Category Archives: Discretion

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000454

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though we find that a condition of probation that requires the defendant participate and complete any counseling, rehabilitation, or treatment program deemed appropriate by the probation officer was not an improper delegation of the court’s authority under the separation of powers doctrine, it was improper to impose as a condition of probation that the defendant participate at his own expense.

The challenged probation condition should be modified to delete the portion of the condition requiring defendant to be responsible for the payment of the costs/fees of any counseling or rehabilitation/treatment program. The court is directed to issue a separate order for the payment of such costs and fees. Before the court may order defendant to pay any or all costs associated with his probation, it must make an inquiry and determination as to his ability to pay and determine the amount of payment.

First Holding:

A trial court may order a defendant to pay for reasonable costs of probation; however, such costs are collateral and their payment cannot be made a condition of probation. Instead, the court must issue a separate order for the payment of such costs. Moreover, before ordering a defendant to pay costs of probation, the court must make an inquiry and determination of the defendant’s ability to pay and the amount of payment.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1b(a)

Brown v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 313, 321-322

Second Holding:

Though we find there was no improper delegation, the defendant’s claim that the condition of probation is an improper delegation of the court’s authority under the separation of powers doctrine has not been forfeited for lack of objection, because it raises a pure question of law.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888

People v. Mendez (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1172

Third Holding:

A trial court has broad discretion to impose probation conditions to foster rehabilitation of the defendant and to protect the public. Further, the court has authority to empower the probation department with authority to supervise the probation conditions. We review a constitutional challenge to a probation condition de novo.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1(j)

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

People v. Kwizera (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1240

In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143

Fourth Holding:

A trial court is governed by the separation of powers doctrine. The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution. Although the separation of powers doctrine does not prohibit one branch from taking action that might affect another, the doctrine is violated when the actions of one branch defeat or materially impair the inherent functions of another. Separation of powers does not mean an entire or complete separation of powers or functions, which would be impracticable, if not impossible.

Authority:

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

In re D.N. (2022) 14 Cal.5th 202, 212

Fifth Holding:

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. 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. The court may leave to the discretion of the probation officer the specification of the many details that invariably are necessary to implement the terms of probation. However, the court’s order cannot be entirely open-ended.

Authority:

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

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358-1359

Sixth Holding:

A probation condition directing that a defendant participate in any treatment program when considering another condition requiring a defendant complete a drug and alcohol assessment and follow through with treatment as prescribed by the probation officer, passes constitutional muster. This is particularly true where the court’s oral comments reflect that the defendant needs treatment for a substance abuse problem. However, where the condition includes the possibility of participation in a residential treatment program, as directed by the probation officer, it is an improper delegation of judicial authority.

Authority:

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

People v. Cruz (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1310 [Invalidating probation condition that gave the probation officer sole discretion to decide whether the defendant should be subject to GPS monitoring.]

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1355, 1359 [Invalidating condition that provided, “You shall not associate socially, nor be present at any time, at any place, public or private, with any person, as designated by your probation officer.”]

People v. Kwizera (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1238,-1241 [Upholding probation condition that directed defendant to “follow such course of conduct as the probation officer may prescribe”]

People v. Penoli (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 298, 307 [Upholding condition that probation officer may unilaterally select a residential drug rehabilitation program and determine whether defendant successfully completed that program.]

Seventh Holding:

A probation condition should be given the meaning that would appear to a reasonable, objective reader. Following that precept, we read the challenged provision here not as delegating adjudicatory powers to the probation officer but as indicating the court’s advance approval of an agreement that the probation officer might reach with defendant. If a probation officer does interpret the condition in an arbitrary manner, defendant may then file a petition for modification of his probation condition. Thus, the probation condition did not improperly delegate judicial authority to the probation officer.

Authority:

PEN 1203.2(b)(1)

PEN 1203.3

In re D.N. (2022) 14 Cal.5th 202, 211

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 382

People v. Keele (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 701, 708 [trial court retains jurisdiction to review probation officer’s actions]

People v. Arevalo (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 652, 658 [If probation officer interprets probation condition in an arbitrary way, the defendant can file a petition for modification of his probation condition.]

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

Case 000448

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant contends that it was error to proceed to sentencing in the absence of the attorney she retained after counsel was appointed, and that the court abused its discretion when it found that her youth was not a contributing fact. Retained counsel did file a document titled “Limited Scope Substitution of Counsel.” Thereafter, appointed counsel filed a resentencing brief on the defendant’s behalf. The retained attorney did not. At the resentencing hearing, appointed counsel appeared with the defendant. The retained attorney did not appear. We affirm, but the trial court must recalculate the credit for time served.

First Holding:

The trial court did not recalculate the defendant’s custody credits and ordered the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to do the calculation. A trial court must calculate a defendant’s custody credits when resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37 [when a trial court resentences a defendant on remand, it must credit him with all actual days he spent in custody, whether in jail or prison, up to that time]

Second Holding:

We review the defendants’s contentions regarding counsel of choice and selection of sentence term under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. A defendant who desires to retain his own counsel is required to act with diligence and may not demand a continuance if he is unjustifiably dilatory or if he arbitrarily desires to substitute counsel at the time of trial.

Authority:

People v. O’Malley (2016) 62 Cal.4th 944, 1004 [trial court has discretion to deny substitution of counsel where it would prejudice the defendant or disrupt the orderly processes of justice]

People v. Blake (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 619, 623-624

People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 435 [appellate review of asserted evidentiary error forfeited where defendant failed to make a timely, specific objection]

Third Holding:

Section 1170(b)(6) does not mandate a presumption in favor of the lower term in every case in which the defendant was under age 26 at the time the crime was committed. Instead, the presumption applies only if the defendant’s youth was a contributing factor in his or her commission of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(6)

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 991-992

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376-377 [trial court’s sentencing choices reviewed for abuse of discretion]

Fourth Holding:

At oral argument, the defendant contended that the trial court erred in conducting the resentencing hearing without her physical presence. But the defendant failed to raise this contention in her opening brief. Thus, it is forfeited. Forfeiture aside, any error would have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt based on the record before us.

Authority:

People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 [Every brief should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made. If none is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration]

People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 550, fn. 9 [claims not raised in the opening brief are waived]

People v. Velasco (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 663, 674

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 348

Discretion, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000446

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though affirming the lower court’s decision to not exercise its discretion to dismiss the prior serious felony enhancement, there was an error in the calculation of credit for time served.

First Holding:

A trial court’s refusal to dismiss a prior serious felony enhancement is reviewed on appeal under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 373

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

People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985

Second Holding:

When a trial court declines to strike a five-year sentencing enhancement for a serious prior felony conviction, no error occurs if the trial court evaluates all relevant circumstances to ensure that punishment fits the offense and the offender.

Authority:

People v. Shaw (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 582, 587

Third Holding:

A trial court will only abuse its discretion in failing to strike a prior felony conviction allegation in limited circumstances. For example, an abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court was not aware of its discretion to dismiss or where the court considered impermissible factors in declining to dismiss,’ or where the sentencing norms established by the Three Strikes law may, as a matter of law, produce an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd result under the specific facts of a particular case.

But it is not enough to show that reasonable people might disagree about whether to strike one or more prior conviction allegations. A trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it. A merely debatable ruling cannot be deemed an abuse of discretion. Where the record demonstrates that the trial court balanced the relevant facts and reached an impartial decision in conformity with the spirit of the law, we shall affirm the trial court’s ruling.

Authority:

People v. Brugman (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 608, 637

People v. Johnson (2022) 12 Cal.5th 544, 605

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

Fourth Holding:

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. In other words, if the court does not find that dismissal would endanger 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:

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

People v. Bravo (2025) 107 Cal.App.5th 1144, 1157 [Section 1385(c) does not mean that, whenever a listed mitigating circumstance is present, the trial court must dismiss all enhancements unless it finds dismissal would endanger public safety]

Fifth Holding:

The trial court awarded the defendant the number of days of actual custody credit that reflected his credits from the date of his incarceration to the date of his original sentencing hearing, and ordered the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to calculate credits for the time he has been incarcerated at CDCR. On resentencing, a trial court must calculate a defendant’s custody credits through the date of the resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37 [when a trial court resentences a defendant on remand, it must credit him with all actual days he spent in custody, whether in jail or prison, up to that time]

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000445

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Convicted of both murder and conspiracy to commit that murder, the court should have stayed the sentence for the conspiracy under section 654.

First Holding:

Section 654(a) provides in pertinent part 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. The waiver doctrine does not apply to questions involving the applicability of section 654. Errors in the applicability of section 654 are corrected on appeal regardless of whether the point was raised by objection in the trial court or assigned as error on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295

Second Holding:

Section 654 precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. Even concurrent sentences on convictions subject to section 654 are prohibited; the sentence on one of the two applicable convictions must be imposed and then stayed. The purpose of section 654 is to insure that a defendant’s punishment will be commensurate with his culpability.

Authority:

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294

People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 591–592

People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1211

Third Holding:

To determine the applicability of section 654, we first consider if the different crimes were completed by a single physical act. If so, the defendant may not be punished more than once for that act. Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do 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

Fourth Holding:

If the convictions involve more than one act, the court reaches step two of the section 654 analysis: whether the course of conduct involved multiple intents and objectives. At step two, whether crimes arise from an indivisible course of conduct turns on the perpetrator’s intent and objective. If all of the crimes were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, a defendant may be punished only once. If, however, a defendant had several independent criminal objectives, he may be punished for each crime committed in pursuit of each objective, even though the crimes shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct. Whether a defendant harbored a single intent—and thus a single objective—is a factual question; the applicability of section 654 to settled facts is a question of law.

Authority:

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335

People v. Perry (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1521, 1525

Fifth Holding:

Because the conspiracy count in this case did not include a broader objective than the commission of the first degree murder, section 654 applied.

Authority:

People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 247

People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 439 [overruled on other grounds in People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919]

People v. Briones (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 524, 529

People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 835, 866 [disapproved on other grounds in People v. Riccardi (2012) 54 Cal.4th 758, 824, fn. 32]

People v. Ramirez (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 603, 615–616

Sixth Holding:

We acknowledge the trial court’s discretion under section 654 to choose which punishment to stay. Nevertheless, we conclude that a remand is unnecessary because the trial court’s decision on which punishment to stay would make no difference to the total sentence for the defendant. In this case, the sentence for the first degree murder count and the conspiracy to commit murder count are the same, 25 years to life. Under these circumstances, we will correct the trial court’s error by modifying the defendant’s sentence to stay the punishment on count 2, the conspiracy to commit murder conviction and the attached enhancements, to comply with section 654.

Authority:

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379

People v. Cortez (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1223, 1237
People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 835, 870 [disapproved on other grounds in People v. Riccardi (2012) 54 Cal.4th 758, 824, fn. 32]

People v. Calles (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1221

People v. Bey (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 144, 167

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000443

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in ordering restitution in the amount of the full retail price of sunglasses that were returned to the victim, a retail store, by the police soon after the theft.

First Holding:

In every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court.

Restitution shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct, including, but not limited to, full or partial payment for the value of stolen or damaged property. The value of stolen or damaged property shall be the replacement cost of like property, or the actual cost of repairing the property when repair is possible. A victim may also seek lost profits.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)

Second Holding:

A prima facie case for restitution can be made based on a victim’s testimony or other claim or statement of the amount of economic loss. Once a prima facie showing of loss has been made, the burden shifts to defendant to demonstrate that the amount of the loss is other than that claimed by the victim.

Authority:

People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26

Third Holding:

We review restitution orders for abuse of discretion. Where the specific issue is whether the court’s factual findings support restitution, we review those findings for substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26

People v. Hume (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 990, 995

People v. Trout-Lacy (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 369, 373

Fourth Holding:

Ordering a defendant to pay retail value is justified when a retailer shows it lost the opportunity to sell the stolen goods to customers at that price — in other words, that it lost profits because of the thefts.

Authority:

People v. Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1178 [retail value of recovered stolen property was not an appropriate measure of restitution when the prosecutor presented no evidence that the victim retailer lost any profits as a result of the theft]

Fifth Holding:

Had the victim been a person who purchased the sunglasses at a store for the retail price, the retail price may have been the accurate measure of damages.

But the victim retailer did not seek lost profits on its restitution request form or introduce evidence at the hearing supporting such a claim. The trial court, in fact, ordered defense counsel to refrain from examining the store manager about the store’s sales volume after the prosecutor objected on relevancy grounds. The restitution award was therefore limited to the replacement cost of like property.

Using retail value as the sole basis to calculate restitution, based on this record, resulted in a windfall to the victim retailer.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)(3)(A)

People v. Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1172 [A restitution order is intended to compensate the victim for its actual loss and is not intended to provide the victim with a windfall]

People v. Valle (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1329, 1333 [awarding purchase price of stolen cell phone that was returned to victim was error when defendant elicited testimony the victim hoped to use or sell the phone]

Discretion, Sentencing

Case: 000441

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The gang conviction in count 6 is based on the same felonious conduct that comprises the murder conviction in count 1. Accordingly, the trial court was required to stay execution of one of these sentences. We vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. The trial court shall exercise its discretion under section 654 to determine which of the sentences for counts 1 and 6 must be stayed.

First Holding:

Section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for a single act or course of conduct that violates more than one statute. Where all offenses are incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for only one of them, and execution of sentence on the remaining counts must be stayed.

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 337

Second Holding:

Under amended section 654 (AB 518 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.)) (Stats. 2021, ch. 441), the sentencing court has discretion to determine which sentence should be stayed. This could result in the trial court imposing and executing the shorter sentence rather than the longer one. Here, although the lower court’s decision to run the sentence in count 6 concurrently strongly suggests it would not stay the sentence for murder, nothing in the sentencing record affirmatively shows how the trial court would have exercised its discretion under section 654. Accordingly, we remand for resentencing so the trial court may determine which sentence must be stayed.

Authority:

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000434

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing on resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant a continuance to obtain documents from the California Department of Corrections (CDCR). We conclude that the error prejudiced defendant because the trial court lacked potential information relevant to exercising its discretion. Additionally, the record does not show that when it denied the requested continuance, the court understood the full scope of its discretion. We reverse the judgment and remand for a new resentencing hearing.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75(a) provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, under section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600(b)is legally invalid.

Section 1172.75(d)(3) provides that 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. Where defendant’s original sentence included a now-invalid sentencing enhancement the resentencing court must provide a full resentencing hearing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

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

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. In reviewing the decision to deny a continuance, 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 from the CDCR. The People did not oppose the requested continuance. The burden of a continuance was minimal because there would have been no need to reschedule witnesses or consider juror inconvenience.

We do not agree that the denial of a continuance was harmless. The record does not indicate the court understood the extent of its discretion when it denied the continuance. The court incorrectly stated that its only discretion was whether to strike the additional 25-to-life gun allegation, when in fact the court had discretion to reduce the 25-year-term to impose a lesser included enhancement.

Authority:

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

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

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1020–1021, 1030 [trial court has discretion to strike enhancement and impose lesser included sec. 12022.53 enhancement or other lesser included enhancement]

Third Holding:

Section 1050(b) generally requires a written motion to request a continuance, but section 1050(c) states that, notwithstanding subdivision (b), a party may make a motion for a continuance without complying with the requirements of that subdivision, albeit absent a showing good cause, sanctions may be imposed.

Authority:

PEN 1050

Discretion, Sentencing

Case: 000429

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

An insurer is not a “direct victim” eligible for restitution under section 1202.4

First Holding:

We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Percelle (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 164, 179

Second Holding:

In every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court. Victim includes a corporation or any other legal or commercial entity when that entity is a direct victim of a crime. Thus, only the direct victim of a crime is entitled to restitution from the perpetrator of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)

People v. Duong (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1537

Third Holding:

Direct victims include only the real and immediate objects of the defendant’s offenses Insurance companies that suffered the consequences of crime only by reimbursing the crime-related losses of their policyholders do not reasonably fit within this definition. As a result, restitution may not be awarded to insurers that partially reimbursed the direct victims for their losses, and trial courts may not divide the full amount of restitution between the victims and their insurers.

Authority:

People v. Birkett (1999) 21 Cal.4th 226, 233

Fourth Holding:

Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded restitution to the insurer. Instead, the court should have awarded the full restitution amount, including any amount awarded to the insurer, to the water district, which was the direct victim of the defendant’s crime, notwithstanding any reimbursement it already received from the insurer.

Authority:

People v. Duong (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1537[a restitution order resting upon a demonstrable error of law constitutes an abuse of the court’s discretion]

People v. Hove (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1266, 1272 [insurance payments to the victim do not allow the defendant to escape responsibility for the losses he caused]

Fifth Holding:

Because the defendant does not contest the amount of restitution or the water district’s entitlement to that amount on appeal, we vacate the insurer restitution order and remand the matter so the court can order full restitution to the correct victim under section 1202.4.

Authority:

People v. Duong (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1540 [remanding so the trial court can order restitution to the victim for the amount that the hospital will accept as full payment for the medical services the victim received at the hospital]

Discretion, Sentencing

Case: 000423

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The minor appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying his petition for termination from the sex offender registry. He argues the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving community safety would be significantly enhanced by requiring his continued registration and the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding otherwise. We agree and reverse the court’s order.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 290.008 sets forth the sex offender registration requirements for juvenile offenders. It requires registration as outlined in the section, unless the duty to register is terminated under section 290.5 or as otherwise provided by law. It provides for tiered periods of registration. A tier one juvenile offender is subject to registration for a minimum of five years; a tier two juvenile offender is subject to registration for a minimum of 10 years.

Authority:

PEN 290.008

Ruelas v. Superior Court (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 374, 380

Second Holding:

It also provides procedures for juvenile offenders to petition the juvenile court to terminate their registration requirement at the expiration of their mandated minimum registration period, pursuant to section 290.5. Section 290.5 provides the procedures for adult offenders to terminate their registration requirement; the procedures are, therefore, the same, and the process begins by filing a petition for termination and serving it on the district attorney. Upon receiving a petition, the district attorney may request a hearing and present evidence regarding whether community safety would be significantly enhanced by requiring continued registration.

Authority:

PEN 290.008

PEN 290.5

Third Holding:

Section 290.5 sets forth seven factors for the court to consider when ruling on the petition. The court may base its determination on declarations, affidavits, police reports, or any other evidence submitted by the parties that is reliable, material, and relevant. If the court denies the petition, it shall set the time period after which the person can petition again for termination, which shall be at least one year from the date of the denial, but not to exceed five years.

Authority:

PEN 290.5

Fourth Holding:

When the prosecution requests a hearing on a petition, it is its burden to produce evidence and to show that requiring continued registration will appreciably increase society’s safety because the defendant is currently likely to reoffend. The trial court’s task when ruling on a petition is to assess whether the prosecution has carried its burden.

Authority:

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 432, 433

People v. Franco (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 184, 192

Fifth Holding:

We evaluate a trial court’s decision whether to grant or deny a petition for removal from the sex offender registry for an abuse of discretion, reviewing any subsidiary factual findings based on disputed facts for substantial evidence and any subsidiary legal findings—including questions of statutory construction—de novo. A trial court abuses its discretion when its factual findings are not supported by the evidence, or its decision is based on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Franco (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 184, 192

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 432, 433

Sixth Holding:

The defendant committed the offenses 20 years earlier when he was only 14. Since then, he had no convictions, albeit a few arrests, the most recent involving being drunk in public. Consistent with the legislation’s purpose to cull from the registration rolls low-risk offenders so that resources could be concentrated on high-risk ones (Sen. 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 384 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) as amended Sept. 8, 2017, pp. 12-13), it was incumbent upon the prosecution to present reasonable, credible, and solid evidence establishing a current risk of reoffense. It did not. Without evidence establishing such risk, the juvenile court abused its discretion in determining that community safety would be significantly enhanced by continued registration. Accordingly, the order of the juvenile court must be reversed.

Authority:

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 432, 433, 435

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

Case: 000415

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court failed to show it recognized and exercised its discretion to designate second degree burglary as a felony or a misdemeanor, and the program condition of probation delegated impermissibly broad discretion to the probation officer

First Holding:

Second degree burglary is a “wobbler,” that is, an offense that may be punished as either a felony or a misdemeanor. This determination is important not only because felonies are subject to longer periods of confinement, but also because felony convictions have additional adverse consequences, including use without limitation for impeachment under Proposition 8 in subsequent criminal proceedings, enhancement of sentences, and the general blight upon the character of persons convicted of felonies. To ensure that juvenile courts are aware of their discretion to charge wobblers as misdemeanors and that they consciously choose to treat wobblers committed by juveniles as felonies, juvenile courts are required to expressly declare how they are treating such offenses. If the minor is found to have committed an offense which would in the case of an adult be punishable alternatively as a felony or a misdemeanor, the court shall declare the offense to be a misdemeanor or felony.

Authority:

WIC 707

People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 461, fn. 6

In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199, 1207, 1209

In re Kenneth H. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 616, 619, fn. 3

Second Holding:

Although remand is not automatically required when a juvenile court fails to expressly declare that a wobbler is a felony or misdemeanor, to establish prejudice a juvenile need not show a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome. Also, challenges under Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 are not forfeited by failure to object at trial. Instead, in this context, the key issue is whether the record as a whole establishes that the juvenile court was aware of its discretion to treat the offense as a misdemeanor and to state a misdemeanor-length confinement limit. The record in this case does not reflect that the court was aware of its discretion to properly exercise it. A minute order may not substitute for a declaration by the juvenile court as to whether an offense is a misdemeanor or a felony.

Authority:

In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 704, 711-714, 717

In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199, 1209

Third Holding:

We review juvenile placement decisions for abuse of discretion. It was not an abuse of discretion to order the minor to be placed in a secure facility.

Authority:

In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1154

Fourth Holding:

In placing the minor in a secure facility, the juvenile court imposed a number of terms and conditions, including a requirement that he participate in and complete any appropriate programs as directed by [his] Probation Officer. We review orders of this nature de novo. This condition is an improper delegation of judicial authority. Probation conditions may be challenged for the first time on appeal if they are challenged as unconstitutional on their face and the challenge therefore presents a pure question of law.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888

Fifth Holding:

Although juvenile courts have greater discretion to formulate probation terms than adult criminal courts, their discretion to delegate authority is restricted by the separation-of-powers doctrine. Under the California Constitution, separation of powers does not mean an entire or complete separation of powers or functions, which would be impracticable, if not impossible. Thus, a court may delegate to a probation officer authority to specify the details necessary to effectuate the court’s probation conditions. However, the separation-of-powers doctrine limits the delegation of judicial authority to nonjudicial officers, especially in the absence of judicial supervision and review of the exercise of that authority. Consequently, a court may not delegate complete discretion over a significant aspect of the court’s legal control. To satisfy the separation-of-powers doctrine, a court delegating judicial authority to a probation officer must dictate the basic policy of a condition of probation.

Authority:

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 910, 919

In re D.N. (2022) 14 Cal.5th 202, 208-209, 212

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902, 903 [holding impermissible delegation of authority permitting probation officer to choose between residential and outpatient substance abuse programs]

People v. O’Neal (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1359 [the court’s order cannot be entirely open-ended]

People v. Leon (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 943, 952 [holding impermissible delegation of authority permitting probation officer to authorize probationer to attend court proceedings and otherwise barring probationer from attending court proceedings unless a party or witness]

Discretion, Jury trial, Sixth Amendment, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000407

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Although the defendant initially decided not to testify at his trial, he changed his mind just before oral argument, after the court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss one of the counts and denied the defense motion for acquittal. As the People concede, it was error for the court to deny his request.

First Holding:

It cannot be doubted that a defendant in a criminal case has the right to take the witness stand and to testify in his or her own defense.

Authority:

Rock v. Arkansas (1987) 483 U.S. 44, 49

Second Holding:

After a litigant rests their case, the trial court has wide discretion to reopen a criminal matter to receive additional evidence. When this court reviews a trial court’s decision to preclude the defense from reopening the case to present additional evidence, we must consider four factors: (1) The stage the proceedings had reached when the motion was made; (2) the defendant’s diligence (or lack thereof) in presenting the new evidence; (3) the prospect that the jury would accord the new evidence undue emphasis; and (4) the significance of the evidence. The trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request to testify is subject to the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard enunciated in Chapman.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 66

People v. Masters (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1019, 1069

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

People v. Allen (2008) 44 Cal.4th 843, 871–872

Third Holding:

With respect to the first factor, the state of the proceeding, when the defendant has recently rested his case, closing argument has not begun, and the jury has not been instructed, granting defendant’s request does not entail any great inconvenience. Only 25 minutes passed between when the defense rested and when the defendant expressed that he wished to testify.

Authority:

People v. Carter (1957) 48 Cal.2d 737, 757

Fourth Holding:

As to the defendant’s diligence, the trial court asserted it could not reopen the case because the defense had moved for acquittal, and the prosecution had dismissed count 2. This rationale is not supported by the law. Section 1118.1 provides, in relevant part, that if a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence offered by the prosecution is not granted, the defendant may offer evidence without first having reserved that right. Here, the court took the defendant’s waiver and allowed the defense to rest before hearing its motion for acquittal. Thus, when the defendant decided to testify, the defense had to make a motion to reopen, which the court denied. Under section 1118.1, the court should have ruled on both the motion for acquittal and the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss before inquiring about the defendant’s decision to testify. Had this procedure been followed, the defendant would have had the opportunity to offer evidence after the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal.

Authority:

PEN 1118.1

Fifth Holding:

The third factor is whether reopening the case will cause the jury to give undue emphasis to the new evidence. A jury may accord undue weight to evidence which is admitted close to the time deliberations begin. Here, at the time the defendant changed his mind, the jury had not been told whether he intended to testify. Further, although the court had advised the jury that the presentation of evidence was complete, that advisement occurred only shortly before the defendant changed his mind. For these reasons, we have no reason to believe that the jury would have afforded undue weight to his testimony if the court had reopened the defense case and this factor also shows an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Funes (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1521

Sixth Holding:

The final factor, the significance of the evidence, also shows error by the trial court. The most important witness for the defense in many criminal cases is the defendant himself. This was not a lopsided case with overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence of guilt, as demonstrated by the jury’s acquittal on count 1. Courts must evaluate whether the interests served by restricting a defendant’s right to testify justify the limitation imposed on this most basic right of a defendant in a criminal case—to present his own version of events in his own words. Here, the trial was relatively short and involved a single defendant, and the jury instructions and closing arguments had not yet occurred at the time Mendoza made his request. The defendant’s testimony may have been highly significant and could have altered the outcome of the case. Under this four-factor test, the court’s decision constituted an abuse of its discretion.

Authority:

Rock v. Arkansas (1987) 483 U.S. 44, 51-52, 56

Seventh Holding:

Finally, as the parties agree, the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury deliberated for over three hours and acquitted the defendant of count 1, suggesting it entertained doubts about at least certain aspects of the prosecution’s case. It cannot be said that the jury necessarily would have reached the same result if the court had permitted the defendant to testify.

Authority:

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

Discretion, Duty of the court, Standard of review

Case: 000392

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on the defendant’s petition seeking mental health diversion. We thus conditionally vacate defendant’s no contest plea, conditionally reverse the judgment, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with section 1001.36.

First Holding:

We review a trial court’s order denying mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. 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. We presume a trial court’s order is correct and indulge all intendments and reasonable inferences to support it. Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume a trial court knew the law and followed it. But where a court’s ruling clearly expresses the legal and factual basis for its resolution of controverted issues, an appellate court will not imply findings the trial court did not make.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448–449

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042

Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1384

Second Holding:

Section 1001.36(b)(1)(2) provides that a defendant is eligible for mental health diversion if (1) they present evidence that in the last five years they have been diagnosed by a qualified mental health expert with a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and (2) their mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

Third Holding:

If a defendant satisfies the eligibility requirements in section 1001.36(b), the court then must consider whether the defendant is suitable for diversion based on the following criteria set forth in section 1001.36(c): (1) In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder that caused, contributed to, or motivated the defendant’s criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment; (2) The defendant consents to diversion and waives their right to a speedy trial; (3) The defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and (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:

A diversion order is expressly discretionary with the court, even when all of the criteria are met. However, this residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law. The stated purpose of mental health diversion is 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. Legislative history confirms there is a strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders because of the benefits of such treatment to both the offending individual and the community.

Authority:

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

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

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

Fifth Holding:

The record shows that the trial court’s ruling failed to apply the correct legal standards to defendant’s diversion request. After finding defendant eligible, the court denied him diversion because he was unsuitable based on the determination that he targeted vulnerable people. This ruling rests on a legal error because the court did not apply the four statutory suitability criteria found in section 1001.36(c). Additionally, denial of mental health diversion using a court’s residual discretion should be limited to those situations where the purposes of the statute would not be achieved.

Here, the trial court relied on its observation that defendant targeted vulnerable victims but failed to tie that observation to achieving the purposes of the statute, and the strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders because of the benefits of such treatment to both the offending individual and the community. By applying the wrong legal standard, the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for mental health diversion.

Authority:

Grossmont Union High School Dist. v. Diego Plus Education Corp. (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 552, 584 [trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when it did not apply one of the essential components for deciding whether fees should be awarded under the applicable fee statute]

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 138

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

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