Category Archives: Jurisdiction

Due process, Duty of counsel, Duty of the court, Effective assistance of counsel, Jurisdiction, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001026

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Twenty-one years after his conviction of murder committed when he was 20, the defendant filed a motion for a hearing under Franklin. The court (Judge A) appointed counsel and set a hearing date to determine whether the defendant was entitled to a full evidence preservation hearing. The defendant’s attorney ultimately filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, requesting that the matter be taken off the calendar, stating that the defendant was not entitled to a Franklin hearing under Hardin. There was no indication that counsel had discussed this with the defendant. The defendant was not present. The court (Judge B) relieved counsel and took the matter off calendar.

The order relieving defendant’s appointed counsel is reversed. Upon remand, the trial court shall issue an order reinstating counsel and set the request for a formal, noticed hearing in which defendant is given notice and an opportunity to respond.

To the extent defendant maintains upon remand that appointed counsel’s representation is inadequate or ineffective, the trial court is directed to consider any such claim under the principles set forth in People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118

The trial court is further directed to set a new hearing for defendant’s Franklin motion if the defendant requests such relief upon remand.

First Holding:

Section 3051 offers youth offenders committed for long prison terms an opportunity for early release on parole. It requires the Board of Parole Hearings to conduct a youth offender parole eligibility hearing to determine if, based on certain criteria involving the controlling offense, the offender is eligible for parole. The hearing must provide for a meaningful opportunity to obtain release, and includes an assessment of the offender’s growth and maturity that takes into consideration the diminished culpability of youth as compared to that of adults and the hallmark features of youth.

Given these factors, the California Supreme Court held in Franklin that when a juvenile offender receives an indeterminate life sentence, the offender must be given adequate opportunity at sentencing to make a record of mitigating evidence tied to his youth.

Authority:

PEN 3051

People v. Williams (2024) 17 Cal.5th 99, 113

People v. Medrano (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 961, 967

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 269

Second Holding:

In Cook, the California Supreme Court extended the availability of a Franklin hearing to a juvenile offender whose conviction and sentence have become final. Specifically, it held that an offender entitled to a youth offender parole hearing may seek the remedy of a Franklin proceeding even though the offender’s sentence is otherwise final. To initiate such a proceeding, an offender should file a motion requesting a hearing under the authority of section 1203.01.

Authority:

PEN 1203.01

People v. Ngo (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 116, 127

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 451

People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141, 150

Third Holding:

The proper avenue to request a Franklin proceeding is to file a motion in superior court under the original caption and case number, citing the authority of section 1203.01 and Cook. The motion should establish the inmate’s entitlement to a youth offender parole hearing and indicate when such hearing is anticipated to take place, or if one or more hearings have already occurred. Nothing in Cook indicates the motion must describe with precision the evidence the offender seeks to introduce.

There are no mandatory pleading requirements for a Franklin motion, and the required showing to initiate the process for a Franklin proceeding is minimal: due to the limited resources generally available to inmates, the Cook court reasonably envisioned a simple pleading mechanism to get the process started.

Authority:

People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141, 150

People v. Lipptrapp (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 886, 896

Fourth Holding:

A legally sufficient Franklin motion does not automatically guarantee a defendant the right to do so. Rather, such a motion only initiates the process for a Franklin proceeding. Based solely on the motion, the trial court may immediately find a Franklin proceeding is warranted. The trial court may also exercise its discretion to conduct this process efficiently, ensuring that the information introduced is relevant, noncumulative, and otherwise in accord with the governing rules, statutes, and regulations.

The court may, for example, require an offer of proof regarding the evidence the offender seeks to present, so that it can determine whether such evidence is relevant to youth-related factors and meaningfully adds to the already available record. It may also determine whether testimony is appropriate, or if other types of evidentiary submissions will suffice. After allowing a defendant an opportunity of this nature, the court may deny further proceedings if it finds they are unlikely to produce fruitful evidence.

Authority:

People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141, 152

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 149

Fifth Holding:

Courts have subsequently held that a Franklin motion may also be used to raise a challenge to section 3051’s limitations on the availability of youth offender parole hearings on equal protection grounds.

While the California Supreme Court has concluded that section 3051’s exclusion of offenders who are serving sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole for a crime committed after the age of 18 from youth offender parole eligibility is not facially unconstitutional, it expressly left the door open to the potential validity of challenges to other exclusions set forth in section 3051 as well as as-applied challenges based on particular special circumstances or the factual circumstances of individual cases.

Authority:

People v. Sands (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 193, 201-202

People v. Briscoe (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 479, 486-489

People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 864

Sixth Holding:

Generally, a trial court’s removal of appointed counsel for an indigent defendant is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Here, we have determined the trial court’s order granting appointed counsel’s request to be relieved constituted an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1119

People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1190

People v. Wright (2021) 12 Cal.5th 419, 440

Seventh Holding:

Generally, both the United States Constitution and California Constitution guarantee a basic right of due process, and the fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

The Supreme Court has held that a prisoner may derive a due process liberty interest from either the Constitution or state law. When the asserted interest is derived exclusively from state law, it will be recognized as within the scope of due process liberty if the state statute protects the interest by permitting its forfeiture only on the happening of specified conditions.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 14th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, secs. 7, 15

People v. Allen (2008) 44 Cal.4th 843, 869

People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260, 265

Eighth Holding:

Generally, having undertaken the defense of a criminal case an attorney must continue with his services until he is released by the client or by the court. He may apply to the court for release from further services and for good cause shown may be released, but he may not abandon his representation at will. In light of this principle, it is established that the procedural requirements of sections 284 and 285 of the Code of Civil Procedure govern a change of attorney in a criminal, as well as in a civil, proceeding.

These statutes specify that in order to withdraw from representation, an attorney must either obtain the consent of the client or bring a formal application in the trial court with notice to the client. The legislative purpose of these provisions is to provide certain safeguards to protect the accused.

Authority:

CCP 284

CCP 285

People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 404, 406

Smith v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 68 Cal.2d 547, 558-559 [The sole statutory authority for the removal of counsel is Code of Civil Procedure section 284. That statute is applicable in criminal cases.]

In re Martinez (1959) 52 Cal.2d 808, 813

People v. Bouchard (1957) 49 Cal.2d 438, 440

People v. Kerfoot (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 622, 636

Ninth Holding:

Here, the trial court granted appointed counsel’s request to be relieved without complying with the statutory safeguards intended to afford defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard. The trial court conducted a hearing and granted the request the day after it was filed.

There is nothing in the record to show that defendant received any notice of appointed counsel’s request to be relieved. Nor was defendant present at the hearing. Such a procedure clearly violated defendant’s right to due process. And an order made in violation of a party’s due process right to notice and an opportunity to be heard constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Kerfoot (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 622, 636 [Adequacy of notice is an element of due process of law. There is no due process of law in the complete absence of any notice.]

People v. Williams (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 828, 833 [Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard even where statutory procedures are unclear.]

People v. Johnson (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 5

Tenth Holding:

It is well established that a trial judge ordinarily may reconsider his or her own prejudgment rulings. There are limits, however, on the authority of one superior court judge to set aside the order of another judge of the same court. Under article VI, section 4, of the California Constitution, one judge or department of the superior court cannot enjoin, restrain, or otherwise interfere with the judicial act of another judge or department of the superior court.

This rule prevents a trial court judge from acting as a one-judge appellate court over another judge. This is true even if the first judge committed legal error in ruling on the matter. The rule also bars a second judge from reconsidering another judge’s discretionary appointment of counsel.

Here, the order relieving counsel was made by a different judge than the one who previously appointed counsel and set the Franklin motion for a hearing.

The record shows that the first judge reviewed defendant’s Franklin motion and, based upon that review, appointed counsel and set the matter for a hearing. Thus, the question of whether defendant had established a prima facie showing sufficient to entitle him to appointment of counsel was already considered and decided by the first judge.

Even if that determination was erroneous, the second judge could not relieve counsel by purportedly reviewing the sufficiency of defendant’s prima facie showing anew and determining that it was inadequate to warrant appointment of counsel. Doing so would have constituted an impermissible reconsideration.

To be clear, a motion to be relieved may be heard by a judge other than the one who initially appointed counsel. However, the motion must be determined on its own merits based upon the showing and arguments presented in conjunction with that request.

Authority:

Calif. Const. art VI, sec. 4

People v. Waldon (2023) 14 Cal.5th 288, 306

In re Alberto (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 421, 426-431 [second judge could not reconsider bail set by first judge even if first judge failed to correctly apply statutes in setting bail]

People v. Goodwillie (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 695, 712-713 [trial judge erred by relieving advisory counsel previously appointed by another judge]

Eleventh Holding:

In our view, the error in this case is akin to structural error requiring reversal. Typically, a defendant who has established error under state law must demonstrate there is a reasonable probability that in the absence of the error he or she would have obtained a more favorable result. However, under the California constitutional harmless-error provision some errors are not susceptible to the ordinary or generally applicable harmless-error analysis.

The kinds of errors that, regardless of the evidence, may result in a miscarriage of justice because they operate to deny a criminal defendant the constitutionally required orderly legal procedure all involve fundamental structural defects in the judicial proceedings.

Most errors are amenable to harmless error review because they can be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented.

Structural defects, on the other hand, defy analysis by harmless-error standards because they are not simply an error in the trial process, but rather an error affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds. A structural error requires per se reversal because it cannot be fairly determined how a trial would have been resolved if the grave error had not occurred.

Authority:

People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 553

People v. Lewis (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1078, 1111

Abstracts and Minutes, Jurisdiction, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 001013

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in revoking the defendant’s probation after the period of probation had expired, because it no longer had jurisdiction once the probation period expired.

First Holding:

A trial court, in the order granting probation, may suspend the imposing or the execution of the sentence and may direct that the suspension may continue for a period of time not exceeding two years.

Revocation is a two-step process. First, when presented with probable cause of a violation, a court may summarily revoke supervision and issue a bench warrant for the defendant’s arrest.

Second, the defendant is entitled to a formal hearing at which the prosecution must prove the violation and a disposition may be made. If the violation is found true, the court may, among other options, terminate supervision and order incarceration in jail, or it may reinstate supervision and modify the conditions, such as by imposing a period of jail incarceration.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1(a)

People v. Braud (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 962, 966

Second Holding:

The revocation, summary or otherwise, shall serve to toll the running of the period of supervision. However, while the trial court has the power to extend the probationary term, tolling at the summary revocation stage does not automatically extend the probationary period but rather preserves the court’s jurisdiction to proceed to the second step, a formal hearing to decide whether there has been a violation during the probation period, after the probation period has expired.

Authority:

PEN 1203.2(a)

People v. Leiva (2013) 56 Cal.4th 498, 504)

People v. Braud (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 962, 968

Third Holding:

The defendant was placed on two years probation. The parties disagree on whether probation expired in April or had been extended to a late August date. Although a minute order of a hearing held on a date in late August stated that it was revoked on a specific date a few weeks before the hearing, the court never stated that probation was revoked at a hearing.

A trial court’s oral pronouncements control over a subsequently entered minute order. Moreover, the minutes from that earlier hearing do not say probation was revoked. There was no reporter at that earlier hearing. Thus, the record does not support the assertion that probation was revoked at that early August hearing.

Instead, the record does reflect that the court purported to revoke probation two months later, in October. But whether probation was set to expire in April (as the defendant claimed) or in August (as the prosecution claimed), both dates had passed before the October hearing.

As the probation expiration date had passed (whether in April or August), the court no longer had jurisdiction to decide whether the defendant had violated probation.

Authority:

People v. Sanchez (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 907, 918–919

People v. Braud (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 962, 968


(Gary note: I recognize that this summary is inartfully worded, a product of my attempt to anonymize the participants. During the defendant’s probation, it was revoked and reinstated a number of times. At some point–whether April or August–probation expired during a period when there was no order revoking probation, summary or otherwise. Had the court timely summarily revoked probation before its term expired, it would have had jurisdiction over the case even after the term expired. By not putting the probation into a “revocation” mode, probation simply terminated when the expiration date arrived. At that point, the court lost jurisdiction to conduct revocation proceedings.)

Appellate Principles, Jurisdiction, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000977

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals the no-contact and stay-away orders imposed by the trial court as part of his prison sentence and as a condition of his parole following his conviction for petty theft and making criminal threats.

The Attorney General argues the defendant forfeited this issue by failing to object to the orders in the trial court.

We disagree and strike the no-contact and stay-away orders because the trial court lacked authority to issue them and otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

Normally, only claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal. In the sentencing context, we have applied the rule to claims of error asserted by both the People and the defendant.

We have, however, created a narrow exception to the waiver rule for unauthorized sentences or sentences entered in excess of jurisdiction.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852

Second Holding:

A claim that a sentence is unauthorized may be raised for the first time on appeal, and is subject to judicial correction whenever the error comes to the attention of the reviewing court. A sentence is generally unauthorized where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. Such error is clear and correctable independent of any factual issues presented by the record at sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Dotson (1997) 16 Cal.4th 547, 554, fn. 6

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354

Third Holding:

The trial court did not have statutory authority to impose no-contact or stay-away orders in these circumstances. While there are statutory provisions that allow a trial court to impose no-contact and stay-away orders in other circumstances, for example, domestic violence cases, cases involving sexual assault of a minor, stalking cases, as a condition of probation, or during active criminal proceedings, there are no statutes specifically authorizing the trial court here to impose no-contact and stay-away orders as part of the defendant’s prison sentence or as a condition of his parole.

Authority:

PEN 1203.097

PEN 1202.05(a)

PEN 646.9(k)

PEN 1203.1(j)

PEN 136.2

Fourth Holding:

Ponce rejected the argument that that trial courts, independent of statutes, have inherent authority to protect trial participants, citing both California and federal cases. It held that even if the trial court had relied on inherent judicial authority to issue its order, the result would not change.

An existing body of statutory law regulates restraining orders. Inherent powers should never be exercised in such a manner as to nullify existing legislation. Where the Legislature authorizes a specific variety of available procedures, the courts should use them and should normally refrain from exercising their inherent powers to invent alternatives.

The trial court here should have refrained from acting because there is an existing body of statutory law regulating no-contact and stay-away orders.

Authority:

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 383-384

Fifth Holding:

The Legislature has adopted specific statutory provisions authorizing parole boards to impose no-contact and stay-away orders as a condition of parole. Under this statutory scheme, the victims here can request the parole board to include no-contact and stay-away orders as a condition of the defendant’s parole.

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(a) authorizes trial courts to issue orders to protect against any threats or harassment after notice and hearing.

Therefore, because the Legislature already authorizes available procedures for no-contact and stay-away orders for the victims in this case, the trial court was not authorized to impose them under its inherent authority.

Authority:

PEN 3053.2(a) [the parole board must impose a no-contact order as a condition of parole if requested by the victim]

PEN 3053(a) [the parole board may also impose on the parole any conditions that it may deem proper]

CCP 527.6(a)

Discretion, Jurisdiction, Juveniles, Standard of review

Case 000881

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The juvenile court abused its discretion because its decision to transfer the minor to adult criminal court was not supported by substantial evidence. We vacate the transfer order and remand.

First Holding:

In California, a juvenile court is a superior court that exercises limited jurisdiction arising under juvenile law. The initial jurisdiction of a juvenile court is based on the age of the person when he violates a criminal law or ordinance, it is not based on the age when he is actually apprehended.

After a juvenile court has initial jurisdiction over a minor, the juvenile court generally retains jurisdiction until he turns 21 years old. However, if a person is alleged to have committed one of 30 serious offenses under section 707(b), then the juvenile court may continue to exercise jurisdiction over that person for a limited period after he turns 21.

Relevant to this case, a juvenile court may retain jurisdiction over a person who is 25 years of age or older for a period not to exceed two years from the date of disposition if the person is found to be a person described in section 602 by reason of the commission of an offense listed in section 707(b). The court shall exercise jurisdiction in conformance with the objectives of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 607(a), (d)

WIC 707(b)

In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 200

M.E. v. Superior Court (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1199, 1205 [explaining initial jurisdiction and noting that it is theoretically possible for a person to commit a crime at the age of 17, be arrested 50 years later, and be subject to the initial jurisdiction of the juvenile court at age 67]

In re Keith C. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 151, 155

Second Holding:

If a minor was 16 years or older when he committed a felony or one of 30 serious offenses under section 707(b), the district attorney may file a motion to transfer the minor from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction. In order to transfer a minor to a criminal court, the prosecutor must show by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

To resolve a transfer motion, section 707 requires the juvenile court to consider five factors: (1) the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited; (2) whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction; (3) prior delinquent history; (4) the success of prior attempts by a juvenile court at rehabilitation; and (5) the circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged.

While the juvenile court must consider these five factors, the weight each factor receives is within the juvenile court’s discretion.

Thus, the juvenile court has the discretion to conclude that one or more of the five factors predominate so as to determine the result, even though some or all of the other factors might point to a different result. If a juvenile court grants a transfer motion, section 707(a)(3) requires the juvenile court to recite the basis for its decision in an order entered upon the minutes, which shall include the reasons supporting the court’s finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Section 707 also provides additional nonexhaustive considerations for assessing each of the five factors.

As relevant to this case, with respect to the second factor, section 707 directs the juvenile court to give weight to any relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the minor’s potential to grow and mature. The second factor is not the same as the ultimate determination of whether the minor is amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Rather, the focus of the second factor is whether there is enough time to rehabilitate the minor while he is still eligible to remain under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.

Therefore, the prosecution should produce evidence that the juvenile court will have insufficient time to rehabilitate the minor.

Authority:

WIC 707

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 158-160

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 164, 166-167

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 186

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 417

Third Holding:

A juvenile court’s decision to transfer a minor to the jurisdiction of a criminal court is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. A court abuses its discretion by issuing an order that exceeds the bounds of reason. A court may also abuse its discretion if its understanding of the applicable law is incorrect, it is unaware of the full scope of its discretion, or it relies on impermissible criteria.

The juvenile court’s findings on the five section 707(a)(3) factors, as well as its ultimate finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under its jurisdiction, are reviewed for substantial evidence. Because the clear and convincing evidence standard applies to a motion to transfer, we determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability demanded by that standard.

Authority:

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 160

People v. K.D. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1, 18

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 156

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 187

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165

Fourth Holding:

It is clear from the record that the court was not aware that it had jurisdiction for at least two years from the date the disposition was ordered, regardless of the person’s age (which, in this case was the mid 30s). Because the juvenile court found that it had lost jurisdiction based on the minor’s age alone, its finding is contrary to section 607(d) and thus, rests on an incorrect understanding of the law. Therefore, the court abused its discretion in its assessment of the second factor of section 707(a)(3).

Authority:

Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540 [An order that implicitly or explicitly rests on an erroneous reading of the law necessarily is an abuse of discretion.]

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 156

People v. K.D. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1, 18-19

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 187

Fifth Holding:

All defendants are entitled to decisions made in the exercise of the trial court’s informed discretion. A court does not exercise informed discretion when its decision is based on a misunderstanding of applicable law.

Because there has been a misunderstanding of applicable law by the juvenile court, we must determine whether the record clearly indicates that the juvenile court still would have ordered the minor transferred to the criminal court if it had correctly understood the applicability of section 607(d).

Given the apparent importance of the second factor, and that the record does not clearly indicate how the juvenile court would have assessed the second factor under the applicable law, we must remand this matter for the court to make further findings.

Authority:

People v. Murphy (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 249, 256

Jurisdiction, Juveniles

Case 000774

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The juvenile court erred by holding the minor jointly and severally liable for victim restitution.

First Holding:

Restitution orders are subject to review on appeal for an abuse of discretion. The ‘court abuses its discretion when it acts contrary to law.

Authority:

In re Travis J. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 187, 202

Second Holding:

Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 governs restitution in cases where a minor is adjudicated a ward of the court pursuant to section 602. Under this statute, a victim of conduct for which a minor is found to be a person described in section 602 who incurs an economic loss as a result of the minor’s conduct shall receive restitution directly from that minor.

For the purposes of victim restitution, each minor shall be held severally liable, and shall not be held jointly and severally liable as co-offenders. The court shall apportion liability based on each minor’s percentage of responsibility or fault for all economic losses included in the order of restitution. The aggregate amount of apportioned liability for all minors involved shall not exceed 100 percent in total.

Authority:

WIC 730.6

WIC 602

In re M.W. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1, 4

Third Holding:

The error has not been waived, as the failure to object to a restitution order that exceeds the court’s statutory authority does not waive the claim of error.

Authority:

In re Paul R. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1582, 1590

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Gary Musings, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case 000701 and Gary Musings

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred when it failed to order joint and several liability for the victim’s restitution. The co-defendant was tried separately and sentenced by a different judge in an earlier proceeding.

First Holding:

In the co-defendant’s proceedings, the court ordered joint and several liability for the victim’s restitution, but in sentencing the defendant in this proceeding, the court (a different judge) made no mention of joint and several liability. A joint and several direct victim restitution order under section 1202.4(f) is not expressly permitted by statute, but is also not prohibited. The trial court therefore has discretion to make the obligation of multiple codefendants joint and several.

Authority:

People v. Arnold (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1099

People v. Neely (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 787, 800

People v. Madrana (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1049, 1051–1052

Second Holding:

A restitution order is intended to compensate the victim for the actual loss he or she incurred; however, it is not intended to provide the victim with recovery greater than that amount. When multiple defendants are culpable, the issue of double recovery is avoided when the trial court holds codefendants jointly and severally liable for the full amount of a crime victim’s economic loss.

Authority:

People v. Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1172

People v. Fortune (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 790, 794–795

People v. Leon (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 620, 622 [a court may impose liability on each defendant to pay the full amount of the economic loss, as long as the victim does not obtain a double recovery]

Third Holding:

An abstract of judgment may be modified to reflect that the victim restitution order is a joint and several obligation.

Authority:

People v. Cornejo (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 36, 43

People v. Neely (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 787, 800–801 [ordering modification of the judgment to expressly state that the restitution order is joint and several as to the defendant and the codefendant]

People v. Blackburn (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1520, 1535 [to avoid double recovery, appellate court modified judgment to provide expressly that the direct victim restitution ordered is joint and several]

Fourth Holding:

As a matter of equity, and because there is no double recovery, the matter should be remanded so that the court can modify the restitution order to make liability joint and several. Section 1202.46 confers continuing jurisdiction to modify an order for victim restitution.

Authority:

PEN 1202.46

People v. Blackburn (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1520, 1535

Gary Musings, Triggered By Third Holding:

Gary Musings note: I think the “Third Holding” and the authorities cited by the court demonstrate a prime example of the importance of reading the cases cited, and do not simply rely on what I have written in these summaries. A critical component of this decision that causes me pause is that the trial court did NOT make an order for joint and several liability; it apparently made no comment on it at all. This is not a case where the record shows that the court did so order but the order didn’t get reported properly in the abstract of judgment or minute order. It is not a case where the judge made comments indicating an intent to order joint and several liability, but the order was not expressed by the court. This is a case where the judge simply gave no indication at all regarding joint and several liability with the co-defendant who had been sentenced in a different proceeding.

First, I do not doubt that the Court of Appeal has the authority to modify the judgment OR the abstract of judgment. Section 1260 states, “The court may reverse, affirm, or modify a judgment or order appealed from, or reduce the degree of the offense or attempted offense or the punishment imposed, and may set aside, affirm, or modify any or all of the proceedings subsequent to, or dependent upon, such judgment or order, and may, if proper, order a new trial and may, if proper, remand the cause to the trial court for such further proceedings as may be just under the circumstances.”

But if I had submitted a brief that relied on the Cornejo, Neely, and Blackburn cases as authority for the court to actually change a judgment by ordering modification of the abstract of judgment, I think I could legitimately expect the opposition to point out the following rebuttals.

(A.) One cannot tell from the Cornejo decision whether the trial court had ordered joint and several liability but it wasn’t reflected in the abstract, or whether the trial court was silent and the appellate court simply modified the judgment by modifying the abstract (which is what happened in this Case 000701). Thus, we cannot determine whether the modification simply recorded the actual order in the abstract of judgment or the appellate modified the judgment. We don’t know.

(B.) In Neely, the trial court DID order joint and several liability, and the abstract simply did not reflect that, so the appellate court ordered the abstract amended to reflect what the trial court ordered. (That is NOT what happened in this Case 000701.)

(C.) In Blackburn–a case somewhat similar to this Case 000701 in that both defendants were sentenced at different times–the appellate court concluded that the trial court DID intend joint and several liability. Blackburn said, “The trial court had the authority to order direct victim restitution paid by both defendants jointly and severally. It seems glaringly obvious that is what it did here. In this light, there is no double recovery; nor is Jackson entitled to have Blackburn’s restitution obligation credited against his. Of course, each defendant is entitled to a credit for any actual payments by the other. To make sure this is clear (though out of an excess of caution), we will modify the judgment so as to provide expressly that the direct victim restitution ordered is joint and several.”

In other words, Blackburn approached it by clarifying what was “glaringly obvious”–that the trial court actually did order joint and several liability.

I think this points out the importance of actually reading the cases that you, as the defense attorney, intend to rely on, AND of actually reading the cases that your opposition cites.

And don’t stop there. Suppose Case 000701 was actually a published opinion, and you wanted to rely on it to get the appellate court in your client’s case to modify the abstract of judgment. If all you cited was the published decision in People v. Case 000701, you MIGHT prevail. But if your opposing party delved deeper, it could respond with an argument discounting the authority of People v. Case 000701, because Case 000701 (arguably) relied on cases that were not authority because they really did not have the same situation as People v. Case 000701. Remember the appellate principle: A case is not authority for propositions not considered. (People v. Chavez (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 477, 480).

 

Jurisdiction, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000682

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The evidence is insufficient to establish that one of the charged counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child based on sexual penetration took place within the jurisdiction of the superior court, and reverse the conviction on that count.

Holding:

There was insufficient evidence that more than one of the two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child by sexual penetration occurred in a city in California, as opposed to Mexico.

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment and determine whether there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

A reviewing court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.

The victim’s answers to the questions indicated that at least one of the incidents occurred in California, but did not exclude the possibility that the other occurred in Mexico, outside the superior court’s jurisdiction.

Authority:

People v. Maciel (2013) 57 Cal.4th 482, 514–515

People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053

Jurisdiction, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000638

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though the trial court had summarily revoked probation prior to its expiration, for deserting probation, the trial court lacked the authority to find that the defendant violated probation based on his arrest for an offense that allegedly occurred in 2024, after his probation period expired in 2023. That matter is remanded for the court to determine whether there were grounds for revocation based on conduct occurring before probation expired.

Holding:

Summary revocation of probation preserves the trial court’s authority to adjudicate a claim that the defendant violated a condition of probation during the probationary period. A trial court can find a violation of probation and then reinstate and extend the terms of probation if, and only if, probation is reinstated based upon a violation that occurred during the unextended period of probation.

Authority:

People v. Leiva (2013) 56 Cal.4th 498, 515-516

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

Jurisdiction, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000602

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Although the trial court had the jurisdiction to correct clerical errors, it had no jurisdiction after the judgment was final to correct judicial errors. Thus, it had no jurisdiction to set aside the credit for time served that it had awarded years earlier. The order eliminating the credits must be vacated.

(Because the new offenses were committed in prison while serving an earlier commitment, the new sentence was required to run consecutively, and he was not entitled to credit for time while serving his term on the original offense to be applied against the new consecutive sentence. Nonetheless, the court originally awarded him nearly two years credit for time served.)

First Holding:

The question whether the trial court had jurisdiction to eliminate custody credits after a final judgment is a pure question of law we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Camp (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 461, 467

Second Holding:

Under the general common law rule, a trial court loses jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has begun. While there are some exceptions to that rule, none justifies the court’s elimination of the defendant’s custody credits.

Authority:

People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344

Third Holding:

A court has inherent power to correct a clerical error at any time. Clerical error, however, is to be distinguished from judicial error which cannot be corrected by amendment. The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered. Here, the trial court’s orders imposing the custodial credits in 2010, 2021, and again in 2024 were plainly judicial—not clerical—errors.

Authority:

In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 63

In re Rojas (1979) 23 Cal.3d 152, 154

Fourth Holding:

Section 1172.1(a)(1) does not apply here, because (1) it was not the Caliofrnia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation secretary who sent the letter pointing out the errors, but a records analyst who sent the letter; (2) the sentencing was not within 120 days of the date of commitment; and (3) the request did not relate to a change of sentencing laws since the original sentencing. Moreover, the sentence was in fact greater than the original sentence.

Authority:

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 987 [letter came from a case records manager, not the secretary and did not reference section 1172.1 or use the terms recall or resentencing]

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 791–792

Fifth Holding:

Regarding jurisdiction to correct an unauthorized sentence, we find King to be a better reasoned case than Codinha. King reasoned that the “venerable notion” that an unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time had been rejected by the Supreme Court in In re G.C.. The unauthorized sentence doctrine is an exception to the waiver doctrine, in that a party does not forfeit the right to argue that a sentence is unlawful by failing to object in the trial court. It is not, however, an exception to the requirement of jurisdiction. Rather, in order to invoke the unauthorized sentence doctrine to remedy a judgment of conviction, the trial court must still have jurisdiction over the judgment.

Authority:

People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 635

In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1129

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 66

People v. Garcia (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 139, 145–146

People v. Hernandez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1123

Sixth Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case 000594

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

[Gary note: This was NOT a win for the defense, but I include it because it contains a valuable point.] If an inmate is NOT CURRENTLY serving a sentence that has been enhanced by a now-invalid prior prison term conviction, that inmate is NOT ELIGIBLE for resentencing under section 1172.75. Thus, the appellate court reversed the resentencing order of the trial court that dismissed the now-invalid prior, because the defendant was no longer serving a sentence enhanced by it at the time of resentencing.

Holding:

By 2006 at the latest, the defendant had completed his original sentence that was enhanced by a single prior prison term in 1996. However, the defendant committed several new felonies while incarcerated, and was still serving those sentences when he filed his petition for recall of his original sentence in 2023. The superior court struck the original prior prison term enhancement in 2025.

But the defendant was no longer serving a sentence on that judgment. New crimes committed while in prison are treated as separate offenses and begin a new aggregate term. Section 1172.75 requires two things in addition to the judgment including an invalid section 667.5(b) enhancement: (1) that the defendant be in custody and (2) be currently serving a term on the judgment containing the invalid enhancement. Where a defendant remains in prison, the current judgment is the operative judgment pursuant to which they are incarcerated. Because the defendant was no longer in custody on the offense bearing the now-invalid enhancement, the court had no jurisdiction to dismiss it. We therefore reverse the judgment entered following the 2025 resentencing. The 1996 judgment is reinstated.

Authority:

People v. Langston (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1237, 1242

People v. Washington (2026) 117 Cal.App.5th 1057, 1065-1066

People v. Escobedo (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 440, 447

People v. Amaya (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 379, 386–387 [the trial court’s resentencing was void on the face of the record because the court granted relief that it had no power to grant]

Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 35, 53 [when, as here, there is an appeal from a void judgment, the reviewing court’s jurisdiction is limited to reversing the trial court’s void acts]

Appellate Principles, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case 000560

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(Gary note: This appeal was dismissed as from a nonappealable order, but it is summarized for providing numerous principles regarding appealability. It purported to be an appeal from a postconviction motion to strike restitution fines that were imposed more than 10 years earlier. The authority relied on by the appellant was section 1465.9, which states, “Upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to Section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.”

(The complication in this case is that the fines were imposed in 1989 under Government Code section 13967. The trial court pointed out that the section was repealed in 2003, and concluded that the change reflected in Penal Code section 1465.9 did not apply because no restitution fines were imposed under section 1202.04.)

First Holding:

Before we may consider the merits of the defendant’s appeal, we must first determine whether the trial court’s order denying his postjudgment motion to vacate his restitution fines is appealable. The right to appeal is statutory only, and a party may not appeal a trial court’s judgment, order or ruling unless such is expressly made appealable by statute. An order made after judgment is appealable if it affects a defendant’s substantial rights.

A trial court order denying relief that the court has no jurisdiction to grant does not affect a defendant’s substantial rights and is therefore not appealable under section 1237(b). Under the general common law rule, a trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has commenced.

In this case, the defendant was sentenced in 1989 and began serving his sentence that same year. This court affirmed the judgment on appeal, and the remittitur issued by April 1991. Thus, absent an exception to the general common law rule, the trial court lacked jurisdiction in 2025 to grant the defendant’s petition and resentence him by vacating his restitution fines. 

Authority:

People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 254 [Because an appealable judgment or order is essential to appellate jurisdiction, the appellate court must consider the question of appealability sua sponte, and dismiss the appeal if the judgment or order is found to be nonappealable]

People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155, 1159

People v. E.M. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 1075, 1085

People v. Roy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 991, 997

Second Holding:

Where a defendant whose conviction is final files a statutorily unauthorized freestanding petition, both the court below and this court lack jurisdiction to consider the arguments raised therein. In that circumstance, the appeal must be dismissed.
.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 139, 144