Category Archives: Eighth Amendment

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Gary Musings, Sentencing

Case 001128

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the credit for time served. Although the court acknowledged that section 654 applied, it erroneously imposed concurrent sentences rather than staying any. The minute order mentions only that the two counts were stayed, and does not reflect the order for concurrent sentences. The abstract of judgment indicates that the counts were both stayed and to be served concurrently. Remanded for correction of these errors.

First Holding:

Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.

Authority:

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

People v. Mullins (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 594, 612

Second Holding:

Sentences must be stayed to the extent that section 654 prohibits multiple punishment.

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. Section 654 bars multiple punishment for offenses arising out of a single occurrence where all the offenses were incident to one objective.

Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

In such circumstances, the court must impose but stay execution of sentence on all of the convictions arising out of the course of conduct except for one. It has long been established that the imposition of concurrent sentences is precluded by section 654 because the defendant is deemed to be subjected to the term of both sentences although they are served simultaneously.

(Gary Musing, of marginal historical interest: Prior to 1998, Penal Code section 654 had exactly the same language as it currently has, and a court was free to impose sentence on any one of the counts to which section 654 applied. See People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1. In response to that Supreme Court decision, the Legislature amended section 654 to require that the court impose sentence on the count containing the longest potential term.

(Through AB 518, effective 1/1/2022, the Legislature restored section 654 to its former language, returning to the court the discretion to choose on which count punishment should be imposed and executed.

(There is likely language in one or more of the cases cited below that were decided during the time frame requiring imposition of sentence on the count carrying the longest term. Don’t be misled by that, as the law has changed, restoring the court’s discretion to choose among the counts.)

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 353

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

People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1208

People v. McCoy (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338

People v. Miller (1977) 18 Cal.3d 873, 887, abrogated on other grounds as stated in People v. Oates (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1048, 1067, fn. 8;

People v. Dowdell (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1413

Third Holding:

A sentencing court must award credits for all days in custody up to and including the day of sentencing. This includes partial days. Because an abstract of judgment represents the process and authority for carrying the judgment and sentence into effect, it is paramount that the abstract reflects the appropriate sentence and credits.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Bravo (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 729, 735

People v. King (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 882, 886

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

Fourth Holding:

At sentencing, the court imposed a $300 restitution fine, pursuant to section 1202.4(b), which it stayed. It also imposed and suspended a parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45. The abstract of judgment, however, erroneously lists the fines as $900. It also fails to state the restitution fine is stayed. We therefore order the errors in the amount of the restitution fines be corrected.

Authority:

People v. Lipscomb (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 9, 22 [a court may only impose one restitution fine per case, so it is error to impose a restitution fine as to each count]

Fifth Holding:

The court also imposed ancillary assessments. We remand to give the defendant an opportunity to demonstrate whether he has the ability to pay, under equal protection principles, inasmuch as the court has the authority to waive such fees entirely in civil matters.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 9, 30

Sixth Holding:

Due process does not require an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine. Instead, the excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines. Four factors are relevant to determining whether a fine is unconstitutionally excessive: (1) the defendant’s culpability; (2) the relationship between the harm and the penalty; (3) the penalties imposed in similar statutes; and (4) the defendant’s ability to pay.

Authority:

U.S. Const., Eighth Amendment

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11 & fn. 6, 23

United States v. Bajakajian (1998) 524 U.S. 321, 327–328

People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 707, 728

Discretion, Due process, Duty of the court, Eighth Amendment, Elements of crime, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 001110

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted under both section 4500 (assault by a life prisoner) and section 4501 (assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury by a prisoner) for the same act. Where section 4500 applies, the defendant cannot also be convicted of section 4501 for the same act.

The court misunderstood its discretion on imposing the minimum restitution fine. Also, the court failed to consider the defendant’s ability to pay before deteremining the amount of the restitution fine, and it did not recognize that it had discretion regarding the imposition of the assessments that it thought wer mandatory.

Defendant’s conviction for assault by a prisoner under section 4501(b) is reversed. We vacate the restitution fine, the court operations assessment, and the court facilities assessment and remand for the court to properly exercise its discretion regarding the amount of the restitution fine and immposition of assessments.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 4501(b) specifically states that, except as provided in section 4500, every person confined in the state prison of this state who commits an assault upon the person of another by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be guilty of a felony.

Sections 4500 and 4501 describe two mutually exclusive crimes. Section 4501’s “except as provided in section 4500” clause prevents the two statutes from covering the same conduct. It clarifies that when both statutes would otherwise apply, section 4500 governs and section 4501 is inapplicable. So when a defendant is convicted as provided in section 4500, the defendant cannot also be convicted as provided in section 4501 for the same conduct.

Authority:

People v. Nava (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 624, 628-629

Second Holding:

The court erred in concluding that the amount of the restitution fine it imposed was the minimum required by statute. It imposed a $300 restitution fine for each of the seven counts of conviction, stating that $2100 was the minimum mandatory amount. The court misunderstood its discretion.

Section 1202.4(b) requires that in every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine of not less than $300 nor more than $10,000. This statute provides for a restitution fine in every case. A “case” is a formal criminal proceeding, filed by the prosecution and handled by the court as a separate action with its own number. The provision does not contemplate a separate restitution fine for each individual count.

The court misunderstood its discretion because the minimum restitution fine would be $300 for the entire case, not $300 per conviction. The matter must be remanded for reconsideration of the appropriate restitution fine.

Authority:

People v. McAllister (2026) 122 Cal.App.5th 92, 96

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 [Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court]

Third Holding:

 A defendant may challenge the imposition of any fine as constitutionally excessive under the federal and state Constitutions. There is no due process requirement to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine, but the excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines, such as the restitution fine under section 1202.4 and the parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 13-14

Fourth Holding:

A defendant may seek to contest the defendant’s inability to pay the amount exceeding the statutory minimum. Under section 1202.4(c), inability to pay may be considered in increasing the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the minimum fine. Under 1202.4(d), in setting the amount of the fine in excess of the minimum fine the court shall consider any relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the defendant’s inability to pay.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(c), (d)

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23-24

Fifth Holding:

If a defendant requests, a trial court must consider the defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8(a)(1) or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1). Given that the Legislature has provided fee waivers to indigent civil litigants, equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a criminal defendant’s inability to pay before imposing either assessment.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 30

Abstracts and Minutes, Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 001061

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment erroneously reflects a fine of $300 that was not imposed by the trial court. It must be corrected. Further, the matter must be remanded for the court to give the defendant the opportunity to challenge the imposition of any fine as constitutionally.

First Holding:

As a general rule, when there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the trial court’s records, the oral pronouncement controls. The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order and the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

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

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

Second Holding:

While this appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court addressed the means by which a criminal defendant may challenge various payments typically imposed at sentencing. Those payments fall into three broad categories: fines, ancillary costs, and victim restitution.

As to fines, Kopp did not find a due process requirement to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine. Instead, Kopp clarified that an excessive fines analysis, which includes consideration of ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines” under either the federal or state Constitutions.

As to ancillary costs, Kopp clarified that an equal protection analysis is appropriate and held that equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment.

As to restitution, Kopp reiterated that crime victims have a right to secure restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes causing the losses they suffer.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 12, 23, fn. 17, 30

Third Holding:

Because the defendant did not have the benefit of Kopp’s reasoning and did not invoke the excessive fines clauses in the trial court, consistent with Kopp, we remand to give him the opportunity to assert the legal analyses applicable to such a challenge and argue how the particular facts of this case inform such an inquiry.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23

Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Plea bargains, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 001044

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to impose a term of 16 months in jail as a condition of probation. The matter must be remanded for resentencing, and for the court to determine the issue of the amount of the restitution fine in light of Kopp.

First Holding:

The trial court imposed a jail term of 16 months as a condition of probation because he had missed his appointment with his probation officer and failed to appear at the sentencing hearing. However, section 19.2 provides that, except in situations not here relevant, in no case shall any person sentenced to confinement in a county or city jail, as a condition of probation upon conviction of either a felony or a misdemeanor, be committed for a period in excess of one year.

Authority:

PEN 19.2

Second Holding:

Although Bailey held that the one-year limit may be waived by the defendant, Bailey is distinguishable because the defendant Bailey entered a knowing and intelligent waiver. There is no evidence here that the defendant was informed of the 12-month limit under section 19.2, and his agreement to the longer term was therefore not a knowing and intelligent waiver.

Authority:

People v. Bailey (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 828, 831

People v. Arnold (2004) 33 Cal.4th 294, 308 [regarding waiver of credit for time served, the gravamen of whether such a waiver is knowing and intelligent is whether the defendant understood he was relinquishing or giving up custody credits to which he was otherwise entitled under section 2900.5]

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166 [criminal defendant’s waiver of right to jury trial may not be accepted by the court unless it is knowing and intelligent, that is, made with a full awareness both of the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it]

Third Holding:

On remand, the defendant may challenge the imposition of any fine as constitutionally excessive under the federal and state constitutions. As to ancillary costs, if requested by the defendat, the trial court shall consider his inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8(a)(1) or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1), allowing the parties to present any relevant evidence or argument on the matter.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 8th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 30-31

Amelioration, Eighth Amendment, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 001031

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A sentence of more than 72 years to life plus two life terms imposed in 1995 on a 16-year-old minor is the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole. The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for resentencing under section 1170(d)(1).

If the court resentences, the court must then consider whether to transfer the case back to juvenile court for a transfer hearing to determine whether the matter should be retained under juvenile court jurisdiction or transferred back to adult court, applying Proposition 57.

First Holding:

Section 1170(d)(1) allows juvenile offenders to petition for recall and resentencing after 15 years of incarceration if they were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP).

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)(1)

Second Holding:

A sentence of 72 years eight months to life, plus two life sentences is the functional equivalent of an LWOP sentence, and therefore, the defendant is eligible for resentencing under equal protection principles. As the two life sentences carry a minimum of seven years on each, the effective sentence in this matter is more than 86 years to life. Under that sentence, the defendant would not be released before he reached 102 years of age.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1056

People v. Mendez (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 47, 50, 68 [sentence of 84 years to life was the equivalent of LWOP and constituted cruel and unusual punishment]

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 273 [under sec. 3046, where two indeterminate sentences run consecutively, a defendant must serve the full minimum term of each before becoming eligible for parole]

Third Holding:

A petition under section 1170(d)(1) must include a statement describing the defendant’s remorse, work toward rehabilitation, and a statement that one of four qualifying circumstances is true.

The four qualifying circumstances under section 1170(d)(2), are:

(A) The defendant was convicted pursuant to felony murder or aiding and abetting murder provisions of law.

(B) The defendant does not have juvenile felony adjudications for assault or other felony crimes with a significant potential for personal harm to victims prior to the offense for which the sentence is being considered for recall.

(C) The defendant committed the offense with at least one adult codefendant.

(D) The defendant has performed acts that tend to indicate rehabilitation or the potential for rehabilitation, including, but not limited to, availing themselves of rehabilitative, educational, or vocational programs, if those programs have been available at their classification level and facility, using self-study for self-improvement, or showing evidence of remorse.

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)(2)

Fourth Holding:

Recall and resentencing entitles eligible defendants to the benefits of retroactive ameliorative changes to the law, such as Proposition 57, which eliminated the prosecution’s right to file charges for eligible crimes against a minor directly in adult court without a fitness or transfer hearing.

Authority:

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 449

People v. Montes (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 35, 48-49 [ordering superior court to transfer case to juvenile court to hold hearing under Prop. 57 where court had recalled LWOP sentence under sec. 1170(d)(1) for a defendant who had committed crimes when he was 17 years old]

People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 304, 309 [Proposition 57 constituted an ameliorative change to the criminal law, and therefore, it applies retroactively to all juveniles charged directly in adult court whose judgment was not final at the time it was enacted.]

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 161-162 [once a superior court recalls a sentence, it becomes nonfinal, and Proposition 57 applies retroactively]

People v. Ramirez (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 971, 996 [because sentence was vacated under (what is now section 1172.6), defendant’s sentence became nonfinal for purposes of Proposition 57]

Fifth Holding:

In Graham, the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment bars the imposition of an LWOP sentence for a juvenile offender who did not commit a homicide.

In Miller, the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory LWOP sentences for juvenile homicide offenders. In sentencing a juvenile homicide offender the trial court must have the ability to impose a sentence less than LWOP after taking into account youth-related factors and whether the offender may be rehabilitated.

Tha California Supreme Court in Caballero applied the holding in Graham to a 110 years-to-life sentence, describing the sentence as a term-of-years sentence that amounts to the functional equivalent of a life without parole sentence.

Authority:

Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, 82

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 465, 477

People v. Caballero (2012) 55 Cal.4th 262, 265, 267-268

Sixth Holding:

In Contreras, the California Supreme Court considered whether a lengthy term-of-years sentence, though not clearly exceeding a juvenile offender’s natural lifespan, may nonetheless impinge on the same substantive concerns that make the imposition of LWOP on juvenile nonhomicide offenders impermissible under the Eighth Amendment.

The Contreras court concluded that sentences of 50 years or more to life for juvenile nonhomicide offenders were the functional equivalent of LWOP sentences for purposes of the Eighth Amendment because, as contemplated by Graham:

(1) confinement with no possibility of release until age 66 or age 74 seems unlikely to allow for reintegration into society;

(2) a juvenile offender who has no chance to leave prison for 50 years has little incentive to become a responsible individual;

(3) a 50-years-to-life sentence, though less harsh than LWOP, is still an especially harsh punishment for a juvenile, who will on average serve more years and a greater percentage of his life in prison than an adult offender;

(4) Graham’s observation that juveniles have limited ability to consider consequences when making decisions applies to a sentence of 50 years to life just as it does to a sentence of LWOP; and

(5) a judgment that a juvenile offender will be incorrigible for the next 50 years is no less questionable than a judgment that the juvenile offender will be incorrigible forever.

Authority:

People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349, 356, 364

Seventh Holding:

By leaving section 1170(d)(1) in place after enacting section 3051 (which sets up a scheme of parole eligibility consideration for juvenile and young offenders), the Legislature has signaled its preference for section 1170(d)(1) to persist rather than to be stricken, thereby ensuring section 1170(d)(1) provides relief in addition to the relief provided by section 3051.

Authority:

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1063