Category Archives: Duty of the court

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000266

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing on the defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.75, the trial court struck some of the enhancements, but resentenced him to a life term on the balance under the Three Strikes Law as before. Under subsequently decided case law, the trial court should have considered imposing a sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. The matter must be remanded for resentencing. In addition, the abstract of judgment must be corrected to including the correct custody credits.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 provides that once the trial court has confirmed that a defendant’s current judgment includes a prior prison term enhancement that is now legally invalid, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. In so doing, the trial court is directed to follow specific instructions while resentencing. For example, it provides that resentencing pursuant to this section shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety. Resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75 shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed. In addition, when resentencing, the 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

Second Holding:

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

Third Holding:

In 2012, the electorate passed the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36), which amended the law to reduce the punishment prescribed for certain third strike defendants. The electorate additionally authorized persons presently serving an indeterminate term of life imprisonment imposed under the prior version of the Three Strikes law to seek resentencing under the amended penalty scheme by filing a petition for recall of sentence. If the petitioner would have qualified for a shorter sentence under the Reform Act version of the law, taking into consideration the disqualifying factors, section 1170.126 provides that he or she shall be resentenced pursuant to the Reform Act unless the court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The Act, therefore, enacted two kinds of reforms: prospective, by exempting some newly-charged defendants from an indeterminate term, and retrospective, by permitting resentencing for some already convicted

Authority:

PEN 1170.126

People v. Frierson (2017) 4 Cal.5th 225, 231

Fourth Holding:

In Guevara, the California Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a full resentencing under section 1172.75 also permitted the trial court to consider resentencing in accordance with the Reform Act. It held that, as a matter of constitutional avoidance, section 1172.75 must be construed as incorporating the public safety determination under section 1172.126 as a condition for nonserious, nonviolent felony offenders to obtain the benefit of the Reform Act during resentencing.

The court noted that the voters’ intention in passing the Reform Act, particularly by including the requirement of whether resentencing poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, was to strike a balance between reform and safety, and such an intention would be honored by interpreting section 1172.75 as incorporating section 1170.126’s public safety override. Therefore, if a defendant demonstrates eligibility under the Reform Act at a section 1172.75 resentencing, the trial court must first determine whether resentencing the defendant under the revised provisions of the Reform Act would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. If no such risk is demonstrated, the court shall resentence the defendant pursuant to the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act.

[GARY NOTE: Proposition 47 in 2014 included a definition of “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” that was much more specific and more restrictive on what qualified as such than the undefined same language contained in the Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. Because Proposition 36 was an initiative, it cannot be amended by the Legislature except as state in Proposition 36. Section 1172.75’s enactment does not qualify to amend Proposition 36. Therefore, the more restrictive definition in PC 1170.18, enacted by Proposition 47, is not the measure for determining whether relief would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Instead, the standard arising from Proposition 36 applies. Although not in conjunction with section 1172.75, the Supreme Court has previously determined that the more restrictive definition enacted in Proposition 47 did not change the broader standard enacted by Proposition 36 two years earlier. See People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347]

Authority:

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

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

Fifth Holding:

At the conclusion of the resentencing proceedings, the trial court indicated that it did not need credits; as a result, the number of credits on the abstract of judgment was left blank with a note indicating that “CDCR to recalculate credits.” When a trial court resentences a defendant who is currently in custody, it must calculate and credit him with all actual days spent in custody up to that time, including time in custody after the original sentencing, as well as the conduct credits ordered at the original sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37

People v. Dean (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 391, 397

Duty of the court, Jury trial, Pleading, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000263

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in not holding a hearing under Marsden when the defendant attempted to have substitute counsel. The trial court erred in imposing the upper term based on its own conclusion that the defendant’s prior convictions that are numerous and of increasing seriousness. The matter is remanded for the trial court to hold a proper Marsden hearing. If the court grants the motion, the court must appoint new counsel to represent her and conduct a new trial. If the court denies the motion, the court is to reinstate the convictions. The judgment is reversed, and the trial court is directed to give the People an opportunity to prove applicable aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury (or the court, if if the defendant waives her right to a jury trial on aggravating circumstances) and to resentence the defendant.

First Holding:

When a defendant seeks to discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate representation, the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his contention and to relate specific instances of the attorney’s inadequate performance. Once the defendant clearly indicates to the trial court a request for the discharge and replacement of appointed counsel, the court must hold a hearing to allow the defendant to explain the basis for the request. A proper and formal’ Marsden motion is not required—the defendant need only clearly indicate to the trial court ‘in some manner’ that he or she is requesting the discharge and replacement of appointed counsel.

Authority:

People v. Johnson (2018) 6 Cal.5th 541, 572

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 863-864

People v. Armijo (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1171, 1179

People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118

Second Holding:

The trial court erred in not holding a Marsden hearing when the defendant said she wanted to fire her court-appointed attorney. While stating a desire to fire one’s court-appointed attorney, without more, may not be sufficient to require a Marsden hearing, the trial court interrupted the defendant after she said “I feel like” and did not allow her to say more. And though the defendant never said she wanted to replace her current attorney with a different court-appointed attorney, that’s because, when the defendant began to explain why she did not want her current attorney to represent her, the court did not give her the chance to state her reasons.

Authority:

People v. Sanchez (2011) 53 Cal.4th 80, 90 [if at any time during criminal proceedings, a defendant requests substitute counsel, the trial court is obligated, pursuant to Marsden, to give the defendant an opportunity to state any grounds for dissatisfaction with the current appointed attorney]

People v. Chavez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 334, 346 [refusal by the trial court to afford a defendant an opportunity to set forth the reasons underlying his request for the substitution of appointed counsel constitutes an abuse of discretion]

Third Holding:

The trial court’s concern that the defendant’s request during jury selection was a delay tactic was legitimate, but it did not justify refusing to hold a Marsden hearing that would allow the court to hear her reasons and weigh them against the effects of delaying the trial.

Authority:

People v. Williams (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 627, 652 [delay in resolving a Marsden motion is a significant factor that the court is obligated to consider in evaluating the timeliness of the defendant’s request to substitute counsel]

Fourth Holding:

The court also erred in ruling that the defendant’s only choices were to retain an attorney or represent herself. Those were not her only two choices. She also had the right to make a showing under Marsden, if she could, she was entitled to substitute counsel.

Authority:

People v. Johnson (2018) 6 Cal.5th 541, 573 [defendant may request substitute counsel at any time during criminal proceedings]

People v. Sanchez (2011) 53 Cal.4th 80, 90 [same]

Fifth Holding:

The standard for prejudice regarding a denied Marsden motion is under Chapman. Under the Chapman harmless error standard, the burden is on the People, not the defendant, to demonstrate that the violation of the defendant’s federal constitutional right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Loya (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 932, 945

People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 601

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 349

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

Sixth Holding:

The court imposed the upper term based on the court’s finding that the defendant’s prior convictions and adjudications were numerous and of increasing seriousness. The court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances 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. the aggravating circumstance the trial court relied on here in imposing the upper term, increasing seriousness of the defendant’s prior convictions, was not found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury (or by the court after a jury trial waiver).

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 742

Seventh Holding:

Such an error is prejudicial unless an appellate court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court to justify an upper term sentence, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statutory requirements. If the reviewing court cannot so determine, applying the Chapman standard of review, the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing.

Here, the court relied on only one aggravating circumstance: prior convictions that are numerous and of increasing seriousness. Determining whether that allegation is true, however, requires a comparison and evaluation of the relationship among a defendant’s prior convictions, and a determination as to their relative seriousness. As a result, it involves something more than a narrow factual finding that the convictions were sustained and what elements were required to prove them. While the evidence may have been sufficient to support a finding of increasing seriousness, a rational juror could have reached the opposite conclusion based on the totality of the defendant’s criminal conduct and the applicable sentences for those transgressions. Because a rational juror could find the defendant’s convictions were not of increasing seriousness, the error is not harmless under Chapman.

Authority:

AD

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090

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

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000242

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the court failed to update the credits for time served, and awarded only the credits allowed at the original sentencing 12 years earlier. This was error, and the matter is remanded for the trial court to recalculate the proper credits as of the date of the resentencing hearing.

Holding:

When a trial court resentences a defendant on remand, it must credit him with all actual days he spent in custody up to that time, including his time in custody after the original sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Ca1.4th 20, 37 [the trial court, having modified defendant’s sentence on remand, was obliged, in its new abstract of judgment, to credit him with all actual days he had spent in custody]

Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000227

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the trial court erred in its calculation of his custody credits. The court awarded custody credit of 461 days, the amount of custody credit listed on the defendant’s original abstract of judgment from 2012. The matter is remanded to the trial court to recalculate the defendant’s custody credits; the court shall amend the abstract of judgment accordingly.

Holding:

When a prison term already in progress is modified, the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served. As stated in section 2900.5, it is the duty of the court imposing the sentence to determine the date or dates of any admission to, and release from, custody prior to sentencing and the total number of days to be credited pursuant to that section. The total number of days to be credited shall be contained in the abstract of judgment provided for in section 1213.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29

People v. Dean (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 391, 396 [resentencing courts must recalculate actual time served]

Abstracts and Minutes, Discretion, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000220

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant must be resentenced in light of enhancement-related errors and that the minute order from the bench trial on the defendant’s prior convictions requires correction. Therefore, we remand for resentencing and direct the minute order to be corrected.

First Holding:

Several of the errors raised involve the trial court’s exercise of discretion and were forfeited by the defendant’s failure to object below. Nonetheless, we have doubts about whether the trial court in fact exercised its discretion in failing to impose certain enhancements and making other sentencing choices, especially given discrepancies between the court’s tentative sentences and its final sentences. There also appears to be at least one error resulting in an unauthorized sentence that the parties do not raise. Under these circumstances, we find it appropriate to remand for both defendants to be fully resentenced so that the court can ensure the sentences reflect its intent in accordance with the law.

Authority:

People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 594

In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1130

Second Holding:

Weapon enhancements must be either imposed consecutively or stricken. Such an enhancement cannot be imposed concurrently.

Authority:

PEN 1385

PEN 12022

Third Holding:

Unless stricken, prior-serious-felony and prior-prison-term enhancements are added once to each count on which an indeterminate term is imposed and once for the combined counts on which an aggregate determinate term has been imposed.

Authority:

People v. Tua (2018) 18 Cal.App.5th 1136, 1141

People v. Minifie (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1256, 1260

Fourth Holding:

A sentencing court may not impose terms for both a prior-serious-felony enhancement and a prior-prison-term enhancement that are based on the same underlying conviction.

Authority:

People v. Scully (2021) 11 Cal.5th 542, 612

Fifth Holding:

If a prior-conviction enhancement or punishment for it is stricken in the interest of justice, the enhancement should not also be imposed and stayed under section 654.

Authority:

People v. Tang (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1003, 1008–1009

Sixth Holding:

The trial court should ensure that it sufficiently explains its discretionary sentencing choices on the record.

Authority:

Rules of Court, rule 4.406

Seventh Holding:

There were several errors in the minute order that must be corrected.

[Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for its directive that the abstract be corrected, but the law is very clear that it has that authority. I have cited some cases that the court could have relied on.]

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2