, when recalling and resentencing pursuant to its provisions, the court shall apply any changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1(a)(6)–(8), (b)(1)

People v. McMurray (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1035, 1040

People v. Pierce (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1074, 1078

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s resentencing determination 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. An abuse of discretion is shown when the trial court applies the wrong legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Frazier (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 858, 863

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

People v. Hall (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1264

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 231

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 156–158 [court abused its discretion in granting motion for new trial based on erroneous legal standards]

In re Charlisse C. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 145, 159–160, 167 [juvenile court abused discretion in applying incorrect standard in disqualifying minor’s counsel]

Discretion, Juveniles

Case: 000140

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in setting a maximum confinement time when he was released home on probation. We will strike the maximum confinement term and affirm the judgment as modified.

First Holding:

It is abuse of discretion for a juvenile court to set a maximum confinement term for a minor who is not removed from his parents’ custody

Authority:

In re A.C. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 590, 591-592 [where a juvenile court’s order includes a maximum confinement term for a minor who is not removed from parental custody, the remedy is to strike the term]

Second Holding:

[GARY NOTE, for context, Welfare and Institutions Code section 726 states, in pertinent part, that IF a minor is removed from the custody of the parents, the court must state the maximum term, which the section also defines.]

Authority:

WIC 726

Discretion, Juveniles, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000133

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2000, appellant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after being tried as an adult for two murders he committed when he was 17. In 2021, his sentence was recalled under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). The prosecution filed a motion to again transfer appellant’s case from juvenile court to criminal court. The court granted the motion, and appellant challenges that ruling on appeal. We conclude that the court misapprehended one aspect of its discretion, reverse the order transferring appellant to criminal court, and remand for reconsideration of the issue.

First Holding:

In determining at a transfer hearing whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult, the court must consider five statutory factors, one of which is whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. The court stated that juvenile jurisdiction would have ended when appellant turned 25 years old. The court was quite clear that its consideration of the relevant factor was always directed at determining whether appellant would have been rehabilitated by the age of 25.

However, the court was incorrect. The juvenile court may retain jurisdiction over a person who is 25 years of age or older for a period not to exceed two years from the date of disposition if the person is found to be a person described in Section 602 by reason of the commission of an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 707. In this instance, the defendant would have been in his 40s two years after disposition hearing held in this case.

Authority:

WIC 707(d)

Second Holding:

When the appellant presents an issue of statutory interpretation, we review it de novo.

Authority:

In re Noah S. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 410, 414

Third Holding:

Reversal is required 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. Here, the court did not express how it would have ruled had it known juvenile jurisdiction could have lasted longer. One of the few comments the court made about the defendant’s post-age 25 conduct cuts against a finding of harmlessness. Paraphrased, the court stated that there was no question before it that the defendant has grown as an adult, but that the question was whether or not that growth would have occurred before age 25. It stated that the evidence it considered at the hearing indicates his growth occurred well past the age of 25.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 139

Fourth Holding:

In order to transfer a minor from juvenile court to criminal court, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(3)