Category Archives: Sentencing

Duty of the court, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 001038

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was a violation of separation of powers for the trial court to delegate authority to the probation department the decision of which counseling or rehabilitation program deemed appropriate by the probation officer. The trial court is directed to modify the treatment condition by either specifically identifying the type of treatment program(s) or striking the condition altogether.

First Holding:

The California Constitution states that the powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution. Trial courts broad discretion to impose probation conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety.

Authority:

Calif. Const., art. III, sec. 3

PEN 1203.1

People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19, 26

Second Holding:

But no statutory provision sanctions a delegation of unlimited discretion to a probation officer to implement or interpret probationary terms. These determinations are essentially judicial functions. While the probation officer may properly specify the details necessary to effectuate the court’s probation conditions, it is the court’s duty to determine the nature of the requirements imposed on the probationer.

The defendant’s treatment condition delegates unlimited discretion to his probation officer to determine and implement the nature and amount of treatment that the defendant may be required to complete, including whether a program is residential or outpatient. Because the treatment condition does not identify the type of counseling or treatment that he is required to complete, the trial court’s imposition of the condition is an improper delegation of authority.

Authority:

People v. Cervantes (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 353, 358

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 001037

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in concluding the defendant was not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 because his prior prison term enhancement had been stayed. Remanded for full resentencing.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2020, the Legislature amended section 667.5(b) to eliminate prior prison term enhancements unless the prior prison term was for specific sexually violent offenses. The amendment was retroactive to any case in which the judgment was not final. In 2022, what is now section 1172.75(a) became effective and made the change retroactive to now-invalid prior prison term enhancements imposed before January 1, 2020.

Authority:

PEN 667.5(b)

PEN 1172.75

People v. Lopez (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 337, 340-342

Second Holding:

The statute requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to prepare a list of inmates serving a term that included imposition of a now-invalid prior prison term enhancement, and notify the appropriate sentencing court. Upon receiving names from CDCR, the sentencing court must review each person’s current judgment to confirm that it includes a qualifying enhancement and, if it does, it must recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(c)

Third Holding:

The trial court concluded that the defendant was not eligible for relief because the execution of the imposition of sentence on the now-invalid prison term enhancement had been stayed, and thus he was not serving a sentence so enhanced. Since then, however, the Supreme Court has clarified that such individuals are not ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.75.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1068 [Where a qualifying prison prior was imposed and stayed, the defendant is entitled to a section 1172.75 resentencing hearing]

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 001036

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the court misunderstood its discretion to reduce a 10-year section 12022.53(b) firearm enhancement and impose a lesser uncharged enhancement. The court violated the defendant’s constitutional rights by imposing an upper term sentence without a jury determination of aggravating factors. Accordingly, we will remand so the People may have an opportunity to retry the aggravating factors and for the court to exercise its sentencing discretion.

First Holding:

A sentencing court, in the interest of justice pursuant to section 1385, may strike or dismiss an enhancement otherwise required to be imposed under section 12022.53. This discretion includes imposing a lesser included, uncharged enhancement under statutes other than section 12022.53, such as section 12022.5(a).

Authority:

People v. Jasso (2025) 17 Cal.5th 646, 701

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1020-1021

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 692 [The statutory framework of section 12022.53 permits a court to strike the section 12022.53(d) enhancement found true by the jury and to impose a lesser uncharged statutory enhancement instead]

Second Holding:

A court unaware of its discretionary powers cannot exercise informed discretion. In this circumstance, it is almost always speculative for a reviewing court to say what the sentencing court would have done if it had known the scope of its discretionary powers at the time of sentencing.

Unless there is a clear indication from the sentencing court that it would be idle to do so, remand for resentencing is required. When the applicable law governing the defendant’s sentence has substantively changed after sentencing, it is almost always speculative for a reviewing court to say what the sentencing court would have done if it had known the scope of its discretionary powers at the time of sentencing.

Mere reliance on the length of the original sentence and attendant decisions, such as imposing consecutive sentences, imposing middle or upper term sentences, or declining to strike enhancements, is not sufficient to provide a clear indication of what a sentencing court might do on remand if it had been fully aware of the scope of its discretionary powers.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 774

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 431

Third Holding:

As a matter of constitutional right, absent a stipulation or waiver, any aggravating fact other than a prior conviction relied upon to support an upper term sentence must be found true by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, 739

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069 [Under the federal Constitution’s Fifth and Sixth Amendments, 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.]

Fourth Holding:

Determinations that a defendant’s prior convictions are of increasing seriousness and his or her unsatisfactory performance on probation require a jury determination of those facts before they can be used to justify an upper term sentence. Finding increasing seriousness of prior convictions requires a qualitative assessment of the offenses’ time, location, character, and purpose.

A defendant’s probation performance could involve consideration of evidence of misconduct not previously adjudicated in a criminal trial; and it would also involve proving the defendant was ordered to serve a term of probation and remained on probation at the time of the new offense. Thus, the determination involves circumstances clearly going beyond the fact of prior conviction and its elements.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082-1083

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 840

Fifth Holding:

A California trial court’s reliance on information in a probation department presentence report to impose an upper term sentence is now precluded.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1081, fn. 5

Sixth Holding:

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). A narrow exception permits judges 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, 843

Seventh Holding:

A trial court has discretion to reconsider the entire sentence on a remand for resentencing. Because we remand for resentencing here, the proper course is to permit the court to exercise its discretion as to the entire sentence and all of its sentencing choices, including whether to strike or dismiss the defendant’s enhancements under section 1385(c).

Authority:

People v. Trammel (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 415, 435 [a resentencing court is permitted to reconsider all of its discretionary sentencing choices]

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 348

People v. Hill (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 831, 834 [When a case is remanded for resentencing by an appellate court, the trial court is entitled to consider the entire sentencing scheme. Not limited to merely striking illegal portions, the trial court may reconsider all sentencing choices.]

Duty of the court, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 001035

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Following the defendant’s failure to appear for sentencing, the court declined to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor as contemplated by the plea agreement that was accompanied by a Cruz waiver. This was error, as the court did not find that the defendant wilfully failed to appear for sentencing.

First Holding:

In Cruz, our Supreme Court held a defendant who pleads guilty pursuant to a plea bargain that is subsequently disapproved by the trial court for defendant’s failure to appear is entitled to withdraw his or her plea. But if the defendant willfully fails to appear for sentencing the trial court may withdraw its approval of the defendant’s plea and impose a sentence in excess of the bargained for term.

Any such waiver, of course, would have to be obtained at the time of the trial court’s initial acceptance of the plea, and it must be knowing and intelligent.

Authority:

People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1249

People v. Jones (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 261, 265

Second Holding:

Here, the trial court did not advise the defendant of his right to withdraw his plea if the court imposed a more severe sentence. Nor did the court advise him that his conviction would not be reduced to a misdemeanor if he willfully failed to appear for sentencing. But the defendant’s written plea form stated that he would not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and that his negotiated disposition would be cancelled if he willfully failed to appear at sentencing.

To deprive him of the benefit of his plea bargain, the trial court must find that the defendant willfully failed to appear at his sentencing hearing. A defendant acts willfully if he knows what he is doing and intends to do it. The term ‘willful’ requires only that the prohibited act occur intentionally.

Authority:

PEN 7(b)(1)

People v. Atkins (2001) 25 Cal.4th 76, 85–86

In re Jerry R. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1438

Third Holding:

It is the People’s burden to prove a defendant willfully failed to appear for sentencing after being released pursuant to a Cruz waiver. This burden requires the People to present admissible evidence.

The People concede they did not present sufficient evidence to show appellant willfully failed to appear for sentencing. In fact, they presented no evidence. The People relied on the prosecutor’s conclusion that there’s a willful failure to appear because the defendant is responsible for getting to court for sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 261, 265

Fourth Holding:

From our review of the record, it does not appear that the trial court found, explicitly or implicitly, that the defendant’s failure to appear was willful. We presume that a trial court understands and properly carries out its duties. But the trial court’s statements here suggest that it did not consider whether the defendant’s failure to appear was willful. On this record, we must conclude that the trial court imposed the greater term of a felony conviction exclusively on the fact of the defendant’s failure to appear for the hearing, without determining whether the failure to appear was willful.

The matter is remanded to the superior court so that it can give the parties the opportunity to present evidence and to make a finding of whether the defendat’s failure to appear at his sentencing hearing was willful.

Authority:

EVID 664

People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114

People v. Jones (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 261, 266

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 001034

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court violated the defendant’s right to a jury trial on the aggravating circumstances it used to impose upper term sentences.

First Holding:

In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the existence of aggravating factors under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2) and (4). The court conducted a bench trial on these factors because, at the time, it was believed that they did not need to be tried to a jury. The trial court found that defendant’s prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings were numerous within the meaning of rule 4.421(b)(2). It also found defendant was on probation when the crimes at issue in this appeal were committed. (Rule 4.421(b)(4).

Based on Wiley, the trial court improperly determined facts beyond the mere existence of his prior conviction and its elements, and relied on its conclusions in choosing an upper term sentence.

Authority:

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

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 847 [The error here was that the defendant was entitled to, but did not receive (or waive), trial by jury on the aggravating factor of whether he had suffered numerous convictions in the past]

Second Holding:

A defendant has a statutory and constitutional right to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction, that are relied upon to justify an upper term. In Wiley, our Supreme Court overruled its prior authority construing the prior conviction exception to include other related issues concerning a defendant’s criminal history or recidivism such as unsatisfactory performance on probation and the increasing seriousness of a defendant’s prior convictions.

The court held that 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, 1076, 1078, 1084, 1086

Third 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.

Lack of a jury trial is not harmless under Chapman if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.

Authority:

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

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

Fourth Holding:

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.

Authority:

People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 840