Category Archives: Sentencing

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001011

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in ruling that the defendant was ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 because the abstract of judgment did not reflect any now-invalid prior prison term enhancements. The abstract of judgment was in error.

First Holding:

Before 2020, the Penal Code instructed criminal sentencing courts to impose a one-year term for each prior separate prison term or county jail term’ the defendant had previously served for a felony. Effective January 1, 2020, the Legislature eliminated one-year prior prison term enhancements except in cases involving prior terms for sexually violent offenses.

In 2021 the Legislature enacted section 1172.75, which “made the change retroactive. 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.

Authority:

PEN 667.5(b)

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1053-1054

Second Holding:

In section 1172.75(b), the Legislature established a mechanism for resentencing individuals currently serving a term for a judgment that includes such an enhancement. Section 1172.75(b) requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations to identify for the sentencing courts all persons currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a).

Further, if a sentencing court verifies that a defendant was sentenced under an invalid enhancement, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(b) and (c)

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1054

Third Holding:

Where section 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing. Section 1172.75(d)(1) states that the resentencing shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety, and further, resentencing shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 855 [By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements.]

Fourth Holding:

We generally review a trial court’s decision under section 1172.75 for an abuse of discretion. Under an abuse of discretion standard, we review the trial court’s findings of fact for substantial evidence, consider whether the court’s rulings of law are correct, and determine whether the court’s application of the law to the facts is arbitrary or capricious. However, where the appeal from a resentencing order raises a question of law, our review is de novo.

Authority:

People v. Mathis (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 359, 366, review granted Aug. 13, 2025, S291628

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 855-856, 857

People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 194 [reviewing de novo whether the word imposed as used in 1172.75 applies to cases where execution of a prior prison term enhancement was stayed], affirmed (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57

Fifth Holding:

The trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment controls over a conflicting abstract of judgment. In this instance, the prior convictions were never stricken, and thus should have been reflected in the abstract of judgment. The defendant was eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75.

Authority:

People v. Whalum (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1, 15 [Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.]

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855 [Any discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as recorded in the clerk’s minutes or abstract of judgment is presumed to be the result of clerical error.]

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001010

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In resentencing the defendant, the court abused its discretion in not giving proper consideration to whether to strike prior strike convictions. Remanded for proper consideration.

First Holding:

Under section 1172.1, a trial court may recall and resentence “at any time” upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of Parole Hearings, the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, or the Attorney General if the Department of Justice originally prosecuted the case.

Effective January 1, 2024, a trial court may recall a sentence and resentence a defendant on its own motion “at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law.

Once a trial court decides to recall and resentence, it may either reduce the sentence by modification or vacate the conviction and impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense, whether or not that offense was charged in the original pleading.

In resentencing the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced, the resentencing court shall consider if the defendant has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence, and whether those circumstances were a contributing factor in the commission of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1

Second Holding:

Section 1385(c)(1) provides 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.

Section 1385(c)(2) further provides that, in exercising its discretion under this subdivision, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present. Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.

‘Endanger public safety’ means there is a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others. Accordingly, if the court finds that dismissal of an enhancement would endanger public safety, then the court need not consider the listed mitigating circumstances.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 296

Third Holding:

A court’s decision not to strike a prior serious felony enhancement is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Shaw (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 582, 585

People v. Jefferson (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 235, 242–243 [a trial court’s exercise of discretion must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice]

Fourth Holding:

Absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a court retains the discretion to impose or dismiss enhancements provided that it assigns significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances when they are present.

In other words, if the court does not find that dismissal would endanger 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 1024,1029

Fifth Holding:

A trial court has discretion under the Three Strikes law to dismiss or vacate prior conviction allegations or findings in the furtherance of justice. In exercising its discretion, the court may give no weight whatsoever to factors extrinsic to the Three Strikes scheme.

Instead, preponderant weight must be accorded to factors intrinsic to the scheme, such the nature and circumstances of the defendant’s present felonies and the prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his background, character, and prospects. In considering these intrinsic factors the court must determine whether the defendant may be deemed outside the scheme’s spirit, in whole or in part, and hence should be treated as though he had not previously been convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felonies.

While the purpose of the Three Strikes law was to ensure longer prison sentences, the “overarching consideration” and “underlying purpose” in striking prior conviction allegations is the avoidance of unjust sentences.

Authority:

PEN 1385(a)

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 530-531

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161

People v. Garcia (1999) 20 Cal.4th 490, 498–500

Sixth Holding:

Abuse of discretion in failing to strike a prior conviction occurs in limited circumstances: where the trial court is not aware of its discretion; where the trial court considers impermissible factors; or where applying the Three Strikes law would produce an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd result under the specific facts of a particular case.

A reviewing court’s disagreement with the trial court’s weighing of proper factors (as distinct from the trial court’s reliance on improper factors in the weighing process) does not constitute an abuse of discretion.

We conclude from this record that the trial court failed to balance the appropriate factors set forth in Williams, that is, the defendant’s personal background, character, and prospects, and the specifics of his criminal history, the characteristics of the present offense for which he was being resentenced, or if a shorter sentence would accommodate risks to public safety.

Significantly, courts have reversed the denial of dismissal of prior strikes in instances where the prior strikes were far more serious than the defendant’s.

(Gary note: I have left out the appellate court’s recitation of facts peculiar to this defendant and the facts in this case, but court determined that the lower court had not given proper consideration of those factors. It remanded for a proper consideration.)

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 378-379

People v. Dryden (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1029

People v. Avila (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1134, 1140–1141 [defendant’s three previous strikes were two robberies and assault with a knife]

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 001007

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This is an appeal after resentencing under section 1172.75. The court erred in believing that the original sentence was unauthorized because full consecutive sentences on two of the counts had been mandatory. Thus, it was error for the court to vacate the original imposition of concurrent sentences and impose them consecutively.

Holding:

The trial court was mistaken in its determination that the original sentence was unauthorized because full consecutive sentences on both counts were mandatory.

Both crimes were committed on the same occasion on the same victim. Therefore, while section 667.6(c) authorized consecutive sentencing on these two offenses, imposing full consecutive sentences for both offenses was not mandatory. Similarly, at resentencing, the court was not required to impose a full consecutive sentence.

The trial court appears not to have been aware of its discretion in this regard. We therefore remand to permit the court to resentence the defendant pursuant to section 1172.75.

Authority:

PEN 667.6(c)

People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 596–597, 600 [remanding for resentencing where trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion to impose concurrent sentences and erroneously believed consecutive sentences were mandatory]

People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371, 431–432 [when a trial court misunderstands or is unaware of the scope of its sentencing discretion, a reviewing court must remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion]

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001006

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is remanded for a new hearing on the defendant’s resentencing under section 1172.75, in light of new case law regarding examination of prior serious felonies and strikes depending on criminal gang activity. Further, the restitution fine must vacated, as it is more than 10 years old.

First Holding:

The Three Strikes law is a sentencing scheme that requires a court to double or sometimes triple the punishment for a felony offense if the defendant was previously convicted of a crime that qualifies as a serious or violent felony. The serious or violent felonies that trigger this sentencing scheme, commonly referred to as strikes or strike priors, are enumerated by statute. The list of serious felonies includes any felony offense that would also constitute a felony violation of section 186.22. Section 186.22 defines substantive gang offenses and gang enhancements.

Authority:

PEN 667(e)

PEN 1170.12(c)

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

PEN 667.5(c)

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 582

Second Holding:

The Legislature enacted AB 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which among other things, 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. Fletcher held that prior convictions premised on section 186.22 must be examined under currently law in determining whether they qualify as prior serious felony convictions or strikes.

Authority:

AB 333

PEN 186.22

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 585, 587

Third Holding:

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. The Salazar court accordingly held that when 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 trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

Though the Salazar decision is premised on the trial court’s scope of discretion being changed during pendency of appeal, whereas here the trial court’s discretion has remained the same but a material fact about defendant’s past record has been modified since the time of sentencing. We nevertheless find the test set forth in Salazar to be applicable here, because the Salazar court itself observed the similarity between the two scenarios: A court that is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no more exercise informed discretion than one whose sentence is or may have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant’s record

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424-425

Fourth Holding:

Retrial of the strike under the current law would be appropriate, should the prosecutor so choose.

Authority:

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

Fifth Holding:

The restitution fine was imposed in 2011. Section 1465.9(d) has been added since then, to provide that any restitution fine is unenforceable and uncollectible upon the expiration of 10 years after date of imposition.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 001005

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Section 654 barred punishment for the vandalism counts because those offenses involved the same course of conduct and objective as the attempted burglaries. We modify the judgment to impose concurrent terms on the three vandalism, stayed pursuant to section 654. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect the corrected sentence

First Holding:

Section 654 generally precludes multiple punishments for a single physical act that violates different provisions of law as well as multiple punishments for an indivisible course of conduct that violates more than one criminal statute. 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.

If, on the other hand, the defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives that were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.

Authority:

PEN 654

In re Raymundo M. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 78, 94

Second Holding:

When a trial court determines that section 654 prohibits multiple punishments, it must impose a sentence for the conviction for which punishment is disallowed but stay its execution. Dismissal or imposition of a concurrent sentence is prohibited.

Authority:

People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 796

Third Holding:

While the trial court’s abstract of judgment properly stayed execution of punishment on vandalism two of the three counts subject to section 654, the abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction and does not control when it differs from the trial court’s oral judgment.

Here, the court’s language at sentencing was ambiguous: it said the vandalism counts would be “concurrent” and they “are 654” without expressly staying imposition of the concurrent sentences. Because the trial court verbally imposed an unauthorized sentence in violation of section 654, we direct that the abstract of judgment be corrected to the extent necessary to comply with section 654.

Authority:

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