Category Archives: Sentencing

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000559

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to deny the defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage, because the record did not conclusively demonstrate ineligibility as a matter of law, even though he admitted the personal use of firearm enhancements as part of his plea bargain. Specifically, in his plea colloquy, the defendant did not admit facts or a specific theory of attempted murder liability that would make him ineligible for relief.

First Holding:

Effective 2019, SB 1437 amended sections 188 and 189 to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. Under the amended law, malice cannot be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.

In addition to amending sections 188 and 189, SB 1437 created a procedural mechanism, now codified in section 1172.6 for individuals convicted of murder under the former versions of sections 188 and 189 to petition the trial court for resentencing. Two years later, SB 775 expanded section 1172.6 relief to individuals convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and manslaughter. Section 1172.6 applies to individuals who pleaded guilty to attempted murder and would have been subject to prosecution for attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Authority:

People v. Rivera (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 217, 227

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558

People v. Estrada (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 328, 335, 336

Second Holding:

To be eligible for relief under section 1172.6, a defendant must make a prima facie showing that (1) the complaint or information allowed the People to prosecute the defendant for attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine; (2) the defendant was convicted of attempted murder or entered a plea to attempted murder, and (3) the defendant could not presently be convicted of attempted murder under the current versions of sections 188 or 189.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558

Third Holding:

The trial court’s prima facie inquiry is limited. The court must accept the defendant’s allegations as true and assess whether the defendant would be entitled to relief if the allegations were true. If the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing where the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant could be convicted of attempted murder under the current versions of section 188 or 189.

Authority:

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

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 559

Fourth Holding:

A trial court may deny a resentencing petition at the prima facie stage only if the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. In making its determination, the court may examine the record of conviction. At this stage, the court should not reject the factual allegations in the defendant’s petition on credibility grounds or engage in factfinding by weighing the evidence or exercising its discretion.

Authority:

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

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

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

Discretion, Effective assistance of counsel, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000558

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The restitution amount is wrong, and the protective order is unauthorized.

First Holding:

Appellant contends changes to section 1001.36 that went into effect after she was denied pretrial diversion apply to her case. We agree. Appellant further contends this matter should be conditionally reversed and remanded so the trial court can exercise its discretion to determine her motion for pretrial diversion in light of the amendment. We disagree.

Appellant has forfeited this claim. Frahs, decided in 2020, made clear that recently enacted section 1001.36 applied in nonfinal cases. Thus, when the law was amended effective January 1, 2023, appellant should have known the amendments applied retroactively. Once the law was amended, appellant had more than three months before she pled and more than seven months before she was sentenced to seek reconsideration of the trial court’s denial of diversion. She did not.

Authority:

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 631-632

People v. Doron (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1, 6

People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 856

People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113, 128 [failure to seek reconsideration excused where amendment to statute effective after entry of plea but only 10 days before sentencing]

Second Holding:

In order to establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his or her counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the defendant suffered prejudice as a result of such deficient performance. The record is silent, however, why defense counsel failed to seek reconsideration under the amended law.

It is possible that counsel was unaware of the newly passed statute. It is also possible, however, that counsel had sound reasons not to pursue the issue. For example, appellant may have changed her mind and decided to refuse to accept the treatment required for participation in the diversion program. Because trial counsel’s reasons for not raising the issue are not readily apparent, the issue is more appropriately considered in a habeas corpus proceeding.

Authority:

People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181, 198

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-692

People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267

People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s restitution order for abuse of discretion. We apply the substantial evidence standard in a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to support a factual finding necessary for a victim restitution order. Sentencing judges are given virtually unlimited discretion as to the kind of information they can consider and the source from whence it comes because a hearing to establish the amount of restitution does not require the formalities of other phases of a criminal prosecution. The court may use any rational method of fixing the amount of restitution as long as it is reasonably calculated to make the victim whole. It may make a restitution order based on truncated evidence such as declarations or probation reports, business records, and checks.

Authority:

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 663

People v. Jessee (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 501, 507

People v. Hove (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1266, 1275

People v. Plains All American Pipeline L.P. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 872, 898-899

Fourth Holding:

The total restitution awarded to the victim includes two computational errors. The court erroneously included a $4,520 attorney fees bill twice and included $880 for an unknown reason. We will correct those errors.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 854

Fifth Holding:

Section 136.2(i) authorizes a court to issue an order restraining a defendant for up to 10 years when the defendant has been convicted of a qualifying crime. Appellant’s conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under section 245 is not a qualifying crime under section 136(i). The court did not have statutory authority to issue the protective order, therefore, the order must be stricken.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 901

Abstracts and Minutes, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000557

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in placing the defendant on probation for a period of five years, because the maximum allowed in this case is three years. The matter is remanded for resentencing. There are also errors in the abstract of judgment that should be corrected in keeping with the resentencing.

First Holding:

Under the Penal Code, in granting probation, a trial court generally may suspend imposition or execution of sentence “for a period of time not exceeding two years. However, this two-year limit does not apply where an offense includes specific probation lengths within its provisions. Nevertheless, for such offenses, probation may continue for a period of time not exceeding the maximum possible term of the sentence.

Under Vehicle Code section 23600, under which violations of section 23152 are punishable, a period of probation not less than three nor more than five years may be imposed. But the defendant faced a maximum possible term of imprisonment of only three years. Accordingly, under section 1203.1(l)(1), the maximum authorized term of probation was three years, as the People concede.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1(a)

Second Holding:

An unauthorized sentence is subject to correction at any time without objection.

Authority:

People v. Landry (2016) 2 Cal.5th 52, 127, fn. 22

Third Holding:

The minute order contains errors, including a lab fee that was not ordered and transposing the fines to $2905 rather than the $2095 that was actually ordered by the court. Though because we are remanding for resentencing and thus the issue is moot, we point out that the minute order should accurately reflect fines, fees, and assessments pronounced by the trial court.. The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order. In addition, the trial court retains the authority to correct clerical errors.

Authority:

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387-388

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

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000556

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred by imposing consecutive terms on counts 1 through 3 because the underlying offenses did not occur on separate occasions under Penal Code section 667.6(d), and the court did not make findings on whether it was exercising its discretion to impose a consecutive sentence. We reverse and remand for resentencing.

First Holding:

Section 669(a) provides that when a person is convicted of two or more crimes, the trial court must determine whether the terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently or consecutively. For certain sex offenses the Penal Code establishes alternative sentencing frameworks, including section 667.6.

Authority:

People v. Catarino (2023) 14 Cal.5th 748, 752

Second Holding:

Under section 667.6(c), a full, separate, and consecutive term may be imposed for each violation of an offense specified in subdivision (e) if the crimes involve the same victim on the same occasion. Section 667.6(d)(1) provides a full, separate, and consecutive term shall be imposed for each violation of an offense specified in subdivision (e) if the crimes involve separate victims or involve the same victim on separate occasions. Although section 269 is not listed in section 667.6(e), section 269(c) provides that the court shall impose a consecutive sentence for each offense that results in a conviction on this section if the crimes involve the same victim on separate occasions as defined in section 667.6(d).

Authority:

PEN 667.6(c)

PEN 667.6(d)

PEN 269

Third Holding:

The One Strike law in section 667.61 provides an alternative sentencing scheme for certain forcible sex offenses and mandates an indeterminate sentence of 15 or 25 years to life in prison when the jury has convicted the defendant of a specified felony sex crime and has also found certain factual allegations to be true.

Authority:

People v. Carbajal (2013) 56 Cal.4th 521, 534

Fourth Holding:

In determining whether crimes against a single victim were committed on separate occasions under section 667.6(d), the court shall consider whether, between the commission of one sex crime and another, the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to reflect upon the defendant’s actions and nevertheless resumed sexually assaultive behavior. Neither the duration of time between crimes, nor whether or not the defendant lost or abandoned the opportunity to attack, shall be, in and of itself, determinative on the issue of whether the crimes in question occurred on separate occasions.

Further, a finding that a defendant committed sex crimes on separate occasions does not require there be a break of any specific duration or any change in physical location. In applying this standard, courts have held the offenses of placing a finger in the victim’s private area, kissing her private area and then placing his private part in her private area were but a single occasion. In contrast, where the offenses are interrupted by the defendant’s nonsexual activity, courts have found they occur on a separate occasion.

Authority:

PEN 667.6(d)(2)

People v. Jones (2001) 25 Cal.4th 98, 104

People v. King (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1325

People v. Dearborne (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 250, 265-266

People v. Corona (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 13, 15-16, 17-18

Fifth Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court. A court that is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no more exercise that informed discretion than one whose sentence is or may have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant’s record. In such circumstances, we have held that 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.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 419, 424

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391

Sixth Holding:

The trial court was aware of its discretion. The general rule is that a trial court is presumed to have been aware of and followed the applicable law.

Authority:

People v. Shiga (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 22, 40

People v. Brown (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1229

Seventh Holding:

When a trial court imposes consecutive sentences based on a finding under section 667.6(d), we may reverse only if there is no substantial evidence that the offenses were committed on separate occasions, that is, only if no reasonable trier of fact could have decided the defendant had a reasonable opportunity for reflection after completing an offense before resuming his assaultive behavior.

Authority:

People v. King (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1325

People v. Garza (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1092

Eighth Holding:

Regardless of whether section 667.6(c), applies to sentencing for a one strike offense under section 667.61 (which is not clear), under section 669, a trial court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences when a defendant is convicted of multiple crimes with indeterminate sentences.

Authority:

PEN 669(a)

People v. Midell (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1060, 1085

People v. Rodriguez (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1262

Ninth Holding:

It is well settled that in making sentencing choices pursuant to section 667.6(c), the trial court must state a reason for imposing a consecutive sentence in deciding whether to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence.

Authority:

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 729

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Evidence, Jury instructions, Jury trial, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000555

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because we are unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the omission of an instruction on the organizational nexus element of the gang allegations did not contribute to the verdict obtained, we reverse all gang enhancements under section 186.22(b), the gang-related firearm enhancement on count 1 under section 12022.53,(d) and (e)(1), and the gang-related indeterminate sentence imposed on count 13 under section 186.22(b)(C)(4). We remand for resentencing and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

First Holding:

All gang-related enhancements must be reversed because the jury was not instructed on the organizational nexus element of the gang enhancement under amended Penal Code section 186.22(b).

Authority:

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 749

Second Holding:

AB 333 substantially narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang and made numerous amendments to the statutory language. The specific amendment relevant here concerns the definition of criminal gang activity. Under the amended language, the prosecution must now present evidence that the members of the gang collectively engaged in a pattern of criminal activity, as opposed to the former language under which individual criminal action by members was sufficient.

While the evidence necessary to establish an organizational nexus might often overlap with the evidence used to demonstrate how a predicate offense commonly benefitted the gang, the inquiries are nonetheless conceptually distinct. The phrase collective engagement calls for an inquiry not just into how the predicate offenses benefited the gang, but also how the gang works together as a gang. It calls for a showing of a connection, or nexus, between an offense committed by one or more gang members and the organization as a whole.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 752, 762

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 738

Third Holding:

Section 186.22 now requires evidence demonstrating a nexus between the individual predicate offenses and the gang as an organized, collective enterprise. This organizational nexus requirement is satisfied by showing a connection between the predicate offenses and the organizational structure, primary activities, or common goals and principles of the gang. Defendant’s trial took place several months before the Supreme Court issued its decision in Clark and before CALCRIM No. 1401 was amended. The jury was therefore not instructed on the organizational nexus element as interpreted in Clark. The pre-Clark instruction given below was adequate.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 749

Fourth Holding:

When a jury instruction omits an element of an offense or special allegation, it impermissibly lessens the prosecution’s burden of proof and implicates the defendant’s federal due process rights. When such an instructional error occurs, we assess prejudice under the federal harmless error standard of Chapman In this context, our review under Chapman requires an examination of the record in its totality. If, at the end of that examination, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error, the instructional error was not harmless. Put another way, the error was prejudicial if we determine the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the omitted element.

Authority:

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 742 [concluding Chapman applied in assessing prejudice where instructions omitted new element of gang enhancement that common benefit to gang must be more than reputational]

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

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 417

Fifth Holding:

Defendant had the right to cross-examine a witness about whether he had been offered inducements to testify, expected benefits from giving his testimony, or otherwise had a motive to lie. Exposing a witness’s potential for bias and fabrication has long been recognized as one of the most important functions of cross-examination.

Authority:

EVID 780(f)

People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 455

Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 678–679

Sixth Holding:

The trial court is vested with broad discretion to impose reasonable limitations on defendant’s cross-examination without offending the constitution. Within the confines of the confrontation clause, the trial court retains wide latitude in restricting cross-examination that is repetitive, prejudicial, confusing of the issues, or of marginal relevance. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.

Authority:

People v. Contreras (2013) 58 Cal.4th 123, 152

Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 679

People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1292

Seventh Holding:

We review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings in this context under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. Moreover, as a general rule, the application of the ordinary rules of evidence do not impermissibly infringe on a defendant’s right to present a defense.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 9–10 [discretion abused only where exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice]

People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 620

Eighth Holding:

In order to establish a prejudicial abuse of discretion that violated the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, a defendant is required to affirmatively show the trial court’s order limiting or precluding cross-examination left the jury with a significantly different impression of the witness’ credibility. Otherwise, the trial court’s exercise of its discretion in this regard does not violate the Sixth Amendment.

Authority:

People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 455-456

Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 680

People v. Gonzalez (2021) 12 Cal.5th 367, 406

Ninth Holding:

The record reflects the trial court failed to impose sentence on counts 14 and 15, two of the extortion counts on which the jury found defendant guilty. As defendant concedes in his reply brief, the appropriate course of action in such circumstances is a remand for the purpose of pronouncement of a judgment in accordance with the verdict. In light of the reversal of all gang enhancements, the gang-related firearm enhancement on count 1 and the gang-related indeterminate term on count 13, the superior court, on remand, shall conduct a full resentencing at which it may consider all of its sentencing choices anew.

Authority:

People v. Taylor (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 349, 353

Equal protection, Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000552

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in concluding that a sentence of 45 years to life is not the functional equivalent of a sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP), within the context of section 1170(d) for those who committed an offense as a juvenile and were convicted as an adult.

First Holding:

Section 1170(d)(1)(A) provides that when a defendant who was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense for which the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole has been incarcerated for at least 15 years, the defendant may submit to the sentencing court a petition for recall and resentencing. Where the length of a sentence is the functional equivalent of LWOP, it is a denial of equal protection to exclude the defendant from consideration under section 1170(d).

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608

People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349 [50 years to life is the functional equivalent of LWOP for a nonhomicide juvenile offender in the Eighth Amendment context]

Second Holding:

The People contend that defendant’s current eligibility for early youth offender parole under section 3051 and future eligibility at age 50 for elderly parole under section 3055 render him ineligible for relief under section 1170(d). However, that question is being considered by the Supreme Court in Munoz. Pending that decision, we agree with the reasoning in Heard that section 3051 eligibility does not defeat defendant’s section 1170(d) petition.

Authority:

People v. Munoz (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 499, review granted June 25, 2025, S290828

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000550

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The amount of credit for time served was short by three days. The judgment is modified to include those three days.

Holding:

The appellate court has authority to modify the judgment to correct the credit for time served.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 485, 493–494 [modifying judgment to correct custody credits]

Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000549

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Upon determining that the minor violated probation by using marijuana, the juvenile court committed the minor to juvenile hall for 18 months, a sentence that the court had initially stayed in favor of home detention on probation with GPS monitoring. On appeal, the minor argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in automatically lifting the stay and imposing the commitment without a reassessment of the minor’s circumstances. The juvenile court erred in imposing the 18-month commitment without considering relevant factors and will vacate the disposition order and remand for the court to conduct a new disposition hearing.

First Holding:

The juvenile court’s decision may be reversed on appeal only upon a showing that the court abused its discretion in committing the minor to juvenile hall.

Authority:

In re Jose T. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1147

Second Holding:

A juvenile court cannot lift an imposed, stayed or suspended term of confinement without meeting the requirements of Welfare and Institutions Code section 777. Section 777 requires that an order changing or modifying a previous order by removing a minor from the physical custody of a parent and directing commitment to a county institution shall be made only after a noticed hearing.

Authority:

In re Gabriel T. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 952, 960

In re Jose T. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1147

Third Holding:

In order to commit the minor to juvenile hall, the court must be fully satisfied that the minor’s mental and physical condition and qualifications render it probable the minor will benefit from the commitment. To determine what is appropriate under a given set of circumstances, a court must review those circumstances every time the minor appears for a dispositional hearing. Juvenile courts must consider safety and protection of the public and the best interests of the minor in all deliberations. Violation of a juvenile court’s order cannot lead automatically to imposition of some reserved measure, but requires a complete review of the order and such amendments as the court finds meet and proper under the governing statutory criteria.

Authority:

WIC 734

WIC 202

In re Gabriel T. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 952, 960

In re Jose T. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1147-1148 [The juvenile court must determine the best manner in which to facilitate the rehabilitation of the minor]

In re Chad S. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 607, 614

In re Ronnie P. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1088-1089

Appellate Principles, Duty of counsel, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000548

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(GARY note: This case actually provided no relief at all to the defendant. It is included because it teaches a valuable lesson on the burden an appellant bears to prevail on appeal. The defendant argued that the protective order was unlawful because he was not convicted of a crime eligible for protective orders.

(But the Court of Appeal concluded that the defendant did not show that he did not commit the crime in the course of a domestic violence course of conduct, and the Court of Appeal must assume that the trial court made such a finding or it would not have imposed the order.

(The defendant was required to prove a negative. It is entirely possible that there was nothing in the record that would disprove there was or was not a domestic relationship. The conviction resulted from a plea bargain with a stipulated sentence. No objection was interposed at the time the protective order was issued.

But the case highlights the importance of understanding that an appellate court is not bound to help the defense. The conviction shifted the presumption from innocence to guilt, and the burden shifted likewise. The California Constitution requires upholding a conviction in the absence of a miscarriage of justice. Thus, the appellate courts start with a mandate that the conviction be affirmed. It is appellate counsel’s role to chip away at the presumption that orders of the superior court were properly issued. Don’t make any assumptions that cannot be backed up by the record.)

First Holding:

The defendant contends the trial court erred in issuing a criminal protective order pursuant to section 136.2(i) because his conviction for assault with a semiautomatic firearm (section 245(b)) is not an offense enumerated under the statute.

Assault with a semiautomatic firearm is not an explicitly enumerated offense under section 136.2(i). However, assault with a semiautomatic firearm can qualify under the statute as a crime involving domestic violence if the defendant’s abusive conduct is directed at someone with a qualifying relationship to him.

The record on appeal is silent as to the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the victim. The defendant has not remedied this silence with an adequate record from which we can discern whether his conviction constituted a crime involving domestic violence. On this silent record, we indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the criminal protective order, including the existence of a qualifying relationship between Hooks and the victim. Because the record does not support the defendant’s claim, he fails to meet his burden on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 13700

FAM 6203(a), 6211(c)

Second Holding:

The People assert the defendant forfeited his contention by failing to object in the trial court. As a general rule, an appellant waives issues on appeal that he or she did not initially raise in the trial court. But there are exceptions to this rule for unauthorized sentences and sentencing decisions that are in excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction. Because this case involves the jurisdictional validity of the trial court’s decision to issue a protective order during sentencing, we will consider the defendant’s claim on the merits.

Authority:

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 381-382

Third Holding:

Perhaps the most fundamental rule of appellate law is that the judgment challenged on appeal is presumed correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error. This presumption also applies to a lower court’s orders. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support the order on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. On appeal, the defendant must affirmatively demonstrate error below and provide an adequate record to support his arguments. Any uncertainty in the record must be resolved against the defendant. We will not presume error.

Authority:

People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573

People v. Sullivan (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 524, 549

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000547

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the balance of the restitution fine must be struck, as it was imposed more than 10 years ago.

Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 (Stats. 2024, ch. 805, sec. 1) amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), providing that any portion of a restitution fine under section 1465.9 that is not paid within 10 years cannot be collected upon. The restitution fine here more than 10 years ago. We therefore vacate the fine.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

In re Mattison (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1066

Duty of the court, Effective assistance of counsel, Plea bargains, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000544

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

When the court set the probation term at three years instead of the agreed-on two years, the court erred in not complying with the plea bargain without permitting the defendant to withdraw from the plea agreement.

First Holding:

The standard for evaluating claims that counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance is set forth in Strickland. This standard provides that to secure reversal upon the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel under either the state or federal Constitution, an appellant must establish (1) that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, i.e., that counsel’s performance did not meet the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent attorney, and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that appellant would have obtained a more favorable result absent counsel’s shortcomings.

On direct appeal, a conviction will be reversed for ineffective assistance only if (1) the record affirmatively discloses counsel had no rational tactical purpose for the challenged act or omission, (2) counsel was asked for a reason and failed to provide one, or (3) there simply could be no satisfactory explanation. All other claims of ineffective assistance are more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding.

Authority:

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687–694

People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1003

People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009

Second Holding:

It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Unless an appellant establishes the contrary, we shall presume that counsel’s performance fell within the wide range of professional competence and that counsel’s actions and inactions can be explained as a matter of sound trial strategy. Further, failure to raise a meritless objection is not ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

In re Thomas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1249, 1257

People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 746

People v. Bradley (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 64, 90

Third Holding:

The defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object when the trial court placed on a three-year grant of probation instead of the two-year probation term contemplated by the plea agreement. However, the order of probation is an unauthorized sentence, on which basis we reverse, rendering moot the question of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Legislature enacted AB 1950, effective January 1, 2021, which significantly changed the law governing probation, including section 1203.1. Under the amended version of section 1203.1, the maximum term of probation a trial court may impose for most felony offenses is a period of time not exceeding two years. Whereas previous law had authorized courts to grant a period of probation not exceeding the maximum term for which the person could be imprisoned, AB 1950 instead authorizes a court to impose a term of probation not longer than 2 years, except as otherwise specified. As a general matter, the amendments of AB 1950 apply retroactively to the benefit of a person whose judgment is not yet final on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Arreguin (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 787, 793

People v. Faial (2025) 18 Cal.5th 199, 207

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 963 [modifying term of probation to conform with new law while preserving remainder of plea agreement]

Fourth Holding:

Generally, a court may not accept an unauthorized plea. Where a trial court is asked to approve an illegal plea bargain—illegal because it violates a policy condition established by the Legislature or the people through the initiative process—the proper course of action for the court is clear. It should decline to act in excess of its authority and should refuse to approve an arrangement under which it is called upon to do so. Faced with an unlawful plea bargain, a trial court should withhold approval of the bargain.

Thus, if a court has approved a plea bargain containing an illegal term, ordinarily, the recourse for a court would not be to reform the bargain to make it legal; it would be to withdraw its prior approval of the agreement. Whether by withdrawal of its prior approval or the granting of a withdrawal/rescission request by one or both of the parties, the trial court must restore the parties to the status quo ante. The parties may then enter into a new plea agreement, which will be subject to the trial court’s approval, or they may proceed to trial on the reinstated charges.

Authority:

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 974

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 707

People v. Aragon (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 749, 756–757 [When a guilty plea is invalidated the parties are generally restored to the positions they occupied before the plea bargain was entered]

People v. Barton (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1145, 1159

[Gary Note:

Gary note: This unpublished opinion recognizes that section 1171, effective 1/1/2025, provides that a resentencing under any ameliorative provisions cannot result in an order to set aside a plea bargain in which the sentence was specified. In other words, section 1171 appears to have overturned the Stamps decision with respect to allowing the lower court or the prosecution to set aside a plea bargain if the ameliorative provisions apply to change the sentence in a way that the prosecutor or court do not like.

This question was granted review in a published opinion in 2024 (100 Cal.App.5th 768), where it defined the issue as “Is the prosecution entitled to rescind a plea agreement when a defendant receives a full resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728) and the trial court intends to reduce the sentence beyond eliminating the prior prison term enhancements?” On 12/18/2024, the Supreme Court transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal on the People’s motion for the Court of Appeal to vacate its earlier decision [which, in fact, concluded that the prosecutor could NOT rescind the agreement] and reconsider its opinion in light of the passage of AB 2483, which enacted section 1171. It also ordered the Court of Appeal’s original opinion to be depublished.

On remand, the Court of Appeal set aside its earlier opinion and issued a new opinion in which it said, “At the hearing, Montgomery may seek relief under any provision of section 1172.75, and neither the prosecutor nor the court may rescind the plea agreement due to a resulting sentence reduction.” The original Court of Appeal opinion was published, and it provides an analysis of why a review of the legislative history of AB 483 (which enacted section 1172.75)–including uncodified portions of AB 483– compelled it to conclude that Stamps did not apply. But the subsequent opinion following the Supreme Court’s transfer relied solely on section 1171, and the opinion was not published.

But Wait! There’s More!

On May 18, 2026, the Supreme Court decided People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729. It was an appeal directly from the original sentencing under section 1170, and did not arise out of a ruling on the application of any other ameliorative statutes. The question was “Does Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731), which limits a trial court’s discretion to impose upper term sentences, apply retroactively to defendants sentenced pursuant to stipulated plea agreements?”

The court concluded that it does apply (section 1170 as amended by SB 567), but it remanded with the Stamps remedy–that if the defendant opts to claim the benefits of section 1170 and the resulting sentence is something the DA or the court are not happy with, the plea will be set aside and the parties restored to their pre-plea bargain status.

But it contained a very important footnote:

“Shortly before oral argument, counsel for Mitchell filed a letter with this court identifying section 1171 as a new authority. Section 1171, effective January 1, 2025 (Stats. 2024, ch. 964, § 2) sets forth procedures governing a “ ‘postconviction proceeding,’ ” which the statute defines as “a proceeding to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute. Ameliorative statutes include, but are not limited to, Sections 1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75.” (§ 1171, subd. (a).) At oral argument, counsel for Mitchell urged that this statutory definition broadly encompasses a remand to the trial court in the context of a direct appeal under the authority of section 1170(b) and Estrada. We decline to consider this argument because we have concluded that Mitchell is entitled to a remand under our established precedent in Stamps. We express no view on the applicability of section 1171 to this case or how it might affect the options described above. Mitchell may raise this issue in the Court of Appeal or the trial court in the first instance.”

On remand, the Court of Appeal issued its new opinion–this time unpublished–in which it further remanded the case to the trial court for resolution in light of the Supreme Court decision. And in that unpublished opinion, it stated, “We now find that Mitchell’s section 1171 arguments should be resolved first by the trial court. Accordingly, we remand this action to that court for further proceedings consistent with Mitchell II [the Supreme Court decision]. On remand, Mitchell may raise her contentions regarding section 1171.”]

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000543

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court did not understand that it had the jurisdiction to strike prior strikes at a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75. Remanded for the court to consider how to exercise its discretion. It must also recalculate the defendant’s credit for time served.

First Holding:

Because a trial court’s power under section 1385(a) to dismiss or strike a strike prior is independent of either the Three Strikes law or the subsequent Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, any exercise of that power at a resentencing proceeding under section 1172.75 does not offend either.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 362

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497

Second Holding:

The full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant.

Authority:

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424-425

Third Holding:

Section 1172.75 is a permissible alternative resentencing method for third strike offenders, and upon recall, defendants like the defendant in Guevara were no longer presently serving indeterminate third strike sentences.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 854

Fourth Holding:

We express no opinion on the merits of the motion, which rest in the trial court’s sound discretion to evaluate.

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377-378

Fifth Holding:

Defendant is entitled to recalculation of custody credits at the close of the hearing, whether the trial court resentences him to 25 years to life or imposes a different sentence.

Authority:

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