Category Archives: Sentencing

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000784

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to recall his sentence under section 1172.6. The evidence was insufficient to prove he is guilty of murder and attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

SB 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder to ensure a person’s sentence is commensurate with his or her criminal culpability. Specifically, it amended section 188 by adding a requirement that, except as stated in section 189(e), all principals to murder must act with express or implied malice to be convicted of that crime. SB 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) extended relief to defendants convicted of attempted murder, but only if their convictions were based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Authority:

PEN 188(a)(3)

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-843, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 869

Second Holding:

SB 1437 also created a procedural mechanism for defendants with eligible murder convictions to seek retroactive relief under the amended law. Under section 1172.6, if a petitioner makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the trial court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing.

At that hearing, the court sits as an independent fact finder and the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of murder or attempted murder under the amended law. The parties may offer new or additional evidence at the hearing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 960

People v. Garrison (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 735, 743

Third Holding:

Under direct aiding and abetting principles, an accomplice is guilty of an offense perpetrated by another [e.g., murder] if the accomplice aids the commission of that offense with knowledge of the direct perpetrator’s unlawful intent and with an intent to assist in achieving those unlawful ends. The defendant must not only know the direct perpetrator’s intent to commit murder, but he or she must share that intent. And, aiding and abetting the commission of a crime requires some affirmative action. The word aids refers only to overt or affirmative forms of assistance.

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 463

People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1118

People v. Partee (2020) 8 Cal.5th 860, 868

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s denial of a section 1172.6 petition for substantial evidence. Under this standard, we review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence — that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value — such that a reasonable trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a direct aider and abettor in the murder and attempted murders.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 885

Fifth Holding:

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Malice may be express or implied. The difference between express malice and implied malice is the former requires an intent to kill but the latter does not.

Authority:

PEN 187(a)

PEN 188(a)

People v. Soto (2018) 4 Cal.5th 968, 976

Sixth Holding:

Although intent to kill is certainly blameworthy, it is insufficient standing alone to render a person culpable for another’s acts. The aider and abettor must know the direct perpetrator intends to commit the murder and intend to aid the direct perpetrator in its commission. It is this mental relationship to the perpetrator’s acts that confers liability on the aider and abettor.

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 453

Seventh Holding:

We cannot presume that because members of the defendant’s group belonged to the same gang, they must have known each other’s intent. Indeed, the law does not recognize a rule of guilt by association. We insist on proof of a defendant’s knowledge of, and specific intent to further, the group’s unlawful ends. Without knowledge of his cohort’s intent to kill, any of the defendant’s subsequent acts cannot constitute the actions necessary to establish aider and abettor liability.

Authority:

People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 165

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000783

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred by sentencing defendant to the upper term on his robbery conviction.

First Holding:

On January 1, 2022, SB 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) went into effect, amending section 1170. Section 1170 authorizes a trial court to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant, or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

However, the court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)

Second Holding:

In Erlinger, the United States Supreme Court held that, under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty plea). An exception to this allows a trial court to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Under that exception, a judge may do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.

Authority:

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 834

Third Holding:

In Wiley, the California Supreme Court addressed section 1170(b)(3)’s prior conviction exception in light of Erlinger. To avoid any application that would set section 1170(b)(3) at odds with the high court’s constitutional interpretation, we interpret section 1170(b)(3)’s procedure in a manner that is coextensive with high court dictates. Thus, in accordance with Erlinger, the Wiley court held a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1086

Fourth Holding:

When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review.

Under that standard, a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Each of the four aggravating factors found true by the trial court required finding true more than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements. Accordingly, the court’s reliance on each of the other four aggravating factors (rule 4.421(b)(2)–(5)) was erroneous. Moreover, we cannot conclude that all of these errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 743 [a sentence imposed under former section 1170(b) must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified]

Fifth Holding:

Whether a defendant’s prior convictions are numerous or of increasing seriousness (rule 4.421(b)(2)) is a comparative and qualitative determination which makes it difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 775 [to the extent a potential aggravating circumstance at issue in a particular case rests on a somewhat vague or subjective standard, it may be difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court]

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000782

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by imposing the upper term based on circumstances in aggravation that were not stipulated to nor proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

Section 1170(b)(2), prohibits imposition of an upper-term sentence unless aggravating circumstances justify that term and the facts underlying any such circumstance, other than a prior conviction, have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(2)

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 742

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078

Second Holding:

Where the trial court relies on unproven aggravating factors, we assess prejudice under Chapman, which requires us to find prejudice unless we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court to justify an upper term sentence. The Chapman standard applies whenever the court has relied on unproven factors, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established.

Authority:

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768

Third Holding:

The trial court erred by imposing the upper-term sentence based on five aggravating factors that were not found true by a jury or stipulated to by the defendant. The jury found not true the allegation that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. We do not know what facts the jury relied on in finding a lack of premeditation and whether those facts would have caused a jury to find not true the allegation that the crime involved planning and professionalism.

The remaining aggravating factors relied on by the court, other than the prior prison term, likewise require factual determinations. As stated in Wiley, even the determination that crimes are of increasing seriousness is comparative and qualitative and must be left to the decision of the jury.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090

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

Case 000779

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the trial court’s true finding that defendant’s 2012 conviction qualifies as a serious or violent felony for purposes of the strike prior and prior serious felony enhancements and remand the matter to the trial court for any retrial of this finding.

First Holding:

Under the Three Strikes law, defendants previously convicted of serious or violent felonies are subject to increased prison terms: If a defendant has one prior conviction for a serious or violent felony, the defendant’s term of imprisonment is doubled, and if a defendant has two or more such strike priors, the defendant may receive life imprisonment.

The Three Strikes law defines “serious or violent” felony to include any offense defined as a serious felony under section 1192.7(a). Section 1192.7(c) defines “serious felony” to include, among other things, “any felony offense, which would also constitute a felony violation of section 186.22.”

Authority:

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

Second Holding:

Assembly Bill 333 amended section 186.22. Effective January 1, 2022, this legislation narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang, the definition of a pattern of criminal activity, and what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang.

First, it narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons.

Second, whereas section 186.22, former subdivision (f) required only that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang, AB 333 requires that any such pattern that have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, AB 333 also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Fourth, AB 333 narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational. Moreover, because these changes are ameliorative in nature, they apply to nonfinal judgments on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

Third Holding:

On appeal, a reviewing court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the judgment to ascertain whether it is supported by substantial evidence. In other words, the reviewing court determines whether a rational trier of fact could have found the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the elements of the sentence enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt.

The People must prove all elements of an alleged sentence enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the mere fact of conviction under a particular statute does not prove the offense was a serious felony, otherwise admissible evidence from the entire record of the conviction may be examined to resolve the issue.

If the prior conviction was for an offense that can be committed in multiple ways, and the record of the conviction does not disclose how the offense was committed, a court must presume the conviction was for the least serious form of the offense.

In such a case, if the statute under which the prior conviction occurred could be violated in a way that does not qualify for the alleged enhancement, the evidence is thus insufficient, and the People have failed in their burden.

Authority:

People v. Miles (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1074, 1082, 1083

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1065, 1067

Fourth Holding:

In Fletcher, our Supreme Court held that where a defendant has suffered a conviction under the prior version of section 186.22, AB 333 applies to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements.

Accordingly, 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. The matter must be remanded to the trial court for any retrial of these allegations, and if required, any resentencing.

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000778

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was originally sentenced in 2011. On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the trial court should not have reimposed the restitution fine, jail classification fee, and booking fee because they are unenforceable and uncollectible.

First Holding:

The trial court originally imposed the restitution fine in July 2011. Since then, the Legislature amended section 1465.9 to provide that restitution fines under section 1202.4 are uncollectible and unenforceable after 10 years and that the part of the judgment imposing the fine must be vacated.

Because the restitution fine was originally imposed more than 10 years before the trial court resentenced defendant, under section 1465.9(d), the trial court should not have reimposed the restitution fine when it resentenced defendant in 2025.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Second Holding:

The trial court also should not have reimposed the booking fee and jail classification fee under Government Code section 29550.2, because the Legislature repealed that section effective July 1, 2021. After July 1, 2021, the unpaid balance of court-imposed costs under several statutes, including Government Code section 29550.2, are unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.

Authority:

GOV 6111

Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000777

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the court should have recalculated his credit for time served.

Holding:

Upon resentencing that results in a modification of a felony sentence during the term of imprisonment, the trial court must calculate the actual time the defendant has already served and credit that time against the subsequent sentence. It is the duty of the court imposing the sentence to determine the date or dates of any admission to, and release from, custody prior to sentencing and the total number of days to be credited pursuant to this section. The total number of days to be credited shall be contained in the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

PEN 2900.5(d)

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000776

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the trial court failed to pronounce sentence on two of the counts. This was error. Also, the court must recalculate the defendant’s credit for time served.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75(a) provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense is legally invalid.

Once the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identifies those persons currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a) to the sentencing court, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements. A recall effectively vacates the defendant’s original sentence and commitment.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 399, 402

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [when part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances]

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 360

Second Holding:

The resentencing under section 1172.75 shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety. In resentencing, the court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and 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

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(1)

Third Holding:

In a criminal case, judgment is rendered when the trial court orally pronounces sentence. If a sentence of imprisonment is to be imposed the sentencing judge must pronounce the court’s judgment and sentence, stating the terms thereof and giving reasons for those matters for which reasons are required by law.

At a sentencing hearing, the court must orally pronounce the sentence on the record. Since the court recalled defendant’s sentence under section 1172.75, it effectively vacated his original sentence and thus should have orally pronounced all components of the sentence on the record at the resentencing hearing.

Authority:

Rules of Court, rule 4.433(c)(5)

People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344, fn 9

People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 [Rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement]

Fourth Holding:

There was also an error in the sentencing, in that the sentence on one count was a life term, but the count was not a serious felony and should have been sentenced as a determinate term.

It is well established that when the trial court pronounces a sentence that is unauthorized by the Penal Code that sentence must be vacated and a proper sentence imposed whenever the mistake is appropriately brought to the attention of the trial court or the reviewing court. When the mistake is discovered while the defendant’s appeal is pending, the appellate court should remand the case for a proper sentence.

Authority:

People v. Benton (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 92, 102

Fifth Holding:

The trial court should recalculate defendant’s custody credits on remand.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5(d)

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37 [the trial court, having modified defendant’s sentence on remand, was obliged, in its new abstract of judgment, to credit him with all actual days he had spent in custody.]

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing

Case 000772

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In light of  Kopp, which was decided while this appeal was pending, we will remand for reconsideration of the restitution and parole revocation fines.

First Holding:

We note that the abstract of judgment indicates that the restitution and parole revocation fines were $300 each, yet the trial court in its oral pronouncement imposed restitution and parole revocation fines of $1,800 each. Ordinarily, the oral pronouncement of judgment controls.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

Here, however, the trial court imposed a restitution fine (and corresponding parole revocation fine) exceeding the statutory minimum before the recent guidance issued by the Supreme Court in Kopp. Because the record is silent as to whether the trial court considered the defendant’s ability to pay or any other excessive fine factor, we will vacate those fines and remand for further proceedings in light of Kopp.

Authority:

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing

Case 000769

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The final abstract of judgment does not accurately reflect the defendant’s custody credits. We remand the matter with instructions to modify the final abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

When a defendant is resentenced following an appellate sentence remand, the sentencing court must determine all actual time the defendant has already served and recalculate the defendant’s actual custody credits.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29

Second Holding:

The court determined that the defendant was in custody for [period A, more than 240 days] from arrest to original sentencing, and [period B, more than 1,000 more days] between the sentencing and resentencing hearings. The two numbers should have been added together to arrive at the total credit for time served. The abstract, however, treated the two numbers separately, listing the larger number [period B] as actual days in custody and the smaller number [period A] as conduct credits instead of actual days in custody, resulting in a failure to reflect an additional [more than 35 days] of conduct credit on [period A]. We direct the court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 188 [appellate court may order modification of inaccuracies in abstract of judgment]

People v. Moore (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 783, 788 [modifying judgment to correct conduct credits]

Abstracts and Minutes, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000767

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We find that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for discharging a firearm for the benefit of a criminal street gang.

However, the defendant cannot be convicted of both discharging a firearm at a motor vehicle and grossly negligent discharge of a firearm at a motor vehicle, and the abstract of judgment must be corrected to list the enhancements found true.

First Holding:

In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we examine the entire record and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial credible evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The focus of the substantial evidence test is on the whole record of evidence presented to the trier of fact, rather than on isolated bits of evidence. Resolving conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the jury’s exclusive province.

We do not redetermine the weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. Moreover, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction.

Authority:

People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 57

People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252, 261

People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181

People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60

Second Holding:

We must accept logical inferences that the trier of fact might have drawn from the evidence even if we would have concluded otherwise. If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.

The reviewing court need not address assertions of conflicts in the evidence or alternative theories regarding the inferences that should have been drawn from the evidence. A reversal for insufficient evidence is unwarranted unless it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict. This is true for both direct and circumstantial evidence.

In this case, a reasonable jury could have found that the actions of the defendant were gang related and for the benefit of a gang.

Authority:

People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 241, overruled on other grounds as stated in People v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 804, 834

People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60

People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 162

People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357

People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87

People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 113

Third Holding:

The crime of grossly negligent discharge of a firearm which could result in injury or death (sec. 246.3(a)) is a lesser included offense of discharging a firearm at a motor vehicle (sec. 246).

Although section 954 provides that a single act or course of conduct can lead to convictions of any number of the offenses charged, the courts have created an exception to this rule where multiple convictions are based on necessarily included offenses.

In Ramirez, our Supreme Court reviewed the elements of both offenses and concluded that the only difference between the two crimes, and the basis for the more serious treatment of a section 246 offense, is that the greater offense requires that an inhabited dwelling or other specified object be within the defendant’s firing range.

All the elements of section 246.3(a) are necessarily included in the more stringent requirements of section 246. Therefore, we shall reverse defendant’s conviction on the count alleging grossly negligent discharge of a firearm.

Authority:

PEN 954

People v. Ramirez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 980, 984–985

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment fails to accurately reflect the sentence orally pronounced by the trial court. Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts (including this one) that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.

Authority:

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

Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000764

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred by not staying punishment for the second count under section 654. Also, the court must recalculate the credit for time served on resentencing. Further, the abstract of judgment erroneously reflects that the defendant stands convicted of a count that was reversed in the prior appeal.

(Gary note: This was mentioned only in a footnote, and there was no express direction for correction. But the court did order resentencing “consistent with this opinion,” which most likely implies a direction that the subsequent abstract of judgment accurately reflect the record.)

First Holding:

Section 654(a) states that 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.

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

Second Holding:

Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an act or omission may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective.

We first consider if the different crimes were completed by a single physical act. If so, the defendant may not be punished more than once for that act. Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single intent and objective or multiple intents and objectives. At step one, courts examine the facts of the case to determine whether multiple convictions are based upon a single physical act.

When those facts are undisputed the application of section 654 raises a question of law we review de novo. However, we review the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311–312

People v. Washington (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 776, 795

Third Holding:

A review of the record indicates that there was but one act constituting the crime. Accordingly, the sentence on count 2 should have been stayed.

Authority:

PEN 654

Fourth Holding:

While we do not address the trial court’s failure to recalculate the defendant’s actual days of presentence custody credits because it was not raised by the defendant and we are remanding the matter for resentencing, we note that trial courts are required to do so.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 41

Fifth Holding:

(Gary note: the court mentioned in a footnote that the abstract incorrectly lists a conviction of an offense that was reversed in a prior appeal. It made no express direction for correct of the abstract, but there is much authority that would have supported such an order, some of which I set forth below.)

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

Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000763

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in declining to determine the defendant’s ability to pay fines and fees. Its stated basis was the probation office’s strong stance on rejecting the plea, based on the victim. After sentencing, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kopp.

First Holding:

A defendant may challenge the imposition of a punitive fine under the United States and California Constitutions’ excessive fines provisions. The California Supreme Court The court used the “fine” term to refer to penalties provided by the Legislature to punish a criminal offense and included restitution fines and parole revocation restitution fines within that category. Because its decision was issued after the defendant was sentenced, the defendant should be given the opportunity to develop an excessive fines argument in the first instance on remand.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23, 30-31

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution [Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted]

Article I, section 17 of the California Constitution [Cruel or unusual punishment may not be inflicted or excessive fines imposed.]

Second Holding:

Because the trial court failed to consider the defendant’s ability to pay the the court operations and court facilities assessments despite his request, we must remand for such consideration. Because there is no rational basis for distinguishing criminal defendants from indigent civil litigants—who are afforded waivers for similar assessments—equal protection principles require the trial court to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing these ancillary costs.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 14-15, 24-31