Category Archives: Sentencing

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000183

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court denied the defendant’s petition for recall filed under Penal Code section 1172.6 his attempted murder conviction. His guilty plea did not conclusively establish his ineligibility for resentencing as a matter of law and the court improperly engaged in factfinding to determine his eligibility for relief. We conclude the court erred in denying the petition at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause. Because the record does not conclusively show that the defendant acted with the specific intent to kill, it cannot establish ineligibility for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law. At minimum, the petition raised a factual question requiring further inquiry, and the trial court was not permitted to resolve that question against him at the prima facie stage.

First Holding:

When evaluating a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, the trial court must determine at the prima facie stage whether the petitioner made a showing entitling them to relief. Although the court may consult the record of conviction to assess eligibility, it is prohibited from engaging in factfinding, weighing the evidence, or exercising its own discretion. The court generally must accept the petitioner’s factual allegations as true unless they are conclusively refuted by the record of conviction.

A court may deny a petition at the prima facie stage only if the record of conviction demonstrates, incontrovertibly and as a matter of law, that the petitioner is ineligible for relief. Unless the record “conclusively establishes” that the defendant committed the acts and harbored the mental state required for liability under a still-valid theory, the allegations of the petition may not be disregarded. And if the petitioner could, at an evidentiary hearing, present evidence rebutting the record, the matter necessarily involves factual determinations that cannot be resolved at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971, 972

People v. Ervin (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 90, 101

People v. Rivera (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 217, 230

People v. Estrada (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 328, 339

Second Holding:

Applying these principles, we independently review the trial court’s denial of resentencing. We review factual findings for substantial evidence but evaluate the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo. Under this standard, the record of conviction does not conclusively establish that the defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

Authority:

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52

People v. Arnold (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 376, 383

Third Holding:

Before SB 1437 and 775, a defendant could be convicted of attempted murder either by directly aiding and abetting with the intent to kill or under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Following those statutory amendments, liability based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine is no longer valid for attempted murder, but direct aiding and abetting with intent to kill remains a valid theory. A petitioner is therefore eligible for resentencing only if the conviction could have been based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Because the defendant’s plea is fully consistent with both theories—(1) direct aiding and abetting with intent to kill, and (2) aiding another offense whose natural and probable consequence was attempted murder—the record does not foreclose the latter, invalid theory. The absence of any explicit admission of intent to kill is critical. A defendant’s guilty plea to attempted murder does not, by itself, establish that he personally harbored express malice; defendants routinely plead to charges for reasons unrelated to their precise mental state, including the reasonable belief that a jury might convict under an at-the-time valid imputed-malice theory.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 451, 456–457

People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 546, 548

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000182

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In light of AB 333, the trial court’s true findings on the prior serious felony enhancement and the strike prior allegations must be reversed. It is undisputed that there was insufficient evidence that defendant’s prior gang-related conviction (sec. 186.22(a)) satisfied the more stringent evidentiary requirements imposed by the change in law. Therefore, the court erred in considering that conviction to double defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, we will vacate the sentence and remand the matter for further proceedings. The defendant’s sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings, including a full resentencing. On remand, the People may elect to retry, under current law, the allegation that defendant’s prior gang-related conviction qualifies as a serious felony and strike prior for purposes of the three strikes law and a prior serious felony enhancement.

First Holding:

Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) narrowed liability for gang-related offenses by requiring more stringent evidentiary requirements for proving them.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

People v. Rojas (2023) 15 Cal.5th 561, 576

Second Holding:

AB 333 applies to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements. It applies to the analogous determination under section 667(a) for prior serious felony enhancements. Thus, AB 333’s amendments to section 186.22 apply to the current determination of whether the prosecution has proven the prior serious felony enhancement allegations in this case. In other words, whether a prior conviction was for an offense that constitutes a felony violation of Section 186.22 is determined by applying the current version of section 186.22.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583, 605, 607

Third Holding:

Where, as here, AB 333 applies retroactively to the determination of whether a prior gang-related conviction qualifies as a serious felony for purposes of the three strikes law and a prior serious felony enhancement we review for harmless error pursuant to Chapman. Vacating a true finding is required unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the finding would have been the same under current law. If there is any reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the finding, vacatur is required.

Authority:

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

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1207

People v. Lewis (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 874, 887

Fourth Holding:

At the time the defendant entered his guilty plea, the People were not required to prove, and defendant did not admit, the current evidentiary requirements of that provision, as amended by AB 333. Under these circumstances, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the true findings on the allegations that defendant’s prior gang-related conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony for purposes of the three strikes law and the prior serious felony enhancement and remand the matter to the trial court to allow the People the opportunity to retry those allegations under current law, considering the elements of section 186.22 as amended by AB 333.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 607-608

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case: 000181

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court employed an incorrect standard of review for determining whether the defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under Penal Code section 1172.6 should be denied. Reversed and remanded for another new hearing.

First Holding:

SB 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. The legislation amended section 188 to provide that, except in cases of felony murder, in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought.

It also created, in what is now section 1172.6, a mechanism for individuals convicted of qualifying offenses to petition for resentencing. If the trial court finds that a petitioning defendant has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing. At that hearing, the burden of proof shall be on the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder or attempted murder under California law as amended by the changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

PEN 188(a)

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 986,

Second Holding:

On appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition after an evidentiary hearing, the appellate court reviews the superior court’s factual findings for substantial evidence and the court’s application of the law to those facts de novo.

Authority:

People v. Hill (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1066

Third Holding:

For the trial court to properly conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant here was guilty of murder under the law as amended, the People had to prove he was the actual killer, or that he directly aided and abetted the murder and thus possessed malice aforethought. Felony murder is not at issue in this case.

Authority:

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 710 [sec. 1172.6 relief is unavailable if the defendant was the actual killer]

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 848 [SB 1437 does not eliminate direct aiding and abetting liability for murder because a direct aider and abettor to murder must possess malice aforethought], [abrogated on another ground as stated in People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756, 836]

Fourth Holding:

It was an error for the trial court to conclude that the court had to determine whether the People could prove they could obtain a conviction of the defendant based on basic accomplice liability or whether he acted with reckless disregard for the life of the victim. The correct standard for the trial court at defendant’s section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing was whether the prosecution has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant is guilty of murder under California law as amended.

The trial court’s reference to whether defendant acted with reckless disregard for life is inapposite, because that aspect is relevant only in the context of whether a defendant was a major participant in the commission of a different felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life–i.e., it is relevant only to felony murder, which is not at issue in this case. Further, the trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable jury would convict the defendant as he was charged. But at the section 1172.6 hearing, it is the trial court that is the fact finder tasked with holding the People to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

Authority:

People v. Harris (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 623, 632

Sentencing

Case: 000177

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in its calculation of credit for time served. The miscalculation appears to be the result of the trial court failing to include the fact defendant was in custody from his initial arrest for an earlier period before he was arrested a second time.

Holding:

The appellate court accepted the People’s concession regarding the credit for time served error and modify the judgment to include the correct number of days.

Authority:

People v. Guillen (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 756, 764

Abstracts and Minutes, Eighth Amendment, Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000176

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The $150 restitution fine and the parole revocation fine imposed on count three are unauthorized and must be vacated or stayed. The fine had been imposed on a count that was stayed under Penal Code section 654. Aside from that problem, a separate parole revocation fine cannot be imposed on a misdemeanor offense. Also, the abstract of judgment must be corrected because it incorrectly states that he has a prior strike and was sentenced under Penal Code section 667(b) through (i), or section 1170.12.

First Holding:

When a court imposes multiple punishments in violation of section 654, it acts in excess of its jurisdiction and imposes an unauthorized sentence that can be challenged for the first time on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Soto (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1234

Second Holding:

Defendant is not subject to parole separately for the misdemeanor and is thus not subject to a parole revocation restitution fine on it.

Authority:

People v. Holmes (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 539, 547

Third Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it erroneously states that he has a prior strike and that he was sentenced under section 667(b) through (i), or section 1170.12. There is no indication in the record defendant has sustained a prior strike conviction. We will order the abstract of judgment corrected to reflect that he does not have a strike prior, and he was not sentenced pursuant to section 667(b) through (i), or section 1170.12.

[Gary note: The court cited no authority for the obvious proposition that the abstract of judgment needs to be corrected. I have listed below some of many cases that the court could have relied on.]

Authority:

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

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

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

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