Category Archives: Duty of the court

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case 000625

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In the prior appeal, we reversed on the basis that the sentence was the functional equivalent of a term of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), and remanded for the trial court, as we specified in the remittitur, to consider the defendant’s application for resentencing under section 1170(d) as a person serving the functional equivalent of LWOP.

On remand, the trial court declined to find the defendant was serving the functional equivalent of LWOP, based on an opinion from another district subsequent to the case we relied on in our first opinion. The court had no jurisdiction to go outside the limits of our remittitur, and we remand the case to the lower court to carry out the directions in our remittitur. The matter is remanded to the trial court with the direction to find the defendant eligible for relief and to consider the merits of his petition.

First Holding:

This court has held that offenders sentenced to functionally equivalent LWOP terms are entitled to section 1170(d) relief under the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, in agreement with Heard. Another district has held otherwise.

Authority:

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 440

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608,

People v. Isayev (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1117, 1123, review granted November 12, 2025, S292860 [Holding that the availability of a youth offender parole hearing under section 3051, which requires such a hearing to be held no later than 25 years into the juvenile’s sentence, precludes finding that the juvenile has a sentence functionally equivalent to life without parole, and is thus ineligible for recall and resentencing under section 1170(d)]

Second Holding:

The remittitur both terminates the reviewing court’s jurisdiction of the case and proscribes the remaining jurisdiction of the receiving court. After the remittitur, the appellate court has no further jurisdiction of the appeal and all orders necessary to carry the judgment into effect shall be made by the court to which the certificate is remitted.

Authority:

PEN 1265

Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 701 [The order of the reviewing court is contained in its remittitur, which defines the scope of the jurisdiction of the court to which the matter is returned]

Snukal v. Flightways Manufacturing, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 754, 774, fn. 5 [The terms of the remittitur define the trial court’s jurisdiction to act]

Third Holding:

The trial court is bound by the directions given and has no authority to retry any other issue or to make any other findings. Its authority is limited wholly and solely to following the directions of the reviewing court. The order of the appellate court as stated in the remittitur, is decisive of the character of the judgment to which the appellant is entitled.

A trial court may not exceed the specific directions of a court of review in remanding a cause after a reversal. Action that does not conform to the appellate court’s directions is void. The trial court was not free to depart from the instructions in the remittitur, as the trial court must follow a remittitur even if it believes the decision was wrong or has been impaired by subsequent decisions.

Authority:

Rice v. Schmid (1944) 25 Cal.2d 259, 263

Hampton v. Superior Court (1952) 38 Cal.2d 652, 655-656

People v. Dutra (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1367

Duty of the court, Jury instructions, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000611

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court failed to instruct the jury about how a defendant who is an initial aggressor can regain the right to self-defense.

First Holding:

The defendant’s defense was self-defense, and the trial court accordingly instructed the jury on perfect and imperfect self-defense under CALCRIM No. 505. Over his objection, the trial court also instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 3471 regarding an initial aggressor’s right to self-defense. However, the trial court omitted language from CALCRIM No. 3471 about how an initial aggressor can regain the right to self-defense. Omission of that language was prejudicial error. Whether a trial court properly instructed a jury is a question of law that we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210

Second Holding:

A trial court in a criminal case must instruct on the general principles of law that are closely and openly connected to the facts before the court and are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case. This includes a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on an affirmative defense if it appears the defendant is relying on such a defense or if substantial evidence supports it and it is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.

Authority:

People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1021

People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 469

People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949

Third Holding:

It is error to give an instruction that is not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is evidence of reasonable, credible value sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury. In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 39–40

People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129

People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331

People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 835

People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982

Fourth Holding:

As an initial matter, the Attorney General contends the defendant forfeited his contention that it was error to omit the language on how an initial aggressor can regain his right to self defense, because he failed to ask the trial court to include the omitted language. Assuming forfeiture applies, we nonetheless may decline to apply it if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights. Because the contention affects the defendant’s substantial rights, we consider it.

Authority:

PEN 1259

People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 671 [party may not complain on appeal that instruction correct in law and responsive to evidence was too general or incomplete in absence of request for clarifying language]

People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949

Fifth Holding:

When a defendant engages in simple assault or trespass and his opponent responds with deadly force so suddenly that the person cannot withdraw, a defendant may immediately use deadly force in self-defense. The qualification in the language omitted from the jury instruction thus applies where the defendant commits a simple assault. But if one makes a felonious assault upon another, or has created appearances justifying the other to launch a deadly counterattack in self-defense, the original assailant cannot slay his adversary in self-defense unless he has first, in good faith, declined further combat, and has fairly notified him that he has abandoned the affray.

Authority:

People v. Quach (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 294, 301

People v. Conkling (1896) 111 Cal. 616, 626–627

People v. Hecker (1895) 109 Cal. 451, 464 [Where one is the first wrongdoer, but his unlawful act is not felonious, as a simple assault upon the person of another, or a mere trespass upon his property, even though forcible, and this unlawful act is met by a counter assault of a deadly character, the right of self-defense to the first wrongdoer is not lost]

People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949

People v. Gleghorn (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 196, 201

People v. Salazar (2016) 63 Cal.4th 214, 249-250 [exception did not apply where defendant approached victim with cocked gun]

Sixth Holding:

We apply the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in Chapman to determine whether the error merits reversal. The Chapman standard requires us to determine whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have rendered the same verdict absent the error. We must reverse the conviction under that standard unless we conclude that no rational juror who made the findings reflected in the verdict and heard the evidence at trial court could have had a reasonable doubt regarding the findings necessary to convict the defendant, absent the instructional error.

Authority:

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

People v. Quach (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 294, 303

People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 953

People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 831

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 244

Seventh Holding:

Simple assault requires an act that by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of physical force to another person, and the crime does not require actual physical injury or contact to the victim.

Authority:

People v. Harring (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 483, 503

Eighth Holding:

An instruction is inconsistent with defendant’s theory of case if it requires acknowledging, if only inferentially, existence of facts which defendant otherwise denied. The language omitted from the instruction was not inconsistent with the defendant’s defense.

Authority:

People v. Jo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1168–1169

People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982–983 [trial court has no duty to instruct on affirmative defense inconsistent with defendant’s theory of case]

Duty of the court, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000589

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We affirm the judgment of conviction, but vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand for a new trial on the aggravating factors because it was prejudicial error for the court to impose an upper term sentence based on uninstructed and unproven aggravating factors.

First Holding:

The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of due process entitle a criminal defendant to a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. Where enumerated aggravating factors operate as the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense, the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury.

Authority:

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 476-477

Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584, 609

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 288-289 [under Apprendi, aggravating circumstances supporting upper term sentence must be found by a jury]

Second Holding:

The trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the essential elements of the charged offense. It is, indeed, very serious constitutional error because it threatens the right to a jury trial that both the United States and California Constitutions guarantee. It is well settled that no objection is required to preserve a claim for appellate review that the jury instructions omitted an essential element of the charge.

Authority:

People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 477

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 409 [trial court erred by omitting essential elements of a special circumstance allegation]

Third Holding:

We review constitutional claims and claims of instructional error de novo. We must consider the claim of instructional error in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record. An instructional error that improperly describes or omits an element of an offense generally is not a structural defect in the trial mechanism that defies harmless error review and automatically requires reversal under the federal Constitution, unless the instructional error or omission amounts to the total deprivation of a jury trial.

Rather, where the trial court fails to instruct on necessary elements, generally this error is subject to harmless-error analysis under the test of Chapman, that is, whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. Overwhelming evidence, other properly given jury instructions, or a defendant’s concession of elements for which an instruction was omitted may render an error harmless.

Authority:

People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 326 [instructional error]

In re Taylor (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1019, 1035 [constitutional claims]

People v. Salazar (2016) 63 Cal.4th 214, 248 [The correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court]

People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 502-503

People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 830

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

Neder v. U.S. (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 15

People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 689, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22

Fourth Holding:

Forfeiture does not bar the defendant’s claim because the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on all essential elements of the charge. Further, the failure to instruct the jury on all essential elements is not a matter of discretion but raises a legal claim under the federal constitution subject to de novo review.

Authority:

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 409

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 46 [a defendant’s failure to object does not preclude his asserting on appeal that he was denied his constitutional right to a jury trial]

People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589, fn. 5

People v. Serrano (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 902, 908-909

People v. Lua (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1004, 1013

Fifth Holding:

The trial court failed to instruct properly on essential elements of the aggravating factor under rule 4.421(a)(1) that, to find the aggravating factor true, it must determine that the defendant’s conduct was distinctively worse than what was necessary to commit the crime, an element necessary to a true finding under the rule. The jury instructions omitted any definition of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness within the meaning of rule 4.421(a)(1).

This element of the aggravating factor may not be necessary in every case because “great bodily injury” alone may satisfy the requirements of rule 4.421(a)(1). But here, the defendant was also subject to a sentencing enhancement for inflicting great bodily injury under section 12022.7(a), and the trial court could not aggravate the defendant’s sentence on the same factual basis under section 1170(b)(5).

Authority:

People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 320

People v. Harvey (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 90, 116-117 [In imposing the upper term . under rule 421(a)(1) [now rule 4.421(a)(1)] the factfinder must convince itself that, when compared to other ways in which such a crime could be committed, the manner of this crime’s commission indicated viciousness and callousness]

People v. Webber (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1146, 1169

People v. Nevill (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 198, 206

People v. Gutierrez (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1729, 1735 [aggravating factor satisfied by finding of “great bodily injury”]

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 350 [a court generally cannot use a single fact both to aggravate the base term and to impose an enhancement]

People v. Castaneda (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 611, 614-615

People v. Hill (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1566, 1575

People v. La Fargue (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 878, 898

Sixth Holding:

It is the court’s duty to see to it that the jury are adequately informed on the law governing all elements of the case submitted to them to an extent necessary to enable them to perform their function in conformity with the applicable law. Accordingly, the trial court erred by omitting jury instructions on necessary elements of the aggravating factor allegation.

Authority:

People v. Sanchez (1950) 35 Cal.2d 522, 528

Seventh Holding:

In addition, the court imposed an upper term sentence based on untried aggravating facts, discussing aspects purportedly related to public safety. An upper term sentence may be imposed only when circumstances in aggravation justify that term, and only when the facts underlying those justifying circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury or court trial.

Here, the court erred by imposing an upper term sentence based on facts not found by the jury or stipulated to by the defendant, including that the defendant used a knife, that the assault occurred in a busy public area, and that his conduct endangered public safety. It was error for the court to consider these additional uncharged and unproven aggravating circumstances to impose an upper term sentence. We are unable to determine with a requisite degree of confidence that a jury would have found those facts to be factors in aggravation. We thus reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 759

People v. Whitten (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1761, 1767 [examination of aggravating factors necessarily involves subjective determinations based upon objectively demonstrated facts]

Amelioration, Discretion, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000585

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the trial court declined to consider dismissing a firearm enhancement, citing its desire not to get involved in changing the sentence of the original sentencing court and not to usurp the role of the parole board in assessing when defendant was ready for release. Because these rationales reflect an abdication of the court’s duty to exercise its sentencing discretion, we must reverse and remand for the court to exercise that discretion at a new, full resentencing.

First Holding:

The failure to exercise discretion is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 744

Dickson Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 449

Second Holding:

Where, as here, a defendant was originally sentenced for a prior prison term enhancement that arose from a conviction that was not a sexually violent offense, that defendant is entitled to a full resentencing where that enhancement is to be stricken and where the trial court is to 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:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 875

Third Holding:

The law regarding the 25 years-to-life firearm enhancement has changed since defendant’s original sentencing hearing in 2004: At that time, a trial court did not have discretion to dismiss that enhancement; since January 1, 2018, trial courts have had the power to dismiss firearm enhancements under section 12022.53 entirely or to substitute a lesser firearm enhancement in their place.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 695-696

Fourth Holding:

Although we review a trial court’s discretionary sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion a trial court abuses its discretion when it refuses to exercise that discretion. That is what happened here: What was supposed to be a full resentencing was merely a reaffirmation of a prior sentence and an abdication of discretionary decision-making to others whom the trial court believed were (or had been) better suited to the task. Section 1172.75 requires trial courts to get involved where, as here, the governing law has changed in a way that makes a lower sentence a possibility. What is more, section 1172.75 also enables a trial court to consider postconviction factors, which would be given no weight were a trial court to defer to the original sentence entered before any postconviction conduct comes to pass.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 374

People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 744

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 361

Fifth Holding:

The presumption of regularity is rebutted when a trial court affirmatively indicates that it is not following the law.

Authority:

People v. Carter (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 322, 324

People v. Panozo (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 825, 839 [where the record is not silent, but rather is ‘at the very least ambiguous as to whether the court understood its statutory obligation, remand is appropriate]

Sixth Holding:

Upon remand, the court is to conduct the full resentencing mandated by section 1172.75. At that time, the court should calculate defendant’s actual custody credits from the date of arrest through the date of resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

PEN 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29 [defendant entitled to all actual custody days since arrest, including date of resentencing]

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000569

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in sentencing on a prior strike where the defendant did not waive a trial and did not admit the prior. Errors in the minute order must be corrected to reflect that a sentence on one count was 364 days in the county jail, not 365 days.

First Holding:

Whenever the fact of a previous conviction of another offense is charged in an accusatory pleading, and the defendant is found guilty of the offense with which he is charged, the jury, or the judge if a jury trial is waived, must unless the answer of the defendant admits such previous conviction, find whether or not he has suffered such previous conviction. The prosecution bears the burden of proving a strike prior allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

PEN 1158

People v. Frierson (2017) 4 Cal.5th 225, 233

Second Holding:

This procedure was not followed here. While the defendant expressed his intention to admit the strike prior, the record shows he never actually did so. Nor did a jury or the trial court find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant suffered the alleged strike prior. Accordingly, we must reverse the true finding as to the strike prior allegation and remand for the trial court to hold a hearing on whether the defendant elects to admit the strike prior allegation or proceed to trial on it and hold further proceedings accordingly.

Authority:

People v. Strike (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 143, 154 [when true finding on strike prior allegation is reversed, the appropriate remedy is to remand the case to the trial court for a new hearing on the prior strike allegation]

Third Holding:

Every offense which is prescribed by any law of the state to be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail up to or not exceeding one year shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed 364 days. Count 2 is subject to this 364-day limit on imprisonment. Yet here, the Felony Minutes—Pronouncement of Judgment dated specify the defendant’s term of imprisonment for count 2 to be 365 days. Under section 18.5, this length of imprisonment is improper. Accordingly, on remand we direct the trial court to amend the Felony Minutes—Pronouncement of Judgment to reflect a term of imprisonment of 364 days on count 2.

[GARY Note: the court listed no authority for directing the correction of the minute order, so I have listed some cases that it could have relied on.]

Authority:

PEN 18.5

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387-38

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

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

Case 000568

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The juvenile court erred in not declaring whether it found the minor’s wobbler offense (section 29610) to be a misdemeanor or a felony.

First Holding:

An offense under Penal Code section 29610 is a wobbler punishable by imprisonment or jail.

Authority:

In re D.D. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 824, 829

Second Holding:

Welf. and Inst. Code section 702 requires the juvenile court to declare on the record at a hearing before or at the time of disposition its choice whether to treat an alleged wobbler as a misdemeanor or as a felony. Neither the pleading, the minute order, nor the setting of a felony-level period of confinement may substitute for the required declaration. The juvenile court’s failure to make this declaration as to each wobbler offense is error. A juvenile court’s failure to comply with section 702’s express declaration requirement must be corrected on remand unless the record as a whole establishes that the juvenile court was aware of, and exercised its discretion to determine the felony or misdemeanor nature of a wobbler.

Authority:

WIC 702

In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 712

Third Holding:

The oral pronouncement of judgment ordinarily controls when there is a discrepancy between it and the clerical recording of the judgment. Although the minute order reflects that the court declared the offense in count 1 a felony, the reporter’s transcript of the oral pronouncement reflects no such declaration. The latter controls.

Authority:

People v. Serrano (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1324, 1340

Duty of the court, Jury trial, Standard of review

Case 000567

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant’s jury trial waiver was invalid as it was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. We reverse his convictions on this basis and remand for a new trial.

First Holding:

A criminal defendant has the constitutional right to a jury trial. The defendant may waive the constitutional right to a jury trial, provided the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. A waiver is knowing and intelligent if it is made with full awareness of the nature of the right and the consequences of abandoning it. It is voluntary if it was the product of a free and deliberate choice, rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. Whether a defendant satisfies that standard must depend upon the unique circumstances of each case. Our Supreme Court has persistently declined to mandate any specific admonitions describing aspects of the jury trial right. We instead examine the totality of circumstances.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 6th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 16

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166-167 [Our precedent has not mandated any specific method for determining whether a defendant has made a knowing and intelligent waiver of a jury trial in favor of a bench trial]

People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 992

Second Holding:

A reviewing court’s task is to independently examine the record to determine whether the defendant’s jury waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. We will uphold the validity of a jury waiver if the record affirmatively shows that it is voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. We do not start with a presumption of validity that may only be rebutted by signs of a defendant’s confusion or unwillingness in entering a waiver. Instead, a reviewing court satisfies itself of a legitimate waiver only when the record affirmatively demonstrates it was knowing and intelligent.

Authority:

People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 453

People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 991

Third Holding:

The record here does not affirmatively show that the defendant’s jury trial waiver was knowing and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. The court’s advisement addressed only one and a half of the four basic mechanics of a jury trial described in Sivongxxay: that a judge alone would decide guilt if the defendant forwent a jury trial, and that the jury would be composed of people who live in the county.

But the advisement omitted that a jury consists of 12 people, that jurors are selected from a larger pool of prospective jurors in a process in which he could participate through counsel, or that a jury verdict must be unanimous––meaning that the prosecution would have to convince all 12 jurors of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than a single judge. Nothing in the record shows the defendant had ever been advised of these omitted mechanics. He had no prior criminal history, and thus no prior occasion to receive such advisements from a court or otherwise. Nor does the record show a written waiver form was used.

Authority:

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 167-168

People v. Weaver (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1056, 1070 [though not required, written waiver form is helpful to establish the adequacy of a jury waiver]

People v. Jones (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 420

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000556

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred by imposing consecutive terms on counts 1 through 3 because the underlying offenses did not occur on separate occasions under Penal Code section 667.6(d), and the court did not make findings on whether it was exercising its discretion to impose a consecutive sentence. We reverse and remand for resentencing.

First Holding:

Section 669(a) provides that when a person is convicted of two or more crimes, the trial court must determine whether the terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently or consecutively. For certain sex offenses the Penal Code establishes alternative sentencing frameworks, including section 667.6.

Authority:

People v. Catarino (2023) 14 Cal.5th 748, 752

Second Holding:

Under section 667.6(c), a full, separate, and consecutive term may be imposed for each violation of an offense specified in subdivision (e) if the crimes involve the same victim on the same occasion. Section 667.6(d)(1) provides a full, separate, and consecutive term shall be imposed for each violation of an offense specified in subdivision (e) if the crimes involve separate victims or involve the same victim on separate occasions. Although section 269 is not listed in section 667.6(e), section 269(c) provides that the court shall impose a consecutive sentence for each offense that results in a conviction on this section if the crimes involve the same victim on separate occasions as defined in section 667.6(d).

Authority:

PEN 667.6(c)

PEN 667.6(d)

PEN 269

Third Holding:

The One Strike law in section 667.61 provides an alternative sentencing scheme for certain forcible sex offenses and mandates an indeterminate sentence of 15 or 25 years to life in prison when the jury has convicted the defendant of a specified felony sex crime and has also found certain factual allegations to be true.

Authority:

People v. Carbajal (2013) 56 Cal.4th 521, 534

Fourth Holding:

In determining whether crimes against a single victim were committed on separate occasions under section 667.6(d), the court shall consider whether, between the commission of one sex crime and another, the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to reflect upon the defendant’s actions and nevertheless resumed sexually assaultive behavior. Neither the duration of time between crimes, nor whether or not the defendant lost or abandoned the opportunity to attack, shall be, in and of itself, determinative on the issue of whether the crimes in question occurred on separate occasions.

Further, a finding that a defendant committed sex crimes on separate occasions does not require there be a break of any specific duration or any change in physical location. In applying this standard, courts have held the offenses of placing a finger in the victim’s private area, kissing her private area and then placing his private part in her private area were but a single occasion. In contrast, where the offenses are interrupted by the defendant’s nonsexual activity, courts have found they occur on a separate occasion.

Authority:

PEN 667.6(d)(2)

People v. Jones (2001) 25 Cal.4th 98, 104

People v. King (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1325

People v. Dearborne (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 250, 265-266

People v. Corona (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 13, 15-16, 17-18

Fifth Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court. A court that is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no more exercise that informed discretion than one whose sentence is or may have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant’s record. In such circumstances, we have held that 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, 419, 424

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

Sixth Holding:

The trial court was aware of its discretion. The general rule is that a trial court is presumed to have been aware of and followed the applicable law.

Authority:

People v. Shiga (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 22, 40

People v. Brown (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1229

Seventh Holding:

When a trial court imposes consecutive sentences based on a finding under section 667.6(d), we may reverse only if there is no substantial evidence that the offenses were committed on separate occasions, that is, only if no reasonable trier of fact could have decided the defendant had a reasonable opportunity for reflection after completing an offense before resuming his assaultive behavior.

Authority:

People v. King (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1325

People v. Garza (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1092

Eighth Holding:

Regardless of whether section 667.6(c), applies to sentencing for a one strike offense under section 667.61 (which is not clear), under section 669, a trial court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences when a defendant is convicted of multiple crimes with indeterminate sentences.

Authority:

PEN 669(a)

People v. Midell (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1060, 1085

People v. Rodriguez (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1262

Ninth Holding:

It is well settled that in making sentencing choices pursuant to section 667.6(c), the trial court must state a reason for imposing a consecutive sentence in deciding whether to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence.

Authority:

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 729

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000550

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The amount of credit for time served was short by three days. The judgment is modified to include those three days.

Holding:

The appellate court has authority to modify the judgment to correct the credit for time served.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 485, 493–494 [modifying judgment to correct custody credits]

Appellate Principles, Duty of counsel, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000548

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(GARY note: This case actually provided no relief at all to the defendant. It is included because it teaches a valuable lesson on the burden an appellant bears to prevail on appeal. The defendant argued that the protective order was unlawful because he was not convicted of a crime eligible for protective orders.

(But the Court of Appeal concluded that the defendant did not show that he did not commit the crime in the course of a domestic violence course of conduct, and the Court of Appeal must assume that the trial court made such a finding or it would not have imposed the order.

(The defendant was required to prove a negative. It is entirely possible that there was nothing in the record that would disprove there was or was not a domestic relationship. The conviction resulted from a plea bargain with a stipulated sentence. No objection was interposed at the time the protective order was issued.

But the case highlights the importance of understanding that an appellate court is not bound to help the defense. The conviction shifted the presumption from innocence to guilt, and the burden shifted likewise. The California Constitution requires upholding a conviction in the absence of a miscarriage of justice. Thus, the appellate courts start with a mandate that the conviction be affirmed. It is appellate counsel’s role to chip away at the presumption that orders of the superior court were properly issued. Don’t make any assumptions that cannot be backed up by the record.)

First Holding:

The defendant contends the trial court erred in issuing a criminal protective order pursuant to section 136.2(i) because his conviction for assault with a semiautomatic firearm (section 245(b)) is not an offense enumerated under the statute.

Assault with a semiautomatic firearm is not an explicitly enumerated offense under section 136.2(i). However, assault with a semiautomatic firearm can qualify under the statute as a crime involving domestic violence if the defendant’s abusive conduct is directed at someone with a qualifying relationship to him.

The record on appeal is silent as to the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the victim. The defendant has not remedied this silence with an adequate record from which we can discern whether his conviction constituted a crime involving domestic violence. On this silent record, we indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the criminal protective order, including the existence of a qualifying relationship between Hooks and the victim. Because the record does not support the defendant’s claim, he fails to meet his burden on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 13700

FAM 6203(a), 6211(c)

Second Holding:

The People assert the defendant forfeited his contention by failing to object in the trial court. As a general rule, an appellant waives issues on appeal that he or she did not initially raise in the trial court. But there are exceptions to this rule for unauthorized sentences and sentencing decisions that are in excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction. Because this case involves the jurisdictional validity of the trial court’s decision to issue a protective order during sentencing, we will consider the defendant’s claim on the merits.

Authority:

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 381-382

Third Holding:

Perhaps the most fundamental rule of appellate law is that the judgment challenged on appeal is presumed correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error. This presumption also applies to a lower court’s orders. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support the order on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. On appeal, the defendant must affirmatively demonstrate error below and provide an adequate record to support his arguments. Any uncertainty in the record must be resolved against the defendant. We will not presume error.

Authority:

People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573

People v. Sullivan (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 524, 549

Duty of the court, Probation Parole PRCS

Case 000545

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The petitioner’s motion to dismissal under section 1203.4 upon complete of probation was mandatory, and should have been granted.

First Holding:

Once a defendant has fulfilled all the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation (or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation), and are not then serving a sentence for an offense, on probation for an offense, or charged with the commission of an offense, section 1203.4 provides that a defendant must be permitted to withdraw the plea of guilty and have the court dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and be released from all penalties and disabilities except as provided in Vehicle Code section 13555.

Authority:

PEN 1203.4

Second Holding:

If the defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, dismissal is mandatory. If the defendant has not fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation or been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation, the court may still grant relief in its discretion in the interests of justice. Here, the defendant had fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, was not not then serving a sentence for an offense, on probation for an offense, or charged with the commission of an offense. It was error to deny the petition.

Authority:

People v. Daffeh (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 790, 796

People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 975, 991

Duty of the court, Effective assistance of counsel, Plea bargains, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000544

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

When the court set the probation term at three years instead of the agreed-on two years, the court erred in not complying with the plea bargain without permitting the defendant to withdraw from the plea agreement.

First Holding:

The standard for evaluating claims that counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance is set forth in Strickland. This standard provides that to secure reversal upon the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel under either the state or federal Constitution, an appellant must establish (1) that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, i.e., that counsel’s performance did not meet the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent attorney, and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that appellant would have obtained a more favorable result absent counsel’s shortcomings.

On direct appeal, a conviction will be reversed for ineffective assistance only if (1) the record affirmatively discloses counsel had no rational tactical purpose for the challenged act or omission, (2) counsel was asked for a reason and failed to provide one, or (3) there simply could be no satisfactory explanation. All other claims of ineffective assistance are more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding.

Authority:

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687–694

People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1003

People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009

Second Holding:

It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Unless an appellant establishes the contrary, we shall presume that counsel’s performance fell within the wide range of professional competence and that counsel’s actions and inactions can be explained as a matter of sound trial strategy. Further, failure to raise a meritless objection is not ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

In re Thomas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1249, 1257

People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 746

People v. Bradley (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 64, 90

Third Holding:

The defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object when the trial court placed on a three-year grant of probation instead of the two-year probation term contemplated by the plea agreement. However, the order of probation is an unauthorized sentence, on which basis we reverse, rendering moot the question of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Legislature enacted AB 1950, effective January 1, 2021, which significantly changed the law governing probation, including section 1203.1. Under the amended version of section 1203.1, the maximum term of probation a trial court may impose for most felony offenses is a period of time not exceeding two years. Whereas previous law had authorized courts to grant a period of probation not exceeding the maximum term for which the person could be imprisoned, AB 1950 instead authorizes a court to impose a term of probation not longer than 2 years, except as otherwise specified. As a general matter, the amendments of AB 1950 apply retroactively to the benefit of a person whose judgment is not yet final on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Arreguin (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 787, 793

People v. Faial (2025) 18 Cal.5th 199, 207

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 963 [modifying term of probation to conform with new law while preserving remainder of plea agreement]

Fourth Holding:

Generally, a court may not accept an unauthorized plea. Where a trial court is asked to approve an illegal plea bargain—illegal because it violates a policy condition established by the Legislature or the people through the initiative process—the proper course of action for the court is clear. It should decline to act in excess of its authority and should refuse to approve an arrangement under which it is called upon to do so. Faced with an unlawful plea bargain, a trial court should withhold approval of the bargain.

Thus, if a court has approved a plea bargain containing an illegal term, ordinarily, the recourse for a court would not be to reform the bargain to make it legal; it would be to withdraw its prior approval of the agreement. Whether by withdrawal of its prior approval or the granting of a withdrawal/rescission request by one or both of the parties, the trial court must restore the parties to the status quo ante. The parties may then enter into a new plea agreement, which will be subject to the trial court’s approval, or they may proceed to trial on the reinstated charges.

Authority:

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 974

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 707

People v. Aragon (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 749, 756–757 [When a guilty plea is invalidated the parties are generally restored to the positions they occupied before the plea bargain was entered]

People v. Barton (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1145, 1159

[Gary Note:

Gary note: This unpublished opinion recognizes that section 1171, effective 1/1/2025, provides that a resentencing under any ameliorative provisions cannot result in an order to set aside a plea bargain in which the sentence was specified. In other words, section 1171 appears to have overturned the Stamps decision with respect to allowing the lower court or the prosecution to set aside a plea bargain if the ameliorative provisions apply to change the sentence in a way that the prosecutor or court do not like.

This question was granted review in a published opinion in 2024 (100 Cal.App.5th 768), where it defined the issue as “Is the prosecution entitled to rescind a plea agreement when a defendant receives a full resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728) and the trial court intends to reduce the sentence beyond eliminating the prior prison term enhancements?” On 12/18/2024, the Supreme Court transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal on the People’s motion for the Court of Appeal to vacate its earlier decision [which, in fact, concluded that the prosecutor could NOT rescind the agreement] and reconsider its opinion in light of the passage of AB 2483, which enacted section 1171. It also ordered the Court of Appeal’s original opinion to be depublished.

On remand, the Court of Appeal set aside its earlier opinion and issued a new opinion in which it said, “At the hearing, Montgomery may seek relief under any provision of section 1172.75, and neither the prosecutor nor the court may rescind the plea agreement due to a resulting sentence reduction.” The original Court of Appeal opinion was published, and it provides an analysis of why a review of the legislative history of AB 483 (which enacted section 1172.75)–including uncodified portions of AB 483– compelled it to conclude that Stamps did not apply. But the subsequent opinion following the Supreme Court’s transfer relied solely on section 1171, and the opinion was not published.

But Wait! There’s More!

On May 18, 2026, the Supreme Court decided People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729. It was an appeal directly from the original sentencing under section 1170, and did not arise out of a ruling on the application of any other ameliorative statutes. The question was “Does Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731), which limits a trial court’s discretion to impose upper term sentences, apply retroactively to defendants sentenced pursuant to stipulated plea agreements?”

The court concluded that it does apply (section 1170 as amended by SB 567), but it remanded with the Stamps remedy–that if the defendant opts to claim the benefits of section 1170 and the resulting sentence is something the DA or the court are not happy with, the plea will be set aside and the parties restored to their pre-plea bargain status.

But it contained a very important footnote:

“Shortly before oral argument, counsel for Mitchell filed a letter with this court identifying section 1171 as a new authority. Section 1171, effective January 1, 2025 (Stats. 2024, ch. 964, § 2) sets forth procedures governing a “ ‘postconviction proceeding,’ ” which the statute defines as “a proceeding to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute. Ameliorative statutes include, but are not limited to, Sections 1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75.” (§ 1171, subd. (a).) At oral argument, counsel for Mitchell urged that this statutory definition broadly encompasses a remand to the trial court in the context of a direct appeal under the authority of section 1170(b) and Estrada. We decline to consider this argument because we have concluded that Mitchell is entitled to a remand under our established precedent in Stamps. We express no view on the applicability of section 1171 to this case or how it might affect the options described above. Mitchell may raise this issue in the Court of Appeal or the trial court in the first instance.”

On remand, the Court of Appeal issued its new opinion–this time unpublished–in which it further remanded the case to the trial court for resolution in light of the Supreme Court decision. And in that unpublished opinion, it stated, “We now find that Mitchell’s section 1171 arguments should be resolved first by the trial court. Accordingly, we remand this action to that court for further proceedings consistent with Mitchell II [the Supreme Court decision]. On remand, Mitchell may raise her contentions regarding section 1171.”]