Category Archives: Duty of the court

Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000096

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Our review has disclosed the trial court’s failure to award updated custody credits at the resentencing hearing. We will remand the matter solely for this purpose and otherwise affirm.

Holding:

The trial court failed to award updated custody credits at the resentencing hearing. Where there is a modification of a felony sentence during the term of imprisonment, the trial court must calculate the actual time the defendant has already served and credit that time against the subsequent sentence.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23

Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000090

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Remand for resentencing is required because (1) the trial court erred by failing to impose and then stay execution of the sentence on the great bodily injury enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a); and (2) the trial court erred in failing to resentence the defendant to a single aggregate term of imprisonment for this case and another case for which he is serving a term of 24 years. We accept the People’s concession and remand the matter for resentencing.

First Holding:

At sentencing, the trial court did not orally pronounce a sentence for the infliction of great bodily injury enhancement. The matter is accordingly remanded for the trial court to impose and stay execution of the three-year sentence on the Penal Code section 12022.7(a) enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1127-1130

Second Holding:

When a defendant is convicted of multiple crimes in different cases and a consecutive term of imprisonment is imposed, the aggregate term for those cases is the sum of the principal term and subordinate term. In this instance, the trial court did not impose a single aggregated term. We will therefore remand for the trial court to do so.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1

Rules of Court, rule 4.452 [setting forth the procedure for imposing consecutive sentencing under PC 1170.1]

Third Holding:

During resentencing, the trial court shall award the appropriate custody credits for the aggregate term. [Gary note: the court cited no authority on the recalculation of credits, likely because the error is so obvious. But I have listed the statute and a leading case below.]

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29, 37 [Having modified defendant’s sentence on remand, the court was obliged, in its new abstract of judgment, to credit him with all actual days he had spent in custody, whether in jail or prison, up to that time]

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000088

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court made several errors in resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.5. It failed to strike the now-invalid priors, if failed to consider the impact of AB 333 on gang aspects; it imposed of repealed $10 admin fee. On remand the court must also recalculate credits and correct the abstract of judgment. [GARY NOTE: The opinion also provided extensive discussion of the application of section 1385, regarding dismissals in the furtherance or interest of justice, touching on abuse of discretion, etc., that were resolved against the defendant on appeal. I have provided a few principles and authorities on those points for educational reasons, even though they did not support relief for the defendant in this instance.]

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 declares legally invalid all one-year prior prison term enhancements except those for sexually violent offenses described in WI Code section 6600(b). Because the defendant’s two priors are not sexually violent offenses, they were legally invalid and should have been stricken.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (AB 333) modified the gang enhancement by adding new requirements that did not previously exist. Because AB 333 retroactively applies to people, like defendant, who have been granted a resentencing hearing, the trial court erred in not assessing whether the jury’s findings in this case otherwise addressed the new requirements or whether the jury’s failure to do so was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 395-396

Third Holding:

The trial court imposed a $10 administrative screening fee ostensibly under section 1463.07 in November 2018. This is unenforceable because our Legislature in 2021 repealed that section and nullified prior fees imposed under that section.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Fourth Holding:

It was not necessary for the trial court to respond to all of the defendant’s contentions at the sentencing hearing. Unless the record affirmatively demonstrates otherwise, the trial court is deemed to have considered all the relevant sentencing factors set forth in the rules.

Authority:

Rules of Court, rule 4.409 [sentencing factors will be deemed to have been considered unless the record affirmatively reflects otherwise]

People v. Knowles (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 757, 765

People v. Parra Martinez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 317, 322

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

Fifth Holding:

We review the exercise of sentencing discretion for an abuse of discretion but recognize that a trial court’s reliance on an incorrect legal standard constitutes such an abuse. Application of the wrong test in determination of whether a defendant poses a danger to public safety is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

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

Sixth Holding:

Despite the use of the phrase “shall be dismissed,” section 1385’s provisions that require a court to give great weight in favor of dismissal do not apply where a trial court finds that dismissal of the enhancements would endanger public safety.

Authority:

People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 296

People v. Mazur (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 438, 444-446

People v. Cota (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 318, 335-337

People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276, 1284-1290

People v. Anderson (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 233, 238-241

People v. Lipscomb (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 9, 15-21

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

Case 00072

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in imposing the great bodily injury enhancement on count 2 because it did not afford great weight to the mitigating circumstance of the defendant’s prior victimization. The trial court applied the wrong legal standard in declining to dismiss the great bodily injury enhancement. We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. Also, the abstract of judgment incorrectly shows murder as in the first degree and must be corrected to show that the conviction was for murder in the second degree.

First Holding:

The trial court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so. In exercising its discretion in this regard, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove certain enumerated mitigating circumstances, and 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. One of the listed mitigating circumstances is the current offense is connected to prior victimization or childhood trauma.

Authority:

PEN 1385

Second Holding:

Absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a court must assign significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances when they are present. In practice, 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, 1038

Third Holding:

We review a trial court’s decisions under section 1385 for abuse of discretion. As relevant here, an abuse of discretion arises if the trial court based its decision on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

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

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

Fourth Holding:

When, as here, a sentencing court was not fully aware of the scope of its discretionary powers, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 425

Fifth Holding:

The abstract of judgment incorrectly states that the defendant was convicted of first degree murder in count 1. When issuing a new abstract of judgment after resentencing, the trial court shall correctly identify the crime in count 1 as second degree murder. [Gary note: the court did not cite any authority for its order to correct the abstract of judgment, likely because it seems so obvious. But there is authority that the court could have cited, some of which I have listed below, even though not cited in the opinion.]

Authority:

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324

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

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–388

People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689

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

Discretion, Duty of the court

Case 000063

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for a continuance (on day of trial), because his application for mental health diversion constituted good cause to do so. We reverse.

First Holding:

As to what is required to show an abuse of discretion, it has been described as a decision that exceeds the bounds of reason or one that is arbitrary, capricious, patently absurd, or even whimsical. But the standard cannot be boiled down to simply calling for reversal only if a ruling appears to be arbitrary, capricious or utterly irrational.

Authority:

People v. Beames (2007) 40 Cal.4th 907, 92

Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condominium Assn. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1043, 1051

People v. Williams (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 990, 1000

People v. Jacobs (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 728, 736–738

Second Holding:

The legal component of discretion was explained long ago in Bailey: The discretion intended is not a mental discretion, to be exercised ex gratia, but a legal discretion, to be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner to subserve and not to impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice.

Authority:

Bailey v. Taaffe (1866) 29 Cal.422, 424

Third Holding:

The decision whether or not to grant a continuance of a matter rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.

Authority:

People v. Navarro (2021) 12 Cal.5th 285, 330

Fourth Holding:

We review the trial court’s denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. In particular, we decide whether the denial of a continuance was so arbitrary as to violate due process. There are no mechanical tests for doing so

Authority:

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

Ungar v. Sarafite (1964) 376 U.S. 575, 589

Fifth Holding:

In deciding whether good cause exists, courts consider whether the moving party has acted diligently; the anticipated benefits of the continuance; the burden that the continuance would impose on witnesses, jurors, and the court; and above all, whether substantial justice will be accomplished or defeated by a granting of the motion.

Authority:

People v. Reed (2018) 4 Cal.5th 989, 1004

People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 450

People v. Gonzalez (2021) 12 Cal.5th 367, 387

Sixth Holding:

In sum,we recognize that defense counsel was not optimally diligent, and he certainly could have better attended to the procedural details of obtaining a continuance. But this relatively minor lack of diligence did not justify the substantial injustice the court’s order created Where denial of a continuance would result in a manifest injustice, as it did here, the policy disfavoring continuances must give way.

Authority:

Hamilton v. Orange County Sheriff’s Department (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 759