Category Archives: Discretion

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 001007

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This is an appeal after resentencing under section 1172.75. The court erred in believing that the original sentence was unauthorized because full consecutive sentences on two of the counts had been mandatory. Thus, it was error for the court to vacate the original imposition of concurrent sentences and impose them consecutively.

Holding:

The trial court was mistaken in its determination that the original sentence was unauthorized because full consecutive sentences on both counts were mandatory.

Both crimes were committed on the same occasion on the same victim. Therefore, while section 667.6(c) authorized consecutive sentencing on these two offenses, imposing full consecutive sentences for both offenses was not mandatory. Similarly, at resentencing, the court was not required to impose a full consecutive sentence.

The trial court appears not to have been aware of its discretion in this regard. We therefore remand to permit the court to resentence the defendant pursuant to section 1172.75.

Authority:

PEN 667.6(c)

People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 596–597, 600 [remanding for resentencing where trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion to impose concurrent sentences and erroneously believed consecutive sentences were mandatory]

People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371, 431–432 [when a trial court misunderstands or is unaware of the scope of its sentencing discretion, a reviewing court must remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion]

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000999

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court abused its discretion by denying the defendant’s request for mental health diversion because its finding that he is ineligible for diversion is not supported by substantial evidence.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted sections 1001.35 and 1001.36 to authorize trial courts to grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendants diagnosed with qualifying mental disorders. To be eligible for mental health diversion, a defendant must meet two requirements.

One, the defendant must have been diagnosed within the past five years with a mental disorder identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

And two, the defendant’s mental disorder must be a significant factor in the commission of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 677

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400

Second Holding:

Among the express purposes of the diversion program is to increase diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety.

Under section 1001.36(b), the court must find a causal connection unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. Eligibility no longer turned on findings to the court’s satisfaction.

The statute requires the court to find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor unless clear and convincing evidence demonstrates otherwise. And it is the prosecution’s burden to provide clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption.

Authority:

Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 67, 80

People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485, 490

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891

People v. Cabalar (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 41, 52

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 688

Third Holding:

Once a defendant meets the eligibility requirements, the trial court must then determine whether a defendant is suitable for diversion using the four criteria outlined in section 1001.36(c): (1) A qualified mental health expert has determined the defendant’s symptoms would respond to mental health treatment; (2) the defendant has consented to diversion and waived the right to a speedy trial; (3) the defendant has agreed to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion, and (4) the court has determined the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400-401

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on an application for mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. A court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. By definition, ‘substantial evidence’ requires evidence and not mere speculation.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Ramon (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 843, 851

Fifth Holding:

In reviewing a trial court’s finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before us is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the dispute] fact was true.

More specifically, in this context, we must determine whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. To answer that question, we review the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party 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.

(Gary note: The balance of the decision discusses the conclusions drawn by the trial court that it relied on to conclude that the mental disorder did not contribute to the offense. The appellate court concluded that the inferences the trial court drew were not substantial evidence to overcome by clear and convincing the presumption that the mental disorder was a contributing factor, and reversed the denial. It remanded for the court to reconsider the defendant’s application for mental health diversion consistent with the appellate court’s opinion.)

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401-402

Amelioration, Discretion, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000984

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court erred in imposing the firearm enhancement on count 2.

First Holding:

In affirming the trial court’s decision to deny the defendant’s request for dismissal of the firearm enhancement attached to count 1, we review the trial court’s sentencing decision at a section 1172.75 resentencing for an abuse of discretion, including a court’s determination of dangerousness. Section 1172.75(d) vests the superior court with broad discretion based on an inherently factual inquiry.

Under an abuse of discretion standard, we 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.

A court also abuses its discretion if the decision is made without the sentencing court’s informed discretion or if the court is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers.

The burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary.

A defendant’s citation to a silent record is insufficient to meet his burden to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. We assume the trial court was aware of and followed applicable law.

Authority:

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

People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 298

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 856–857

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 988

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

People v. Coleman (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 709, 725

People v. Calhoun (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 117, 126 [a court’s sentencing decision implies requisite subsidiary findings]

Second Holding:

On count 2, the defendant had been convicted of section 246 (shooting at an occupied vehicle), enhanced under section 12022.53(d) for an additional 25 years to life. (In the prior appeal from the conviction, the appellate court struck the enhancements on count 2 under sections 12022.53(b) and (c), because section 246 is not one of the crimes listed in 12022.53(a) that subdivisions (b) and (c) can apply to.) At the 1172.75 resentencing hearing, the court imposed the lesser enhancement on count 2, under section 12022.53(c), for an enhancement of a determinate term of 20 years instead of the indeterminate 25 years to life he was serving under section 12022.53(d).

Because section 246 is not a crime listed under section 12022.53(a) to which subdivisions (b) and (c) can be applied, it was error to reduce the section 12022.53(d) enhancement to 12022.53(c).

While the trial court could dismiss the section 12022.53(d), firearm enhancement as to count 2, it could not impose a lesser enhancement under section 12022.53(c). We vacate the sentence as to count 2 and remand for resentencing as to that count only.

(Gary note: The court did not mention it as an option, but the trial court can dismiss the section 12022.53 (as the appellate court stated) and impose an enhancement on a lesser included enhancement, such as section 12022.5.

(Under People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, the Supreme Court extended its holding of Tirado (which held that a court could exercise its discretion to impose a lesser section 12022.53 enhancement to the one that was found true) to expressly permit striking section 12022.53 and imposing a lesser included, uncharged enhancement authorized elsewhere in the Penal Code, outside section 12022.53. Under McDavid, the court in this case could strike the 12022.53(d) enhancement and impose an enhancement under section 12022.5, for example. In other words, the court is not faced with a choice of it’s either all or nothing.)

Authority:

PEN 12022.53(a)

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 699, fn. 12

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

Discretion, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000981

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court abused its discretion by denying diversion after finding that the defendant is NOT likely to commit a super strike offense.

We reverse the judgment and direct the court to vacate its order denying mental health diversion and enter a new order granting the motion unless there is evidence of changed circumstances that provide a basis for denying the motion.

First Holding:

The defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause and appealed the denial of his motion for mental health diversion. Appeal lies from the judgment.

Authority:

PEN 1237.5 [appeal may be taken after a no contest plea if the court issues a certificate of probable cause]

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

Second Holding:

We review the diversion denial order for abuse of discretion, meaning the decision is arbitrary or capricious, applied the wrong legal standard, or is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795

Third Holding:

The diversion law promotes increased diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety. The potentially ameliorative benefit for criminal defendants who suffer from a qualifying mental disorder is balanced against protecting public safety. The law is intended to apply as broadly as possible.

Authority:

PEN 1001.35(a)

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 630-631

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1149

Fourth Holding:

A defendant charged with a felony may be referred to a program of mental health treatment utilizing existing inpatient or outpatient mental health resources” for up to two years. If the defendant performed satisfactorily in diversion, at the end of the period of diversion, the court shall dismiss the defendant’s criminal charges that were the subject of the criminal proceedings at the time of the initial diversion.

In other words, the arrest upon which the diversion was based shall be deemed never to have occurred. If the defendant performs unsatisfactorily in a treatment program or engages in criminal conduct, the court may reinstate criminal proceedings.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(f)(1)(A)(ii) and (C)(i), (g), and (h)

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

Fifth Holding:

A defendant is eligible for diversion if a mental health expert diagnoses the defendant with a qualifying mental disorder that was a significant factor in commission of the charged offense. A defendant is suitable for diversion if

(1) the expert opines that the defendant would respond to treatment;

(2) the defendant consents to diversion and waives the right to a speedy trial;

(3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment; and

(4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b) and (c)

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 452

Sixth Holding:

The only disputed issue in this appeal is public safety. The Legislature defined “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” by incorporating section 1170.18. Section 1170.18(c) defines “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” as an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony listed in section 667. The relevant violent felonies in section 667 are super strikes. Burglary–the charge the defendant faced–is not a super strike.

Courts limit discretion to deny diversion on “public safety” grounds to instances where a defendant is likely to commit a super strike.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449–450

People v. Williams (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 990, 1001

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1151

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896

People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113, 121

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 798–799

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 690–691

Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 67, 83, 87–88

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 454–455

Seventh Holding:

The Legislature is presumed to know about existing case law when it amends a statute. The Legislature amended section 1001.36 seven times between 2022 and 2026 without eliminating the reference to section 1170.18, despite the decisions cited above, which require a finding that the defendant poses a risk of committing super strikes.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1062

People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, 743

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

Eighth Holding:

Beginning in 2027, courts applying section 1001.36 will no longer use the old definition of “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” from section 1170.18. Instead, they will apply a new standard: “substantial and undue risk to the physical safety of another person.” Regardless of the forthcoming changes to section 1001.36, the version of the law applying to this defendant required a super strike finding.

The trial court found he did not pose a risk of committing super strikes, only that he poses an unreasonable risk of committing further residential burglaries. The court could not deny diversion based on a risk the defendfant will commit burglaries, thereby discounting the need to find public safety is imperiled by likely super strike offenses. The Legislature has specifically defined what constitutes ‘an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety’ under the statute, limiting it to the danger the defendant will commit a super strike.

Authority:

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 455

Ninth Holding:

Courts recognize “residual discretion” to deny diversion. However, while it is clear a trial court retains residual discretion to deny diversion even if all the threshold requirements are met, that does not mean, as the court suggested here, that it could reject a request for diversion based on an alternative meaning of public safety inconsistent with the specific statutory definition in section 1001.36(c)(4). In the guise of exercising its residual discretion, a court is not permitted to redefine public safety in a manner inconsistent with the Legislature’s expressed intent.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896

Tenth Holding:

Reasons the court might exercise discretion to deny diversion include lack of a treatment program; a defendant’s history of failed treatment or misconduct in prior programs; or the availability of a better program for the defendant’s needs.

Authority:

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 457

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 889–890

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000975

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing because the trial court erroneously believed the law required it to impose consecutive sentences for every count.

First Holding:

Under section 667.61(i), consecutive sentences are mandatory only to offenses listed in section 667.61(c), paragraphs (1) through (7). The crime of which the jury found the defendant guilty is described in 667.61(c), paragraph (8).

Thus, consecutive sentencing was not mandatory.

Authority:

PEN 667.61(c)

Second Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court, and a court that is unaware of its discretionary authority cannot exercise its informed discretion.

When a sentencing court was not aware of the full scope of its discretionary powers at the time the defendant was sentenced, 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. Belmontes (1983) 34 Cal.3d 335, 348, fn. 8

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

Third Holding:

The Attorney General argues that the defendant forfeited his sentencing contention by failing to object below to the court’s error, and that the defendant cannot show his counsel was ineffective for failing to object because it was not reasonably likely the court would have imposed anything less than the 150-year sentence that it did.

We exercise our discretion to reach the question, notwithstanding forfeiture.

Authority:

People v. Leon (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1003 [the trial court’s erroneous understanding that it had no discretion to impose concurrent sentences may fall within a narrow class of sentencing issues that are reviewable in the absence of a timely objection, and in any event, we would exercise our discretion to resolve the claim in the interests of fairness and judicial economy and to forestall unnecessary ineffective assistance of counsel claims.]

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 162, fn. 6 [An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party]

Fourth Holding:

The trial court’s repeated references to section 667.61(i)’s requirement that it impose consecutive sentences leaves no doubt that the court here did not know it retained the discretion to impose concurrent sentences per victim.

The court provided no other reason for imposing consecutive sentences, including no comment that the aggravating factor warranted a maximum sentence or any similar comment.

We therefore cannot conclude that the record clearly indicates the court would have imposed the same sentence if it had understood its full sentencing discretion. We accordingly remand the matter for resentencing.

Authority:

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