The defendant was sentenced to state prison after pleading no contest to robbery and injury a girlfriend. The trial court improperly imposed a domestic violence fee. We strike the fee.
A domestic violence fee is only authorized when a defendant is granted probation.
PEN 1203.097
The trial court erred in imposing three Life Without The Possiblity Of Parole (LWOP) sentences on each of the two murders, despite the jury having found true three special circumstances as to each murder.
The penalty for a defendant who is found guilty of murder in the first degree is death or imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole if one or more special circumstances has been found to be true. Multiple true special circumstance findings do not justify additional punishment.
PEN 190.2
People v. Montes (2014) 58 Cal.4th 809, 874 [defendant faced no additional punishment merely as a result of additional special circumstance true finding]
Defendant appeals the trial court’s written order vacating its prior order appointing counsel and scheduling a Franklin hearing to preserve mitigating evidence for use in a future youthful offender parole hearing. Defendant asks this court to remand the matter so he may present additional argument to the trial court. The People do not oppose giving defendant an opportunity to establish his eligibility for a Franklin hearing. We accept the People’s concession and will reverse and remand the matter.
As of January 1, 2020, defendants who committed crimes when they were 25 years old or younger are generally eligible for a youth offender parole hearing after specified periods, depending on their sentence. However, the statute excludes those defendants who, like defendant here, were sentenced to LWOP for crimes they committed when they were 18 to 25 years old.
[GARY NOTE: A defendant who is eligible for future consideration of parole as a youthful offender may make a record in the superior court to preserve facts that may be persuasive in a future hearing on whether to grant parole.]PEN 3051
PEN 1203.1
People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261
In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439
Although Hardin rejected an equal protection challenge to section 3051 by an offender sentenced to LWOP for special circumstance murder, it did not foreclose other as-applied challenges to the statute based on particular special circumstances or the factual circumstances of individual cases.
People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834
People v. Briscoe (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 479, 484-495 [the defendant successfully raised an as-applied challenge to section 3051’s exclusion of young adult offenders convicted of special circumstance murder under section 190.2(d)]
There are cases with possibly similar crimes by possibly equally culpable offenders who would now be eligible for parole while the defendant is not. Although these authorities do not conclusively establish any violation of defendant’s right to equal protection, they do allow for the possibility that he might be able to develop such an argument under Harden.
People v. Carter (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 831
People v. Mulqueen (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 532
People v. Fortman (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 45
Some states have constitutions that prohibit imposing an LWOP sentence on youthful offenders. While these authorities do not conclusively establish that section 3051’s exclusion of young adult offenders constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the California Constitution, they allow for the possibility that defendant might be able to develop such an argument.
Commonwealth v. Mattis (2024) 493 Mass. 216, 234-235
The defendant is entitled to sentencing relief under section 1172.75 for prior prison term enhancements which were imposed and stayed. Absent a valid waiver of his presence, defendant is entitled to be present at his resentencing hearing on remand.
Any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b), except for enhancements for certain sexually violent offenses, is legally invalid. If a prior prison term enhancement becomes invalid under the section, a trial court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant, and, in doing so, shall apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.
PEN 1172.75
Section 1172.75(a) applies to enhancements that were imposed as part of the defendant’s original judgment, regardless of whether the enhancement was stayed or executed. If the enhancement is no longer authorized under the current version of section 667.5(b), section 1172.75(a) renders the enhancement invalid. And the retroactive invalidation of the previously imposed enhancements in turn mandates resentencing under section 1172.75, according to the procedures set forth therein.
[Gary note: This opinion was filed before Espino was decided. It is not applicable here because the prior conviction was stayed. But I think it is important to know the current complete state of the law. Rhodius dealt solely with prior convictions whose punishment was stayed, deferring the question whether section 1172.75 applies to prior convictions that were stricken. On July 2, 2026, the Supreme Court answered that question in People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987). It held that section 1172.75 applies to those prior convictions that were stricken at time of sentencing. This is not discussed in the summary above because the trial court had relied the prior conviction having been stayed, not stricken, which was directly addressed by Rhodius.]People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1068
[People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987)]By its own terms, section 1172.75 ensures the defendant’s right to be present, represented by counsel, and present evidence at the hearing.
People v. Velasco (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 663, 673-674
The abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the court reduced his mandatory assessments due to his inability to pay. We direct the trial court to correct its resentencing minute order and to amend the abstract of judgment.
A trial court must accurately set forth all fines and fees in the abstract of judgment.
People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 [If the abstract does not specify the amount of each fine, the Department of Corrections cannot fulfill its statutory duty to collect and forward deductions from prisoner wages to the appropriate agency]
Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. We have the inherent power to correct clerical errors so as to make records such as abstracts of judgment or minute orders conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Thus, we are directing the court to amend the abstract of judgment to conform to its oral pronouncement of judgment.
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385
In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705