Category Archives: Sentencing

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000542

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.

First Holding:

Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5(b) required trial courts to impose a one-year sentence enhancement for each true finding on an allegation that a defendant served a separate prior prison term and had not remained free of custody for at least five years. Effective January 1, 2020, Senate Bill No. 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) amended section 667.5 by limiting the prior prison term enhancement to only prior terms for sexually violent offenses. Enhancements based on prior prison terms served for other offenses became legally invalid. The Legislature later enacted SB 483, effective January 1, 2022, to make the changes implemented by SB No. 136 retroactive by adding what is now numbered section 1172.75 to the Penal Code. Section 1172.75(c) requires the trial court, upon being properly notified that a defendant is serving a sentence that includes a legally invalid prior prison term enhancement, to recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Jennings (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 664, 681

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 380

Second Holding:

A court has long had the authority to exercise its discretion and dismiss one or more prior serious felonies that are charged as Strikes under the Three Strikes law. A trial court has the authority to strike prior strikes under section 1385(a) and Romero at a section 1172.75 hearing. 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, any exercise of that power at a resentencing proceeding under section 1172.75 does not offend either. As the trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion, he case is remanded for a resentencing hearing. At that hearing, the trial court is directed to consider its full range of lawful sentencing options, including whether to grant or deny the defendant’s Romero motion.

Authority:

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

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 345, 362

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000541

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and evading an officer with reckless driving. There was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the two crimes had separate objectives and remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to exercise its discretion under section 654 to stay the sentence on either count.

First Holding:

Section 654(a) 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. A defendant may be charged with—and in some cases convicted of—multiple crimes arising out of the same conduct but cannot receive multiple punishments for the same act or omission. When section 954 permits multiple conviction[s], but section 654 prohibits multiple punishment[s], the trial court must stay execution of sentence on the convictions for which multiple punishment is prohibited.

Authority:

PEN 654

PEN 954

People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224, 1226−1227

Second Holding:

Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an act or omission may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective. If we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single intent and objective or multiple intents and objectives.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

The determination of whether there was more than one objective is a factual determination, which will not be reversed on appeal unless unsupported by the evidence presented at trial. We review the trial court’s determination in the light most favorable to the respondent and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Saffle (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 434, 438

People v. Vang (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 912, 916

Fourth Holding:

Because the trial court sentenced the defendant on both counts, we presume the trial court made an implied finding that section 654 did not apply, and that the two crimes had separate objectives.

Authority:

People v. Kelly (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 886, 904 [When there is no explicit ruling by the trial court at sentencing, we infer that the court made the finding appropriate to the sentence it imposed.]

Fifth Holding:

We conclude there was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the two crimes had separate objectives.

Authority:

In re L.J. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 37 [The evidence does not support a finding that the minor’s assaults on the officers were based on different intents and objectives than the minor’s overall purpose of trying to evade the police officers.]

People v. Jimenez (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 409, 426 [defendant had a different intent and objection when driving “head on” towards an officer]

Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000540

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted of five offenses arising from a violent, domestic-violence-related altercation. The trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense. The court issued a protective order outside of its jurisdiction under Penal Code section 136.2. The court miscalculated the total assessment due from the defendant pursuant to Government Code section 70373(a). We vacate the protective order and reverse the judgment, remanding for a possible retrial on one conviction and for a full resentencing.

First Holding:

We review de novo a claim that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the applicable principles of law.

Authority:

People v. Lueth (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 189, 195

Second Holding:

In a criminal case, a jury verdict must be unanimous. When an accusatory pleading charges the defendant with a single criminal act, and the evidence presented at trial tends to show more than one such unlawful act, either the prosecution must elect the specific act relied upon to prove the charge to the jury, or the court must instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree that the defendant committed the same specific criminal act. The unanimity instruction requirement is intended to eliminate the danger that the defendant will be convicted even though there is no single offense which all the jurors agree the defendant committed. If required, the instruction must be given sua sponte.

Authority:

People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132

People v. Melhado (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1534

People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1199

Third Holding:

If a prosecutor elects to rely upon a specific act to prove a charged crime, then the trial court has no duty to give the jury an instruction that it must unanimously agree on the act that constituted the crime charged.

Authority:

People v. Hawkins (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1455

Fourth Holding:

The trial court instructed the jury with the elements of assault with a deadly weapon, but did not instruct them with the elements of simple assault. We conduct an independent review of the question of whether this was error.

Authority:

People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 705

Fifth Holding:

We conclude that it was error for the to not instruct the jury with the elements of simple assault. A trial court must instruct on lesser included offenses, even in the absence of a request, whenever there is substantial evidence raising a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense are present. Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury, that is, evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive. Simple assault is a lesser included offense of aggravated assault The trial court, accordingly, was required to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple assault if a reasonable jury could have found that the defendant committed only a simple assault and not an assault with a deadly weapon.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 645

People v. McDaniel (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 736, 747

Sixth Holding:

Under section 245 (assault with a deadly weapon), an object may be a deadly weapon in two ways. First, objects are considered deadly weapons as a matter of law, or deadly per se, when the ordinary use for which they are designed establishes their character as such. Typical examples include dirks and blackjacks. Second, if an object is not inherently deadly, the prosecution must prove to the trier of fact that the object was used in such a manner as to be capable of producing and likely to produce, death or great bodily injury. Objects which have been found to be a deadly weapon based on the way they were used include a pillow, an automobile, a large rock, a razor blade, and a fingernail file. A wrench is not inherently deadly as a matter of law. It is designed and typically used for innocent purposes.

Authority:

People v. Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023, 1028-1029

People v. Montes (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1054

People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 6

Seventh Holding:

Based on the evidence, we conclude reasonable jurors could have decided the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant assaulted the victim with the wrench but was insufficient to prove he did so in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily injury. And so we must reverse the judgment and conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. Under settled law, the judgment will be modified unless the People elect to retry the defendant on the greater charge and are successful.

Authority:

People v. Edwards (1985) 39 Cal.3d 107, 118

Eighth Holding:

Whether section 136.2(i)(1) authorized the court to issue a protective order against a defendant is an issue of statutory interpretation we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 645

Ninth Holding:

Under section 136.2(i)(2), trial courts, generally speaking, are authorized to issue postconviction orders restraining a criminal defendant who has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence from any contact with a percipient witness to the crime who has been harassed by the defendant. It was improper to issue a protective order under section 136.2(i) where the person was not a percipient witness. The broader protective orders under section 136.2 are limited to the time frame during the pendency of the criminal action. It does not apply to postconviction orders.

Authority:

PEN 136.2

People v. Beckemeyer (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 461, 465 and fn. 4, 466

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 140–144

Tenth Holding:

The court imposed $180 as the court facilities funding assessment for the five counts. However, at $30 for each count, the assessment should have been $150, not $180.

Authority:

GOV 70373(a)

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000539

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred when it found the aggravating factors true and sentenced him to the upper term without first obtaining an express waiver of his right to a jury trial or a stipulation to the aggravating factors.

First Holding:

We review questions about whether a defendant’s constitutional rights were violated de novo. If we determine that a defendant’s right to a jury trial has been violated, we apply the harmless error standard in Chapman. Under the Chapman standard, we must reverse and remand a sentence imposed under section 1170(b), unless we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court to justify an upper term sentence, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statutory requirements.

Authority:

People v. Palmer (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 268, 280

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

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

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

Second Holding:

Any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by a jury, not a judge, and established beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence.

Authority:

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281

Third Holding:

In 2022, the Legislature amended section 1170(b) to limit a court’s discretion to impose the upper term of a sentencing triad. Under the current version of section 1170, trial courts may impose a sentence that exceeds the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(2)

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 757, 773

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

Fourth Holding:

Section 1170(b)(3) provides that the court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury. This provision is considered the state counterpart to the exception the United States Supreme Court recognized in Almendarez-Torres for findings regarding a defendant’s prior convictions. Recently, the United States Supreme Court clarified in Erlinger that the Almendarez-Torres exception to the jury trial requirement permits a judge to make findings regarding the fact of a defendant’s prior conviction and the elements of the offense alone, nothing else.

Authority:

Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998) 523 U.S. 224

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1085-1086

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 837

Fifth Holding:

Virtually any fact that increases a defendant’s exposure to punishment must be submitted to a jury and found unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. This jury trial guarantee retains its vitality even if the inquiry is straightforward. Therefore, unless a defendant waives the right to a jury trial or stipulates that the aggravating factors are true, under section 1170(b), the People must prove to a jury the facts relied on to justify an upper term sentence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 761-762

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1084, 1086

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 842

Sixth Holding:

A defendant is entitled to have a jury determine whether his prior convictions were of increasing seriousness and whether he had performed unsatisfactorily on probation, before the court could rely on those aggravating facts to find justification for an upper term sentence. The inquiry into whether defendant’s prior convictions were extensive or numerous is a comparative and qualitative one. The qualitative and comparative nature of the inquiry, which could allow a jury to focus on different aspects of defendant’s history than the trial court did, makes it difficult to conclude with confidence that the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court. Thus, we find the error to be not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1085, 1090

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000538

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it contains several errors, including a representation that the court imposed a $300 restitution, contrary to the actual order.

First Holding:

The abstract of judgment reflects a $300 restitution fine under section 1202.4(b) and a $300 parole revocation fine under section 1202.45 that were not orally imposed during the sentencing hearing. Under section 1202.4(b), the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record.

Under section 1202.45, if a defendant’s sentence includes a period of parole or the defendant is subject to post-release community supervision or mandatory supervision, the court shall impose an additional fine in the same amount as the section 1202.4 fine.

The People did not object to the court’s failure to orally impose these fines. Because such fines are discretionary given the court’s ability to not impose them if it makes certain findings on the record, the People forfeited the imposition of the fines by not objecting. Accordingly, we direct those fines to be stricken.

Authority:

People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 303

Second Holding:

The abstract of judgment reflects that the restitution fine was imposed, but it was not. The oral pronouncement controls, so we amend the abstract of judgment accordingly.

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 000537

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is remanded to give the prosecution an opportunity to prove that the 2011 prior strike conviction alleged in the information remains a strike under the current version of section 186.22, criminal gang activity.

First Holding:

The defendant was convicted in 2011 of carrying a loaded firearm with an enhancement that the crime was committed for the benefit of a gang. A prior felony firearm conviction constitutes a strike if committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang pursuant to section 186.22(b)(1). Thus, the prior conviction was alleged as a strike, resulting in a doubled sentence.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

PEN 667(d)(1)

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

People v. Briceno (2004) 34 Cal.4th 451, 456

Second Holding:

AB 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.), effective January 1, 2022, amended section 186.22 to narrow the definition of benefit to mean to provide a common benefit to members of a gang where the common benefit is more than reputational. The amendment applies retroactively to cases that are not final on appeal to determine whether a prior violation of section 186.22 constitutes a strike or a five-year sentence enhancement. Current law applies in determining whether they qualify as prior serious felony convictions. The appropriate remedy is to remand to permit the prosecution the opportunity to establish that the prior conviction constitutes a strike under current law.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(g

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 586–587

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000535 and Case 000536

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the conviction for involuntary manslaughter, as it is a lesser included offense of the murder that she was also convicted of in a separate count. Section 654 requires stay of either the murder count or the child abuse count, because they were based on the same act. We remand to the trial court for it to determine which of the two sentences should be stayed.

[Gary note: There were two defendants, and the opinions, though separate, were virtually material, so I have summarize both in this single summary]

First Holding:

We summarize the relevant facts pertinent to the issues raised on appeal, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment.

Authority:

In re Jesus O. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 859, 861

People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578

Second Holding:

For Victim A’s death, the jury convicted the defendant of both second degree murder (count 1) and involuntary manslaughter (count 2). The parties agree, as do we, that, because substantial evidence supports the murder conviction, the involuntary manslaughter conviction must be vacated. A defendant cannot be convicted of both an offense and a necessarily lesser included offense based upon the commission of an identical act. In such a situation, the lesser included offense must be reversed. Involuntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder. The defendant’s convictions were based on the same act. Accordingly, the conviction in count 2 must be vacated.

Authority:

People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 736

People v. Munoz (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 143, 153

Third Holding:

For the child abuse conviction in count 3 involving Victim A, the defendant received a sentence of four years in prison, which was to run concurrently to her indeterminate sentence for Victim A’s murder in count 1. Section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for a single act or course of conduct that violates more than one statute. Where all offenses are incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for only one of them, and execution of sentence on the remaining counts must be stayed. Because the same act supports the convictions in counts 1 and 3, section 654 prohibits multiple punishment and requires that execution of sentence be stayed on one of those counts.

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 337

Fourth Holding:

Under amended section 654, the sentencing court has discretion to determine which sentence should be stayed. This could result in the trial court imposing and executing the shorter sentence rather than the longer sentence. At sentencing in this matter, the trial court imposed a concurrent four-year term on count 3. Although the court’s decision to run the felony child abuse term concurrently suggests it would not stay the sentence for murder, nothing in the sentencing record affirmatively shows how the trial court would have exercised its discretion under section 654. Accordingly, we remand for resentencing so the trial court may determine in the first instance which sentence must be stayed under section 654.

Authority:

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000534

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though we affirm the denial of the defendant’s petition under section 1172.6, the matter is remanded to give the defendant the opportunity to amend his petition to include details that refute the record of conviction on which the trial court concluded the defendant had not made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief.

First Holding:

Add holding The defendant filed a form petition for relief under section 1172.6, seeking recall of his conviction in light of changes in the law on murder and attempted murder. He simply checked off the blanks. The record of conviction, however, showed that only one person–the defendant–committed the attempted murder. The defendant did not submit further response, and the petition was denied. After the denial, the Supreme Court decided Patton.

In Patton, although the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order denying resentencing relief where Patton had offered only conclusory allegations of entitlement to relief under section 1172.6, at Patton’s request the Supreme Court remanded the case to the superior court with directions to consider an amended petition if Patton chose to file one. The defendant’s request here for similar disposition appears appropriate. It is unknown whether the defendant will be able to allege additional facts sufficient to make a prima facie showing, but we follow the California Supreme Court’s lead and remand the matter in an abundance of caution to permit him to file an amended petition if he is able to do so.
here

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 557

People v. Rodriguez (2026) 117 Cal.App.5th 1179, 1196

People v. Glass (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 922, 925, 930

Second Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, 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. It accomplished this by amending sections 188 and 189.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957

Third Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, SB 775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) amended the statute to include attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and manslaughter. The Legislature provided a procedure, now codified in section 1172.6, whereby defendants may petition the court to vacate their convictions and seek resentencing on any remaining counts if they show they could not now be convicted of murder, attempted murder or manslaughter because of the changes to sections 188 and 189. Alternatively, persons are eligible who accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which the petitioner could have been convicted of murder. attempted murder or manslaughter under the law as it was before SB 1437 became effective.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Plea bargains, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000532

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(You might need a cuppajoe or demitasse of tea or mug o’cocoa for this Error and/or relief, because Gary has a few words to share.  If THAT doesn’t put you to sleep, then you’re safe to move on to the 11 items I’ve listed as Holdings.  I happen to be quite interested in the impact of section 1171 on the application of the Stamps remedy that involves setting aside the plea if the prosecution doesn’t like effect that application of ameliorative provisions have where the upper term had been stipulated to in the original plea bargain.  This opinion alludes to that in what I have labeled as the Eleventh Holding.)

Upon recall of the sentence under section 1172.75, the trial court should have addressed whether the changes in the gang criminal activity law effected by AB 333 applied to the defendant’s judgment. The trial court’s resentencing order is vacated. The gang conviction (sec. 186.22(a)) on count 3 is reversed and the true finding on the gang enhancement (sec. 186.22(b)(1)) on count 4 is vacated. The prosecution shall have the opportunity to establish the gang conviction and enhancement under the current version of section 186.22. The matter is remanded for further proceedings.

(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.”)

First Holding:

Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5(b) required trial courts to impose a one-year sentence enhancement for each true finding on an allegation the defendant had served a separate prior prison term and had not remained free of custody for at least five years. Section 667.5(b) was amended effective January 1, 2020, to eliminate prior prison term enhancements for all crimes except certain sexually violent offenses. Effective January 1, 2022, (renumbered) section 1172.75 made this change retroactive.

Authority:

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 379–380

Second Holding:

A defendant serving a term for a judgment that includes a now-invalid enhancement is entitled to resentencing. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements. A defendant is entitled to a full resentencing under section 1172.75 even when the original sentence was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1055

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

People v. Carter (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 960, 972

Third Holding:

Section 1172.75(d) sets forth detailed instructions for resentencing once a sentence has been recalled. 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. Resentencing pursuant to this section shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1055

Fourth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, Assembly Bill 333 [AB 333] made several changes to the criminal street gang laws.

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

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

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

Fourth, AB 333 narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

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

Fifth Holding:

Previously, a defendant who had committed an offense to benefit the reputation of a criminal street gang, but with no other benefit, was subject to the enhancement. Amended section 186.22(g) now requires the prosecution to show that the common benefit to the gang is more than reputational. Additionally, to prove a pattern of gang activity was collectively engaged in by members of the gang under amended section 186.22(f), the prosecution must show a nexus between the individual predicate offenses and the gang as an organized, collective enterprise.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 667

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

Sixth Holding:

Under Estrada, ameliorative changes to criminal statutes apply to all cases not final on appeal absent contrary legislative intent. The rule in Estrada has been applied to statutes governing penalty enhancements, as well as to statutes governing substantive offenses. The changes to the elements of a section 186.22 gang enhancement apply retroactively pursuant to Estrada. Estrada applies to statutory amendments which redefine, to the benefit of defendants, conduct subject to criminal sanctions. Assembly Bill 333 added new elements to the substantive offense and enhancements in section 186.22, and thus its substantive changes apply retroactively to all nonfinal cases under Estrada.

Authority:

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744–745

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

People v. Nasalga (1996) 12 Cal.4th 784, 792

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 394–395

Seventh Holding:

The defendant’s sentence was vacated when the trial court recalled his sentence under section 1172.75. Once his sentence was vacated, the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence him to a new sentence. The defendant regained the right to appeal whatever new sentence was imposed, and his judgment became nonfinal for Estrada purposes.

Authority:

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 161-162, 163 [once a court has determined that a defendant is entitled to resentencing, the result is vacatur of the original sentence, whereupon the trial court may impose any appropriate sentence]

People v. Arias (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 213, 219 [recall of the defendant’s sentence effectively vacates his original sentence and commitment]

Eighth Holding:

Courts that have applied AB 333 retroactively have permitted retrial of the gang charges on remand when the defendant was convicted following a jury trial. As one court explained, the proper remedy for this type of failure of proof —where newly required elements under amended section 186.22 were never tried to the jury—is to remand and give the People an opportunity to retry the affected charges. We see no reason the prosecution should be precluded from establishing the elements of section 186.22 as amended by AB 333 because the defendant’s sentence resulted from a plea agreement.

Case law has recognized the prosecution must have an opportunity to establish an element of an offense subsequently added by statute even if the defendant was convicted pursuant to a plea agreement. When a statutory amendment adds an additional element to an offense, the prosecution must be afforded the opportunity to establish the additional element upon remand. Such a retrial is not barred by the double jeopardy clause or ex post facto principles. Fairness dictates that the prosecution be given the opportunity to establish the additional element on remand when a conviction based on a plea bargain is vacated due to a statutory amendment adding an element the prosecution previously had no reason to prove.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 764

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 746–747

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657,669-670

People v. E.H. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 467, 480

People v. Lopez (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 409, 416

People v. Eagle (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 275

People v. Figueroa (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 65, 71–72 and fn. 2

Ninth Holding:

Requiring the parties’ compliance with changes in the law made retroactive to them does not violate the terms of the plea agreement, nor does the failure of a plea agreement to reference the possibility the law might change translate into an implied promise the defendant will be unaffected by a change in the statutory consequences attending his or her conviction. To that extent, then, the terms of the plea agreement can be affected by changes in the law. Because a plea agreement is, in essence, a contract between the defendant and the prosecutor to which the court consents to be bound, a trial court may not violate the agreement by modifying it. Under Doe, however, the terms of the plea bargain include future changes in the law. By implementing such changes, the trial court is not altering the terms of the plea bargain.

Authority:

PEN 1016.8

PEN 1192.7(b)

Doe v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 64, 73–74

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 701

People v. Harrell (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 161, 168

Tenth Holding:

Pursuant to Doe, the defendant’s plea agreement is deemed to incorporate the Legislature’s subsequent enactment of AB 333, and we agree with the parties that AB 333 applies retroactively to the defendant’s case. Requiring the parties’ compliance with changes to section 186.22 made retroactive to the defendant does not violate the terms of the plea agreement. For these reasons, the prosecution must be given an opportunity on remand to establish the elements of the substantive gang offense charged on count 3 and the gang enhancement on count 4 pursuant to amended section 186.22. Following any proceeding to establish those elements or if the prosecution chooses to forego its opportunity to comply with AB 333, the trial court must conduct a full resentencing.

Authority:

Doe v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 64, 73

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657,669-670

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

Eleventh Holding:

As a general rule, we do not issue advisory opinions indicating what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. We note though for the benefit of the parties and the trial court that the defendant’s resentencing under section 1172.75 remains subject to section 1171, which provides (effective 1/1/2025) that any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement. Section 1171 was further amended effective 1/1/2026 to provide that this section does not diminish the ability of the prosecution to oppose relief requested in a postconviction proceeding. On remand, the trial court must comply with the current version of section 1171 when resentencing the defendant.

Authority:

PEN 1171(c)(3) and (e)

People v. Slayton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1076, 1084

Amelioration, Discretion, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case 000531

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant, whose original sentencing occurred prior to 1/1/2020, is eligible for full resentencing under section 1172.75 where his original sentence imposed sentence (whether or not stayed) on now-invalid prior prison term enhancements, even if later his sentence was modified on other grounds after 1-1-2020.

[GARY NOTE: The court, in this unpublished case, concluded that section 1172.75 applies to the original judgment, which was before 1/1/2020, and therefore the defendant was eligible despite any subsequent resentencing under section 1172.1. The decision rested on the Court of Appeals logic in interpreting the statutes, however, and did not otherwise cite any published case law. Since an unpublished decision cannot be cited as authority, the gold extracted in this summary does not specifically address the question reached by the court in this case.]

First Holding:

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 as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid. It requires the court to vacate the entire sentence and hold a full resentencing hearing, applying any applicable ameliorative changes in the law since the original sentencing. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements.

Authority:

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

People v. Dixon (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 236, 243

Second Holding:

Section 1172.1 authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and rehabilitations (CDCR) [as well as “the Board of Parole Hearings in the case of a defendant incarcerated in state prison, the county correctional administrator in the case of a defendant incarcerated in county jail, 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”] to recommend to the superior court that the court recall a previously imposed sentence and resentence the defendant.

The CDCR recommendation furnishes the court with jurisdiction it would not otherwise have to recall and resentence and is an invitation to the court to exercise its equitable jurisdiction. The court may, on its own motion, within 120 days of the date of commitment or at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law, recall the sentence and commitment previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced, whether or not the defendant is still in custody. Whether recall on the invitation of the CDCR et al. or on its own motion, the new sentence, if any, cannot be greater than the initial sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1

People v. McMurray (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1035, 1

Third Holding:

If the resentencing request is from the Secretary of CDCR, the Board of Parole Hearings, a county correctional administrator, a district attorney, or the Attorney General, there shall be a presumption favoring recall and resentencing of the defendant, which may only be overcome if a court finds the defendant currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in section 1170.18(c) (an unreasonable risk that the defendant will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv)).

Authority:

PEN 1172.1(b)

People v. Braggs (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 809, 818

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s sentencing decisions in a section 1172.75 resentencing proceeding for abuse of discretion. However, where the appeal from a resentencing order raises questions 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

People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 804 [the interpretation of a statute presents a question of law that this court reviews de novo]

Sentencing

Case 000529

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in including nonvictims in its postconviction protective order under section 136.2(i)(1).

First Holding:

Section 136.2(i)(1) provides that when a defendant has been convicted of a crime that requires the defendant to register as a sex offender, the court, at the time of sentencing, shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with a victim of the crime. The trial court does not have authority to restrain a defendant from contacting a person who was not a victim of the crime.

Authority:

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 648

Second Holding:

The term “victim” under section 136.2 is not limited to only those individuals named in the charge for which the defendant was convicted. A victim may include anyone with respect to whom there is reason to believe that any crime is being or has been perpetrated or attempted to be perpetrated. Thus, a “victim of the crime” may include a person not named in the count on which the defendant was convicted, so long as that person was a victim of the same crime.

It is possible for a protective order to protect more than one person/victim and the statute does not require that a person be expressly identified in a charging instrument in order to be considered a victim. A protective order is available for one or more persons as long as each person is a ‘victim’ of any one of the specifically enumerated crimes under section 136.2(i)(1) for which the defendant has been convicted.

Authority:

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 647

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 142, 143-144, fn. 4

Third Holding:

Several courts have vacated protective orders where the persons listed in the protective orders either were not present during the incident or did not suffer harm as a result of the offense for which the defendants were convicted.

Authority:

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 648–649 [Person A was not present when Pena committed sexual battery against the victim]

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 144 [the defendant’s ex-wife and the other children did not suffer continuous sexual abuse]

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 237 [the minor children were present but asleep during incident]

Amelioration, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000527

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was improper for the court to impose the upper term based on factors that were not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

Section 1170(b)(2) states that when a statute allows for a low, middle, and high term, the court shall impose the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of the upper term. Rule 4.421(b) sets out several aggravating factors relating to a defendant: (1) The defendant has engaged in violent conduct that indicates a serious danger to society; (2) The defendant’s prior convictions are numerous or of increasing seriousness; (4) The defendant was on probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole when the crime was committed; and (5) The defendant’s prior performance on probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole was unsatisfactory. The court stated that it found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant showed an increasing and violent criminal history, he posed a danger to society, and he does not perform well in probation or on parole.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)

Rules of Court, rule 4.421

Second Holding:

Subsequent to the date of sentencing, the United State Supreme Court decided Erlinger, holding that virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed—including certain details relating to prior convictions—must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt or freely admitted in a guilty plea. Thus, in sentencing a judge may do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.

Authority:

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 824

Third Holding:

Under the reasoning of Erlinger, a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm. When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review. Under that standard, a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1079-1080, 1086,

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 743

Fourth Holding:

Whether a defendant’s crimes showed increasing seriousness requires a comparison and evaluation of the relationship among a defendant’s prior convictions, and a determination as to their relative seriousness. Those factors must be assessed by a jury; such a finding involves something more than a narrow factual finding that the convictions were sustained and what elements were required to prove them, which is the limitation on a court’s power under the reasoning of Erlinger.

The same is true for a finding that a defendant’s performance on probation had been unsatisfactory, because even where a finding of unsatisfactory probation performance is based on conviction of a new offense, it is not strictly limited to that fact. Rather, it must be proven that the defendant was ordered to serve a term of probation and remained on probation at the time he or she committed the new offense. These facts, too, go beyond the mere existence of a prior conviction and its elements. It cannot be shown that a rational juror could conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these facts constitute factors in aggravation.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082-1083, 1089-1091