Category Archives: Discretion

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

Case 000916

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

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

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

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

First Holding:

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

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

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

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

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

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

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

Authority:

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

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

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

Third Holding:

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

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

Authority:

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

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

Fourth Holding:

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

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

Authority:

PEN 745

PEN 1473

PEN 1473.7

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

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

Fifth Holding:

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

Authority:

PEN 745(a)

Sixth Holding:

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

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

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

Authority:

PEN 1473(e)(5)

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

Seventh Holding:

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

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

Authority:

PEN 745(h)(2)

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

Eighth Holding:

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

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

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

Authority:

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

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

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

Ninth Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

Tenth Holding:

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

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

(1) whether the material requested is adequately described;

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

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

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

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

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

Authority:

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

Eleventh Holding:

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

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

Authority:

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

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

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000915

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court’s finding that he was unsuitable for diversion is unsupported by substantial evidence. We direct the trial court to vacate the order denying the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion and to enter a new order granting the motion unless there is evidence of changed circumstances that provide a basis for denying the motion consistent with this opinion. If the court finds changed circumstances, it shall hold a further hearing on the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion.

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 gives trial courts the discretion to grant pretrial diversion for individuals suffering from certain mental health disorders. The primary purposes of the legislation are to keep people with mental disorders from entering and reentering the criminal justice system while protecting public safety, to give counties discretion in developing and implementing diversion across a continuum of care settings, and to provide mental health rehabilitative services.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

PEN 1001.35(a)-(c)

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 626

People v. Doron (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1, 7

Second Holding:

Section 1001.36(b) provides that a defendant is eligible for pretrial diversion if two criteria are met.

First, the defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, such as the one with which defendant was diagnosed, within the last five years by a qualified mental health expert.

Second, the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

If the defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, the court shall find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense 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.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

Third Holding:

If a defendant meets these eligibility requirements, the defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion if four criteria are satisfied:

(1) In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder causing, contributing to, or motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment.

(2) The defendant consents to diversion and waives the defendant’s right to a speedy trial.

(3) The defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion.

(4) The defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in section 1170.18, if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Fourth Holding:

The proper inquiry for determining whether the fourth criterion is satisfied is whether there is an unreasonable risk the defendant will commit a super strike if treated in the community.

Super strikes include sexually violent offenses, child molestation, homicide, attempted homicide, solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a peace officer or fire fighter, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, or a violent felony punishable by life imprisonment or death.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

PEN 1170.18(c)

PEN 667(e)(2)(C)(iv)

Fifth Holding:

Section 1001.36 provides the trial court with discretion to deny mental health diversion even if it finds a defendant meets the statutory eligibility and suitability criteria. Such discretion is commonly referred to as a court’s residual discretion.

Where the court chooses to exercise this residual discretion to deny diversion, its statement of reasons should reflect consideration of the underlying purposes of the statute and explain why diversion would not meet those goals.

Authority:

People v. Cabalar (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 41, 53

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 893

Sixth Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on a petition for pretrial 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.

Authority:

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

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

Seventh Holding:

(Gary note: The court then described facts specific to this defendant this case that led it to the conclusion that the court abused its discretion in concluding the defendant posed an unreasonable risk of danger to the public safety. One of the elements of the trial court’s concern was the defendant’s need for medication. I have listed the authority cited by the court on that point, but I see no value in detailing the facts specific to this case.)

Authority:

Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 67, 84, 87 [holding no substantial evidence supported denying diversion even though there were two instances of defendant declining treatment and the offense took place while defendant was being treated pursuant to diversion]

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 136−137 [holding no substantial evidence that defendant was unsuitable for diversion even though defendant had sustained periods of psychotropic medication non-compliance and resisted talking about his mental health]

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

Case 000906

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

First Holding:

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

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

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

Authority:

PEN 667.5(b)

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

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

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

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(2)

Third Holding:

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

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

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)

Fourth Holding:

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

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

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

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)

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

Fifth Holding:

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

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

Authority:

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

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

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

Sixth Holding:

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

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

Authority:

PEN 1259

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

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

Case 000905

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court lacked potential information relevant to exercising its discretion at the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75. We reverse the judgment and remand for a new resentencing hearing.

First Holding:

On the date ultimately set for the hearing, the defendant’s attorney informed the court that he did not know the hearing on the petition was going to be held, and he needed a continuance to prepare for presenting mitigating information. The court denied the motion for continuance and held the hearing, striking the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement but otherwise making no changes to the sentence.

This was error. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements. Thus, in a case such as this, the resentencing court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the sentence, and not just the portion subjected to the recall.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

Second Holding:

Section 1172.75 provides that when a court resentences a defendant under the statute, it shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

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

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(2), (d)(3)

Third Holding:

Section 1385(a) grants the superior court discretion, in furtherance of justice, to order an action to be dismissed. This includes the authority to strike a sentence enhancement. To apply this discretion, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of several mitigating circumstances are present. Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.

Authority:

PEN 1385

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

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. One factor to consider is whether a continuance would be useful. Here, a continuance was merited because it would have allowed defense counsel to obtain potential evidence relevant to resentencing regarding childhood trauma and mental capacity.

This was apparently the defendant’s first request for a continuance, and the burden on the court of a continuance was minimal because there would have been no need to reschedule witnesses or consider juror inconvenience. 

(Gary note: The appellate court then outlined several factors specific to this defendant that the trial court failed to give any consideration to, leading to the appellate court’s decision to remand. The details are not useful for this summary.)

Because the court lacked evidence of all relevant mitigating factors identified in section 1385, we must remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the court would have reached the same conclusion even had it considered the mitigating factors.

Authority:

People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1118

People v. Grajeda (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 829, 839–840

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

Fifth Holding:

Although a court is presumed to have considered all of the relevant factors in the absence of an affirmative record to the contrary, when it expressly states the basis for its decision and declines to consider other factors, we will not infer it weighed the other factors. Because the court expressly considered only the circumstances of the defendant’s crime, we cannot infer that it also considered mitigating circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Myers (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 305, 310

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000904

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court denied the defendant’s application for mental health diversion, finding that although defendant was eligible for diversion, he was not suitable because he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

There is insufficient evidence of an unreasonable risk that defendant will commit a super strike offense if treated in the community. We will reverse the judgment and remand the matter for a new hearing on defendant’s present suitability for mental health diversion.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 1001.36 gives a trial court discretion to grant pretrial diversion for individuals with certain mental health disorders. The trial court can postpone prosecution at any time in the judicial process, either temporarily or permanently, to allow the defendant to undergo treatment. The Legislature intended the mental health diversion program to apply as broadly as possible.

Authority:

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 626

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147-1149

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 133

Second Holding:

A defendant must be both eligible and suitable for mental health diversion. A defendant is eligible under section 1001.36 (b) if (1) the defendant has been diagnosed by a qualified mental health expert with a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the DSM; and (2) the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

Authority:

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 133

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

Third Holding:

As for suitability, four circumstances must be satisfied: (1) in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert the defendant’s mental disorder would respond to treatment; (2) the defendant consents to diversion and agrees to waive his or her speedy trial rights; (3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment requirements; and (4) if treated in the community, the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as defined in section 1170.18.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(1)-(4)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891-892

Fourth Holding:

A defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety under section 1170.18(c) if there is an unreasonable risk that the defendant will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv), otherwise known as a super strike.

The enumerated super strike offenses include murder, attempted murder, solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a police officer, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, a serious or violent felony punishable by death or life imprisonment, a sexually violent offense, or a sexual offense committed against a minor under the age of 14.

Authority:

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 679

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for mental health diversion for abuse of discretion. A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary decision by applying the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.

There is no evidence defendant had been previously charged with a super strike offense, and his current offense is not a super strike. Defendant’s criminal history consists of two nonviolent felonies and four misdemeanor offenses. At the time of the hearing on his application, defendant was doing well in an outpatient program. He had successfully engaged in a treatment program for six months, he was maintaining housing and a job, he had not reoffended, and his treatment provider recommended defendant continue treatment in the community.

On this record, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of an unreasonable risk that defendant will commit a super strike offense if treated in the community.

Authority:

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 135