Category Archives: Gary Musings

Amelioration, Gary Musings, Sentencing

Case 001135

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in concluding that the defendant was ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 because the original trial court struck the punishment for his now-invalid prior prison term enhancement.

Holding:

As of January 1, 2020, SB 136 amended section 667.5(b) to eliminate sentence enhancements for prior prison terms unless the enhancements related to prior terms for sexually violent offenses. The purpose of the statute is to reduce the societal and fiscal burdens of incarceration by eliminating prior-prison-term enhancements for all prior crimes except for sexually violent offenses. Section 1172.75(a), which was added to implement SB 136, states that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b) is legally invalid.

Under Rhodius and Espino, section 1172.75 applies whenever an enhancement under section 667.5(b) was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, even if the court stayed or struck the punishment for it.

Authority:

PEN 667.5(b)

People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562, 567

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1054

People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57

Gary Musings:

The above language “by eliminating prior-prison-term enhancements for all prior crimes except for sexually violent offenses” is a bit looser maybe than it should be. Subdivision (b) was indeed amended, and the subdivision (b) now applies only if the offense was a sexually violent offense as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600(b).

Keep your eyes on the prize here, though. SB 136 did not eliminate prior-prison-term enhancements for “all prior crimes except for sexually violent offenses” as stated in the opinion. It eliminated only those specified in subdivision (b), except for the specified sexually violent offenses.

But SB 136 did NOT eliminate the three-year enhancement specified in section 667.5(a) for any qualifying prior prison terms served for the violent felonies listed in subdivision (c), which itemizes at least 24 crimes and circumstances that give rise to the status as “violent felony.”

I have seen that “by eliminating prior-prison-term enhancements for all prior crimes except for sexually violent offenses” language in other unpublished opinions, and it is a direct quotation from Rhodius itself, at p. 1054. I understand the context because section 1172.75 pertains only to enhancements under subdivision (b).

But I fear that maybe an attorney new to the field might read too much into that phrase. Hence, this Gary Musings to help keep such quick readers from straying. Though Rhodius does use the phrase “all prior crimes” in its fourth paragraph, it more specifically describes the effect of SB 136 in its first paragraph, where it says, “Effective January 1, 2020, the Legislature eliminated these one-year prior-prison-term enhancements except in cases involving prior terms for sexually violent offenses.” (I.e., referring only to the 667.5(b) enhancements.)

The Legislative Counsel’s Digest characterizes the amendment as follows:

“Existing law imposes an additional 3-year sentence for each prior separate prison term served by a defendant where the prior and current offense was a violent felony, as defined. For other felonies, existing law imposes an additional one-year term for each prior separate prison term or county jail felony term, except under specified circumstances.

“This bill would instead impose that additional one-year term served for each prior separate prison term served for a conviction of a sexually violent offense, as defined.”

By using the language  “that additional one-year term served …” in the second paragraph, the Leg Counsel’s digest makes it clear that only the subdivision (b) category has been affected.  It says nothing about the three-year term imposed under section 667.5(a) for violent felonies as defined in subdivision (c). 

The phrase regarding eliminating prior-prison-term enhancements for “all prior crimes except for sexually violent offenses” appears nowhere in SB 136.

So with eyes wide open, recognize that enhancements for prior prison terms for violent felonies described in section 667.5(c) are alive and well.

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

Duty of the court, Gary Musings, Sentencing

Case 001127

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Whether or not the court had the right to issue a protective order during the proceedings prior to entry of judgment, the court failed to terminate the protective order following the judgment. Remanded for that purpose.

First Holding:

The trial court issued a pretrial criminal protective order on behalf of the victim after the defendant entered his plea. The trial court did not make any findings on the record but ordered no contact with the victim and a 100-yard stay away order There were no objections from counsel. According to the criminal protect order, the orders remain in effect until further court order.

The court had no authority to issue a protective order under section 136.2(a) after sentencing, and it did not issue one. But the order that it made after the guilty plea stated it was to remain in effect until further order of the court, which the court never made. We therefore remand to the trial court to issue a proper notice of termination of protective order so that proper authorities will know that the order has expired.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 236

Second Holding:

Section 136.2 is limited to the pendency of a criminal action because section 136.2 is aimed at protecting only victims or witnesses.

Authority:

PEN 136.2(a)

People v. Selga (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 113, 118

People v. Stone (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 153, 159 superseded in statute as stated in Babalola v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 948, 960, related to the issuance of restraining orders in domestic violence cases

(Gary Musings:

(This case had an interesting twist. The attorney filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. A Wende brief is filed when appointed counsel determines that there are no arguable issues to raise in the appeal. After setting forth the statements of the case and facts sufficient to guide the Court of Appeal, the brief asks the appellate court to independently review the entire record to determine whether there are issues that counsel should brief. The defendant is given an opportunity to submit a supplemental brief in which the defendant argues whatever the defendant believes to be an issue.

(The Wende brief process is available only in appointed appeals, and applies only to the first appeal of right–essentially to the direct appeal from the conviction initiated within the timeframe for the filing of a notice of appeal following entry of judgment. Wende was California’s ultimate answer to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. In essence, I assume there was concern that appointed counsel may have less incentive to go the whole mile for the client.

(Keep in mind we’re talking about conditions more than 60 years ago, around the time Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335 extended the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. While I am certain that there were many attorneys who diligently sacrificed many hours for their indigent client, I also assume that there must have been concern that maybe not all attorneys put in as much effort on appointed cases as they would for their wealthy clients. The independent review of the record by the court was designed to protect the indigent defendants from inadequate effort.

(There’s probably much more to it than I stated, and perhaps I even have missed the mark on why Anders came about. But regardless of what was written, I suspect there was some wink wink nod nod behind the scenes recognizing that some cases demonstrated a tad bit of underrepresentation. Maybe I’m wrong. It doesn’t change the quirk in this case, however.

(By the way, the same concern–whatever it might have been–does not arise with retained counsel. Presumably retained attorneys have a financial incentive to do as much as they possibly can for their clients.

(All that is background–accurate or not–for the twist in this case. The defendant’s supplemental brief essentially was a challenge to his guilty plea. Thus, a certificate of probable cause would normally be required, under section 1237.5 and Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b). Had appointed counsel attempted to raise the arguments the defendant raised on his own, the court would not have been permitted to address the issues, because there is no latitude when an issue requires a certificate of probable cause and one has not been issued.

(But in this case, the court concluded that Wende requires it to conduct a full review of the record and to address with reasons all of the issues presented by the defendant in a supplemental brief. Specifically, in People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, the Supreme Court imposed a judicial principle that when an indigent defendant submits a supplemental brief following counsel’s filing of a Wende brief, the appellate court must address all of the issues raised and state reasons for its conclusions on their merits.

(In this case, the Court of Appeal concluded that the lack of a certificate of probable cause was not a bar to its review of the issues raised by the defendant himself in a supplemental brief, in compliance with Wende and Kelly.

(Keep in mind that this is NOT a published opinion, and thus cannot be cited to compel an appellate court to ignore the absence of a certificate of probable cause when reviewing a defendant’s post-Wende supplemental brief. But Wende and Kelly were published opinions, and there’s no reason that I am aware of that counsel could not urge the court to grant a petition for rehearing if the court declined to address the defendant’s supplemental brief issues because of a lack of a certificate of probable cause.)

Authority (the middle two only in Gary Musings):

People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335

Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738

People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106

Gary Musings, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 001093

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to impose a sentence under the One Strike law, because the date of the offense was prior to the amendment in 2006 that added the section violated by the defendant to the list of crimes that may be prosecuted under the One Strike law.

First Holding:

In 1994, the Legislature enacted the “One Strike” law requiring indeterminate life sentences for certain sex offenses committed under particular circumstances. Prior to 2006, section 288.5 did not qualify as a One Strike offense. Consequently in 2006, the Legislature amended section 667.61 to encompass continuous sexual abuse under section 288.5(a), as a One Strike offense.

Authority:

PEN 667.61

People v. Valenti (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1173–1174

Second Holding:

At sentencing, the trial court sentenced the defendant under the One Strike law for his count 7 conviction. However, the 2006 amendment to the One Strike law was inapplicable the defendant’s crime of continuous sexual abuse conviction because the crime took place from 1997 to 2001. Consequently, the trial court improperly applied the One Strike law retroactively. As a result, we vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand for a full resentencing hearing at which defendant has a right to be present with counsel.

Authority:

Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 42–43

(Gary note: This case demonstrates the importance of reviewing the statutes in effect at the time of the commission of the crime. Counsel should not just assume that the version of the statute in existence today applied at the time the crime was committed. While I firmly believe counsel should always check, it just cries out with red flags when the crime in question occurred decades earlier. Where was counsel? Yes, I’m Monday Morning Quarterbacking here, but I just cannot fathom representing someone facing serious sex charges decades old and not checking to see if the very complex provisions of the One Strike law even apply.

(I am not embarrassed to soapbox here. Attorneys do not have easy jobs, and criminal defense attorneys need to understand that they are critical in how much life and liberty remain for their criminal clients. We cannot take it for granted that the probation department and the prosecution and the judge got it right. We have to examine every detail and ethically exploit every possibility to ensure that our clients, if convicted, do not serve one minute in custody longer than legally permitted by law and under their circumstances.

(Our clients are real people, and they have to count on us to do our best, and they deserve our best. No one who thinks otherwise should even consider being a criminal defense attorney. Raise your hand if you think a day in jail or a day in prison is like a day in the park with the kids or pets. Raise your hand if you have no problem paying the level of fines and fees imposed, particularly when assessments are piled on top of the stated fine. Raise your hand if you don’t think these penalties mean anything to your clients, or at least that they don’t care whether you are able to minimize the custody or the financial burdens.)

Fines and fees, Gary Musings, Sentencing

Case 001000

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The sentence on the defendant’s misdemeanor counts should have been stayed under section 654 as part of the same conduct as the felony.

First Holding:

Under rule 4.412(b), a defendant is estopped from challenging his or her sentence based on section 654’s prohibition of double punishment where the defendant agreed to a specified term in prison or county jail and is sentenced to that term or a shorter one. Rule 4.412(b) codifies one of the applications of the case law rule that defendants are estopped from complaining of sentences to which they agreed.

But in this case, the defendant did not expressly agree to any sentencing irregularity in exchange for a benefit. The record shows that it was an open plea, meaning that no promises were made as to his sentence. The defendant agreed that he could be sentenced to up to four years in one case and six years in the other, but those terms represented the maximum permitted for the offenses regardless of any plea agreementg. He faced anything up to and including the maximum term allowed.

Authority:

PEN 654

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.412(b)

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

People v. Velasquez (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 503

People v. Superior Court (Sanchez) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 567, 574–575

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 156

People v. Henderson (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 785, 788 [an open plea is one under which there is no promise about the nature or duration of the defendant’s sentence]

Second Holding (and Gary Musings):

In Jones, the defendant agreed to plead no contest to all charges and admit the enhancement allegations in exchange for a lid below the maximum term in sentencing. The lid was not the maximum exposure Jones would otherwise face absent the plea agreement. Rather, it restricted the sentence the trial court could impose but to a term less than Jones’s maximum exposure. It was not an open plea.

In Cole, the defendant pleaded guilty on the condition that his sentence would not exceed 25 years to life, whereas he was exposed to a term of 75 years to life but for the agreed lid. It, too, was not an open plea.

Thus, in Jones and Cole, the estoppel principle described in Hester applied, because the defendants were not permitted to complain on appeal about sentences that were limited by the terms of their pleas to something lower than the maximum that could have been imposed in the absence of their agreements.

That is not the case here, as the agreement did not specify a lid. There was simply a recognition of the maximum possible sentence that could be imposed for each count, regardless of any agreement.

(Gary note: In Jones and Cole, as stated in Jones, had they a problem with their sentences, they should have attempted to withdraw their pleas in the trial court when the sentences were imposed. Though not expressed, implicit in the court’s reliance on Cole and Jones as examples where estoppel applies is the recognition that an appeal from a denied motion to withdraw a plea requires a certificate of probable cause. For a pretty good discussion of certificates of probable cause, I have included Buttram in the Authority listed below, but it was not cited by or discussed in the opinion.

(If your client wishes to appeal after entering a plea agreement of any sort, you need to research whether a certificate of probable cause is required. If there is any chance at all that the appeal would undermine any of the terms of the plea agreement, a certificate is likely required. A common myth is that a certificate is not required to appeal any errors alleged to have occurred after the plea. Don’t fall for it. Instead, the focus is on the plea agreement itself. And the requirement of a certificate of probable cause is separate from the doctrine of estoppel addressed in this opinion. In Jones, there was no disagreement that omission of the application of section 654 created an unauthorized sentence. The obstacle was that the defendant was estopped from raising the issue because of his agreement.

(Although they’re all important, one must-read case is People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, which I’ve listed below but was not cited by the court here. The defendant pleaded guilty with an agreement on the sentence. Unbeknownst to him at the time of his own sentencing, his co-defendants apparently received significantly lower sentences. He appealed, claiming his sentence was disproportionate. Because he had not sought and been issued a certificate of probable cause, the Supreme Court concluded his appeal should have been dismissed. His challenge to his sentence, even on constitutional grounds, was a challenge to his plea, and thus a certificate was required.

(Also note that, under section 1237.5(a), a certificate of probable cause can be issued only where the application for a certificate shows “reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings.”

(Although it is described as a certificate of probable cause, “it is not the trial court’s responsibility to determine if there was error in the proceedings. The trial court’s sole objective is to eliminate those appeals having no possible legal basis by refusing to issue a certificate of probable cause. See People v. Holland (1978) 23 Cal.3d 77, 84, quoting People v. Warburton (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 815, 819. Holland also reminds us (in footnote 6) that a petition for writ of mandate is the means by which one may challenge a denial of an application for certificate of probable cause. Neither Holland nor Warburton were cited in the opinion, because a certificate of probable cause was not even an issue in the case.

(Until 2022, if it appeared to the clerk of the superior court that a notice of appeal from a guilty plea required a certificate of probable cause, the clerk would mark the notice received but inoperable. To get past that hurdle, the notice would have to reflect that it is a challenge to the sentence and was not a challenge to the plea (or that it was an appeal from a guilty plea after a denial of a motion to suppress evidence on search and seizure grounds under section 1538.5. Rule 8.304(b) was amended effective 1/1/22, and now provides that “If the defendant does not file the written statement required by Penal Code section 1237.5 or the superior court denies a certificate of probable cause, the appeal will be limited to issues that do not require a certificate of probable cause.” That was a vast improvement, from our defense perspective, because at least the notice of appeal initiated an appeal, albeit only on grounds not requiring a certificate.

(All of this Gary note is triggered by the court’s comment in Jones, cited by this court as distinguishable, that a defendant facing a 654 problem on an agreed-upon sentence must deal with it at the trial court level by moving to withdraw his or her plea timely. So this Gary note is really dealing with sub-sub-nonissues that I think you should nonetheless be aware of. Think of this lengthy aside as getting more for your money. Money? We ain’t got no money! We don’t need no money. You don’t have to show me any stinking money. Oops, sorry, got carried away a bit there.)

Authority:

People v. Jones (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 735, 739

People v. Cole (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 850, 856-858

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

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773,

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68

People v. Holland (1978) 23 Cal.3d 77, 84

People v. Warburton (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 815, 819

Third Holding:

Section 654 precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. 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. If, on the other hand, defendant harbored multiple criminal objectives, which were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for each statutory violation committed in pursuit of each objective, “even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Assad (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 187, 200

People v. Rodriguez (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005

Fourth Holding:

As there was no discussion at sentencing of section 654, we must affirm the sentence if an implied finding that section 654 does not apply is supported by substantial evidence. The record demonstrate that the defendant committed the offenses the misdemeanor cases with the objective to steal the contents of his victims’ vehicles. There is no evidence to support a finding that he formed a separate intent and objective for each offense for which he was sentenced. Accordingly, the sentences on the misdemeanor counts must be stayed.

Authority:

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 730–731

People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 162

Fifth Holding:

Separate restitution fines may be imposed for each case that are not consolidated, even if resolved jointly by plea bargain. Defendants who commit multiple crimes, and are consequently before the court in multiple cases when their pleas are taken, are properly subject to multiple fines. This straightforward application of the requirement that fines be imposed in every case serves the purpose of the state Restitution Fund, as well as the rehabilitative and deterrent functions of restitution fines.

Authority:

People v. Soria (2010) 48 Cal.4th 58, 64-66