Category Archives: Sentencing

Amelioration, Juveniles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 000632

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court did not determine whether the defendant’s prior juvenile adjudication in 2013 qualifies as a strike under the current version of section 186.22(b). Further, the prior juvenile adjudication cannot serve as the basis for a prior serious felony enhancement. We remand the matter to permit retrial of the gang enhancement under the current section 186.22 and for a full resentencing following retrial or the People’s election not to pursue retrial.

First Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature amended section 186.22 with the passage of AB 333. Among other things, AB 333 changed the elements of gang offenses and enhancements by narrowing the definitions of criminal street gang, pattern of criminal activity, and what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang.

Authority:

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

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

Second Holding:

Even if a defendant has suffered a conviction under the prior version of section 186.22, courts must look to current law, as amended in AB 333, to determine 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. The defendant’s prior conviction in this case could qualify as a strike offense only with the gang enhancement found true prior to AB 333. We must vacate the true finding on the strike prior and remand to permit the People to retry the gang enhancement under current law to determine whether the defendant’s prior conviction qualifies as a strike prior.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583, 587, 603-604, 607

Third Holding:

The defendant’s juvenile adjudications cannot be considered a prior serious felony conviction for purposes of the mandatory five-year enhancement in section 667(a).

Authority:

People v. Smith (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1080, fn. 10

People v. West (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 100, 110

Fourth Holding:

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.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000631

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The sentence for either the attempted murder or the domestic violence should have been stayed pursuant to section 654, because both convictions were based on the same act, namely, the defendant’s act of running over the victim with his SUV.

First Holding:

This matter had previously been remanded for the court to consider its discretion on the application of section 654 as to which count should be sentenced on and which should be stayed. The original judge had retired. The resentencing judge’s statements make clear that in determining whether to stay the sentence on count 1 or count 2, he was deferring to and believed himself to be bound by the sentencing choices already made by the original sentencing court. He did not exercise his own discretion to decide which sentence should be stayed under section 654. Rather, he expressed the belief that the original sentencing judge had already made the relevant determination.

That was error. The original sentencing judge declined to apply section 654 at all, so she never exercised her discretion to decide which sentence should be stayed under section 654. To date, no judge has exercised their discretion on that issue. Because the record does not clearly indicate which sentence the resentencing judge would have stayed had he exercised his discretion, the judge’s failure to exercise his discretion is not harmless.

(GARY note #1: The court did not readdress what section 654 does. As noted, this is the second appeal in the case. The unpublished opinion in the first appeal dealt exclusively with the application of section 654, and the court likely felt it was unnecessary to repeat itself in this second appeal, because its application was not the new question. Instead, it was the failure of the resentencing judge to act independently from the original judge’s views. Under section 654, a single act, or multiple acts during a course of action with a single intent and objective, may result in conviction of multiple crimes, but may be punished under only one of them. The court may choose which count to impose and execute sentence on, and must stay execution on the other count(s) to which section 654 applies. Imposition of a concurrent term is not an option.)

(GARY note #2: The court did not discuss the significance of a trial court’s failure to exercise discretion. But there is ample authority discussing the steps for an appellate court to deal with situations where the lower court did not recognize that it had discretion and it appears that there could have been a different outcome had the judge recognized it and exercised its discretion in an informed manner. I have set out some of the statements from some such cases below as Second Holding and Third Holding, but they were not cited in this opinion, likely because, as this court stated in the unpublished opinion, no judge had ever actually exercised the discretion required under section 654. Always keep in mind, however, that when I use the term “likely” in my notes, it is pure speculation on my part.)

Authority:

PEN 654

Second Holding:

The failure to exercise discretion is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 744

Dickson Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 449

Third Holding:

Where a sentencing court was not fully aware of the scope of its discretionary powers, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the court would have reached the same conclusion even it had been aware it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 878, fn. 16

People v. Leon (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1026 [relief from a trial court’s misunderstanding of its sentencing discretion is available on direct appeal when such misapprehension is affirmatively demonstrated by the record]

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000630

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to impose a no contact order under section 1202.05, because the victim was an adult. The trial court was required, however, to consider whether to issue a protective order under section 136.2(i)(1). We accordingly remand the matter for the trial court to do so. In addition, the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that the restitution fine was stayed, and to reflect the actual date of sentencing. Also, the minute order fails to reflect the true finding of aggravating circumstances on one of the counts.

First Holding:

Section 1202.05 provides that if a defendant receives a prison sentence for certain sexual offenses against a victim who is a child under the age of 18 years, the court shall prohibit all visitation between the defendant and the child victim. The restrictions on visitation imposed by the provision apply only to victims who are under the age of 18 at the time of the contemplated visitation. Section 136.2(i)(1) does provide authority for the court to impose a protective order.

Although the trial court acknowledged the victim’s status as an adult when it issued the order, there is nothing in the record to show that the trial court contemplated issuing the no-contact order under section 136.2(i)(1). Moreover, the no-contact order issued by the court did not conform to the requirements of section 136.2(i)(1). Section 136.2(i)(1) provides in part that, when a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to section 290(c), the court, at the time of sentencing, shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with a victim of the crime.

Authority:

PEN 1202.05

PEN 136.2(i)(1)

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1323

Second Holding:

The abstract of judgment contains clerical errors that should be corrected. At sentencing, the court imposed but stayed a $10,000 restitution fine under section 1202.4(b). The abstract of judgment reflects that the fine was imposed but not that it was stayed. I

n addition, the abstract incorrectly indicates that the defendant was sentenced more than a month after the date he was actually sentenced. We accordingly direct the trial court to amend the abstract to make these corrections. In addition, the sentencing minute order should be corrected to accurately reflect the sentence orally pronounced.

The corrected minute order from the bifurcated proceeding at which the trial court found the aggravating circumstances true does not reflect that the court found those circumstances true as to one of the counts.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-188

People v. Wynn (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1221

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000629

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the superior court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine under section 1202.4(b), that is no longer enforceable or collectible, and it imposed additional fines and fees that were not originally imposed and which came into effect after the defendant’s original sentencing. We modify the judgment by vacating the challenged fines and fees.

First Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature enacted SB (Stats. 2021 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), retroactively invalidating prison prior enhancements imposed pursuant to section 667.5(b), except those that were based on a conviction for a sexually violent offense. Once the court verifies that the current judgment includes such a sentencing enhancement, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. Resentencing under section 1172.75 is not limited to striking the section 667.5(b), enhancement. Rather, the court must conduct a full resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Green (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 365, 368, 373

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 348, fn. 5

People v. Gray (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 148, 163

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 381

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 855

Second Holding:

Our review of the imposition of fines and fees is de novo.

Authority:

People v. Arroyo (2016) 62 Cal.4th 589, 593 [de novo review in cases of statutory interpretation]

People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 975, 983 [authority of trial court to impose fine or fees turns on relevant statutory provisions and presents essentially an issue of law]

Third Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9 was amended to add subdivision (d), which provides that, on 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 defendant was resentenced in November 2024, weeks before the effective date of the amendment. But the amendment applies retroactively to his sentence. The section 1202.4 restitution fine, which was imposed over 10 years ago in 2003, must therefore be vacated.

Authority:

PC 1465.9

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 748 [absent evidence to the contrary, we presume ameliorative criminal statutes apply retroactively to all nonfinal judgments]

Fourth Holding:

The statute authorizing the remaining fines and fees did not become effective until after the defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, the superior court was not authorized to impose these fines and fees on resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4th 749, 754

People v. Castillo (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1414

People v. Hayes (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1260, 1274 [A new statute is generally presumed to operate prospectively absent an express declaration of retroactivity or a clear and compelling implication that the Legislature intended otherwise]

Sentencing

Case 000626

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate one of the three prior serious felony conviction enhancements, because it was not brought and tried separately from one of the others.

Holding:

Section 667 (a)(1) provides in relevant part that a person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted of a serious felony in this state or of any offense committed in another jurisdiction that includes all of the elements of any serious felony, shall receive, in addition to the sentence imposed by the court for the present offense, a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction on charges brought and tried separately.

The phrase “brought and tried separately” means that the underlying charges were formally distinct, from filing to adjudication of guilt. Because the evidence presented does not show that the two prior convictions that took place on the same day in 1990 in the same county were brought and tried separately, we vacate the prior serious felony enhancements based on the second conviction that the defendant admitted suffering.

Authority:

PEN 667(a)

People v. Wiley (1995) 9 Cal.4th 580, 593-595

In re Harris (1989) 49 Cal.3d 131, 136

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

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000623

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in concluding that the defendant was not eligible for recall of sentence under section 1172.75 because he is serving a term of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). The prohibition applies only to those who are service an LWOP sentence as a result of conviction of specified sex offenses. It does not apply to those serving an LWOP sentence for other offenses. The language of the exclusion is conjunctive, not disjunctive. [Gary note: REVIEW HAS BEEN GRANTED IN THIS CASE AND HELD PENDING DIXON.]

First Holding:

As of January 1, 2025, 1172.75(f) provides that an individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code and sentenced to death or a life term without the possibility of parole, who, as of January 1, 2025, has not had their judgment reviewed and verified by the sentencing court as provided in subdivision (c), is not eligible for recall and resentencing under this section.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(f)

Second Holding:

This is a question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo.

Authority:

Brown v. City of Inglewood (2025) 18 Cal.5th 33, 40

Third Holding:

When interpreting any statute, our goal is to determine the Legislature’s intent and give effect to the statute’s purpose. We begin by examining the statute’s words, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning. We do not, however, consider the statutory language in isolation. We construe the words in question in context, keeping in mind the nature and obvious purpose of the statute. We also construe every statute with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part, so that all may be harmonized and anomalies avoided. The statute’s plain meaning controls the court’s interpretation unless its words are ambiguous. If the statutory language is unclear, we may look to legislative history and public policy as aids in determining how best to give effect to Legislative intent.

Authority:

Iloff v. LaPaille (2025) 18 Cal.5th 551, 560-561

Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310, 330

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1057

Fourth Holding:

Subsequent to defendant’s original sentencing, SB 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) amended section 667.5(b) to allow for the imposition of one-year prior prison term enhancements only for specified sexually violent offenses. Thereafter, the Legislature added section 1172.75, which 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. It also provided a process for recall of sentences rendered invalid and resentencing of affected defendants.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Fifth Holding:

Resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75 entitles a defendant to a full resentencing, including application of the rules of the Judicial Council and application of 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. Resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75 must “result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety. In no circumstance can resentencing result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067, fn. 3 [where section 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing, not simply striking the now-invalidated priors]

Sixth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, SB 285 amended section 1172.75 to add subdivision (f). Subdivision (f) provides: “Commencing on January 1, 2025, an individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and sentenced to death or a life term without the possibility of parole, who, as of January 1, 2025, has not had their judgment reviewed and verified by the sentencing court as provided in subdivision (c) [of section 1172.75], is not eligible for recall and resentencing under this section. This subdivision does not apply retroactively.”

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(f)

Seventh Holding:

The ordinary and usual usage of “and” is as a conjunctive, meaning “an additional thing, “also” or “plus.” By contrast, use of the word “or” in a statute indicates an intention to use it disjunctively so as to designate alternative or separate categories. But the word “and” is not always to be taken conjunctively. It is sometimes, in a fair and rational construction of a statute, to be read as if it were “or,” and taken disjunctively.

Thus, courts will sometimes substitute “or” for “and,” and vice versa, when necessary to accomplish the evident intent of the statute, but doing so is an exceptional rule of construction. Thus, for example, a court may substitute “or” for “and” to correct a drafting error where it appears clear that a word has been erroneously used, and a judicial correction will best carry out the intent of the adopting body. Additionally, a court may substitute “or” for “and” to avoid a construction of the statute that would make some words surplusage.

Authority:

People v. Reynoza (2024) 15 Cal.5th 982, 990–991

In re C.H. (2011) 53 Cal.4th 94, 102–103, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in In re Edward C. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 813, 824

(GARY NOTE: AS CAN BE READ IN THE SIMILAR CASE THAT WAS PUBLISHED THIS DATE, the court engaged in examining how the Legislature used “or” in other parts of the section where “or” was clearly intended, and “and” similarly. It was clear to this court that the Legislature was aware of the difference and that it intended to mean exactly what it said–the exclusion applies to a person who was sentenced to LWOP because of specified sexual offenses. The legislative history revealed that the amendment was in response to the impact of section 1172.75 on the sentence of a notorious defendant convicted of murder and sexual offenses for which he received death sentence several decades earlier. It also noted Dixon (in which review has been granted), which concluded that nothing in section 1172.75 excluded individuals under a judgment of death.

(People v. Dixon (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 236, 247, review granted Oct. 22, 2025, S292223 The issues on review in the Supreme Court in Dixon are described as: (1) May a superior court modify a death judgment under the recall and resentencing procedure in Penal Code section 1172.75? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the exclusivity provision of Penal Code section 1509 precludes modification of a death judgment under Penal Code section 1172.75? (3) Did the superior court have jurisdiction to resentence defendant pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75 when his appeal was pending before this court?

(People v. Robinson (2026) 120 Cal.App. 5th 516 (F089332, filed 5/8/2026) but review was granted in the published decision on 7/16/26, granted and held pending Dixon S292223)

Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000621

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The credit for time served was miscalculated and is corrected.

Holding:

The juvenile court must subtract days that a juvenile spends in custody before disposition from their maximum period of physical confinement. The court subtracts the full period of precommitment custody starting with the day of arrest and including the day of the dispositional hearing. When, as in this case, there is no dispute about a calculation error, we need not remand the matter for recalculation. Instead, we may modify the dispositional order.

Authority:

WIC 875

PEN 2900.5

In re Antwon R. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 348, 352, 353 [minors are entitled to same reduction that adults receive under Penal Code section 2900.5]

People v. Bravo (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 729, 735 [custody credit includes days of arrest and sentencing]

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000620

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At a full resentencing conducted while vacating the defendant’s one-year prior prison sentence enhancements pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75, the trial court declined to consider whether two of defendant’s prior “strike” convictions were still valid under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, denied his request to dismiss those strikes under section 1385, imposed a new 10-year criminal protective order, and re-imposed a $5,000 restitution fine.

The matter is reversed for the court to hold a full resentencing hearing and exercise its discretion on whether or not to strike the prior convictions. Further, the court had no jurisdiction to reimpose a restitution fine because it had been ordered more than 10 years earlier and was rendered expired.

First Holding:

Under section 1172.75, a defendant who is eligible to have a prior prison sentence enhancement stricken is entitled to a full resentencing, at which time the trial court is to 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

People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 193, 195, review granted* Oct. 23, 2024, S286987

[*Gary note: The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Espino on July 2, 2026, and affirmed the result in the Court of Appeal Espino decision–that a person is entitled to relief under section 1172.75 even if the punishment for the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement was stricken–resolving a question that was left unanswered in People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050)]

People v. Green (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 365, 373

Second Holding:

In Guevara, our Supreme Court held that a trial court engaged in a full resentencing under section 1172.75 of a person serving a life sentence under the Three Strikes Law must apply the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, including its provision according trial courts a discretionary override—as to defendants who would otherwise be eligible for relief—not to grant relief if the court determines that resentencing the defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 849-850

Third Holding:

Reversal and remand are necessary so that the trial court may consider whether the Reform Act would apply to the third-strike sentences imposed in this case and, if so, whether exercise of the court’s discretionary override is warranted. On remand, the court may also entertain any further requests to dismiss the prior strike convictions under section 1385(a)—but not under section 1385(c).

Authority:

People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 243-244

Fourth Holding:

However, the court may not impose a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4(b) because the 2025 amendment to section 1465.9 provides that a restitution fine expires 10 years after the date of imposition. Because the restitution fine in this case was imposed over 25 years ago, it expired and may not be reimposed.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 601, review granted Mar. 11, 2026, S295038, on another point)

Duty of counsel, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing

Case 000616

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The judgment is affirmed as to all verdicts and findings made at trial, but the sentence is vacated and the cause is remanded for a new sentencing hearing. The defendant’s attorney’s assistance was ineffective by counsel’s failure to argue a statutory mitigatory factor at the sentencing hearing.

First Holding:

When an enhancement is pleaded and proven, the sentencing court is ordinarily presented with a binary choice: impose the additional punishment or strike/dismiss the enhancement.

Section 1385(c) provides, in pertinent part, that notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute.

In exercising that discretion, section 1385 lays out nine factors in mitigation for the court to consider and afford great weight to. Proof of one or more of the listed circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, in the absence of a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety.

One of the listed circumstances (1385(c)(2)(B)) is “Multiple enhancements are alleged in a single case. In this instance, all enhancements beyond a single enhancement shall be dismissed.” Rules of Court, rule 4.423(b)(1) mirrors that mitigation factor.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 355, 364

Second Holding:

If the sentencing court does not conclude that dismissal would endanger public safety, then mitigating circumstances strongly favor dismissing the enhancement. This means that, absent a danger to public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1036

Third Holding:

A defense attorney who fails to adequately understand the available sentencing alternatives, promote their proper application, or pursue the most advantageous disposition for his client may be found incompetent.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 350

Fourth Holding:

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and (2) counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial.

Reviewing courts must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance because it is all too easy to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable in the harsh light of hindsight.

Because the presumption of counsel’s competence can typically be rebutted only with evidence outside the record, ineffective assistance claims are normally raised in habeas corpus proceedings where such evidence can be presented. Defendants who present IAC claims on direct appeal bear a heavy burden. If the record on appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, the claim must be rejected unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or there simply could be no satisfactory explanation.

Put differently, where counsel’s trial tactics or strategic reasons for challenged decisions do not appear on the record, we will not find ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal unless there could be no conceivable reason for counsel’s acts or omissions.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1188, 1211

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687–688, 691–692

In re Scott (2003) 29 Cal.4th 783, 811–812

People v. Arce (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 924, 930

People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 900

People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1189

People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 926

Fifth Holding:

Defendant’s trial counsel did not file any sentencing memoranda. Assuming counsel was aware of the relevant sentencing laws concerning multiple enhancements, counsel nevertheless failed to promote their proper application and pursue the most advantageous disposition for his client. Counsel also failed to object to the erroneous contention in the probation report, and in the prosecutor’s argument at sentencing, that there were no mitigating circumstances. There is no conceivable strategic or tactical explanation for counsel’s omissions.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351

Sixth Holding:

When a stay of punishment is required under section 654, a trial court has discretion to choose which count will serve as the principal term without regard to the longest potential term of imprisonment. Here, the court stated its intention to use count 1 as the principal term before defense counsel presented his arguments at the sentencing hearing. The attorney was thus aware defendant’s prison term would be based on the offense that included two enhancement findings.

We are unable to conceive of a rational, tactical reason for counsel’s failure to request the dismissal of at least one enhancement pursuant to section 1385(c)(2)(B).

Authority:

People v. Caparaz (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 669, 688, citing sec. 654(a), as amended by AB 518 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.)

Seventh Holding:

Counsel alluded to the defendant’s childhood trauma, but only in a passing reference to the diagnosis mentioned in the probation report. He made no effort to link that potential mitigating circumstance to the offense. As made plain by the statutory text, the mere fact a defendant has suffered past trauma is insufficient—such trauma must be a contributing factor in the commission of the offense for the low term presumption to apply.

Authority:

People v. Knowles (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 757, 765

Eighth Holding:

In the context of appellate representation, where appellate counsel fails to raise a significant and obvious issue, the failure will generally be considered deficient performance under Strickland if the missed issue is clearly stronger than those presented. Similar reasoning can be applied to the performance of defendant’s trial counsel at sentencing. Advocating for dismissal of an enhancement under section 1385(c)(2)(B) would have been an objectively stronger argument, by a wide margin, than the generalized request for leniency based on defendant’s educational achievements.

Authority:

In re Hampton (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 463, 477

Ninth Holding:

Objections can be made during and even after the formal pronouncement of judgment. Once it became clear the court was imposing the middle term, defense counsel had nothing to lose by pointing out the applicability of section 1385(c)(2)(B). At the very least, doing so would have preserved the issue for appellate review.

Failure to present any objections or argument regarding section 1385 fell below the minimum standards of performance required of a defense attorney.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 745, 755

People v. Steele (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 212, 226 [finding forfeiture where defendant did not object either before or after pronouncement of sentence, despite the opportunity to do so]

Tenth Holding:

Prejudice flowing from ineffective assistance is established by showing there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. The burden requires more than speculation as to the effect of the errors or omissions of counsel. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

Authority:

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694

People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 937

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000615

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals an order partially denying her request for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75. We reverse the order because she was entitled to have the court consider her eligibility for ameliorative relief under changes to the former version of section 186.22 (under which she had been convicted) made by AB 333.

First Holding:

The defendant’s judgment became nonfinal when she returned to the trial court under section 1172.75 for recall and resentencing. Section 1172.75 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 trial court verifies the current judgment includes the enhancement, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. When resentencing the defendant, 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.

By the plain language of the statute, the defendant was entitled to be considered for any legislative enactments that might provide for a reduction of sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Saldana (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1270, 1276

Second Holding:

In the criminal law context, when ameliorative legislation goes into effect, we generally presume the Legislature intends the benefits of the new enactment to apply as broadly as constitutionally permissible to all nonfinal cases. For purposes of Estrada, the test for finality is whether the criminal prosecution or proceeding as a whole is complete.

The meaning of finality in the Estrada context is distinct from the issue of whether a judgment is final for purposes of appealability. In the context of recall and resentencing, a granting of a petition for resentencing renders a conviction nonfinal for purposes of retroactive application of ameliorative legislation.

Authority:

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745

People v. Esquivel (2021) 11 Cal.5th 671, 679

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 392-393

People v. Trent (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 251 [defendant entitled to retroactive application of Assembly Bill No. 333 upon resentencing under section 1172.6 based on changes to felony murder rule]

People v. Keel (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 546, 551 [defendant entitled to retroactive application for Proposition 57 and Senate Bill No. 1391 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) upon resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6]

Third Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature passed AB 333, enacting the STEP Forward Act of 2021. AB 333 made several changes to the law on gang enhancements.

First, it substantively narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang.

Second, it also changed former subdivision (f)’s requirement that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang to now require that any such pattern be collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, it also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (l) 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 oppose 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, it narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational. The defendant was entitled to the benefit of AB 333 because her judgment was not final when the court engaged in resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75

Authority:

PEN 186.22

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

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000614

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and a felon in possession of an assault weapon. The trial court erred in sentencing defendant separately on his firearm possession convictions and remand for resentencing consistent with section 654 to stay either one of defendant’s firearm possession convictions.

First Holding:

Section 654 provides 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. Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

The defendant’s intent and objective are factual questions for the trial court; to permit multiple punishments, there must be evidence to support the finding the defendant formed a separate intent and objective for each offense for which he was sentenced.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, 507,

People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 885, 886, overruled on other grounds in People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56, 104

People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 162

Second Holding:

These convictions arose from possession of the same weapon. Specifically, law enforcement officers found a handgun in a shoebox located in defendant’s living room, which was the basis for both firearm possession convictions. Accordingly, defendant may only be punished once for his act of possessing the handgun.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 357 [a single possession or carrying of a single firearm on a single occasion may be punished only once under section 654]