Category Archives: Sentencing

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000207

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the trial court’s finding that defendant’s 2014 conviction for violating former section 186.22(a) constituted a prior serious felony conviction for purposes of Three Strikes sentencing and imposition of a prior serious or violent felony conviction enhancement. Defendant’s sentence is vacated, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings to include the option to retry the allegation and for resentencing.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, the Legislature enacted AB 333 to narrow the definition of criminal street gang in order to focus on true gang-related crimes, having determined that in practice the original definition of a criminal street gang was not narrowly focused on punishing true gang-related crimes. The Legislature in AB 333 redefined the term criminal street gang so as to truly target the population of criminals for which an enhanced punishment is warranted. AB 333 made significant changes to the elements of gang offenses and enhancements as defined in section 186.22

Authority:

People v. Rojas (2023) 15 Cal.5th 561, 576

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

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

Second Holding:

Though the prior conviction of what purported to be a serious felony was sustained in 2014, where a defendant has suffered a conviction under the prior version of section 186.22, AB 333 applies to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements.

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Fifth Amendment, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000206

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The true findings on the gang enhancements and gang-related firearm enhancements are vacated. The sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded. On remand, the People may retry the enhancement allegations under the law as amended by AB 333. If the People do not retry the enhancements, or at the conclusion of a retrial, the trial court shall conduct a full resentencing.

First Holding:

Several years after the defendant was sentenced, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) recommended recall and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.1(a)(1), based on the defendant’s exceptional conduct while incarcerated. The trial court recalled the sentence and resentenced him to 40 years to life, despite the recommendation by both parties that the sentence be reduced to a determinate term less than half that 40-year minimum. The trial court erred in not examining the impact of AB 333, which amended the gang activity statutes significantly. When the defendant’s sentence was recalled, the trial court regained the jurisdiction and duty to consider what punishment was appropriate for him, and the defendant regained the right to appeal whatever new sentence was imposed. His judgment thus became nonfinal, and it remains nonfinal in its present posture. The defendant is entitled to the benefits of AB 333’s ameliorative changes to section 186.22.

Authority:

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 161–162

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 312 [the application of law to undisputed facts is a question of law subject to de novo review]

Second Holding:

The evidence adduced at the defendant’s trial was insufficient to establish that the predicate offenses benefitted the gang beyond enhancing its reputation. Accordingly, we must vacate the true findings on the gang enhancements under section 186.22(b)(1), as well as the true findings on the gang-related firearm enhancements under section 12022.53(b), (c), (d), and (e)(1).

Authority:

People v. Lee (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 232, 239–240

People v. Perez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 192, 206, fn. 11

Third Holding:

Because we do not reverse based on the insufficiency of the evidence required to prove a violation of the statute as it read at the time of trial, the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution will not bar a retrial. Where, as here, evidence is not introduced at trial because the law at that time would have rendered it irrelevant, the remand to prove that element is proper and the reviewing court does not treat the issue as one of sufficiency of the evidence.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

Whether the People decide not to retry the enhancements, or at the conclusion of such a retrial, the defendant is entitled to a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [when part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances]

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424–425 [the full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant]

Sentencing

Case: 000205

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We agree that the defendant deserves an additional day of presentence custody credits but otherwise affirm.

Holding:

The parties miscalculated his presentence credits by a day. The defendant’s presentence credits should have included both the date of his arrest and of his sentencing hearing.

Authority:

PEN sec. 2900.5(a)

People v. Rajanayagam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 42, 48 [Calculation of custody credit begins on the day of arrest and continues through the day of sentencing.]

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000204

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The 25 years to life sentences on three counts violate constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws because the offenses occurred prior to the effective date of the statute under which they were imposed. The trial record does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the offenses in the three counts occurred after the effective date of the statutory amendment increasing the penalty for the offenses.

First Holding:

The federal and state constitutions proscribe ex post facto laws. Both constitutions prohibit legislatures from retroactively increasing the punishment for a crime. The federal and state ex post facto laws are interpreted the same way.

Authority:

U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 9

Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 42–43

People v. Grant (1999) 20 Cal.4th 150, 158

People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1220

Second Holding:

Ex post facto principles have been applied to the One Strike law and its amendments. Where the ex post facto clauses apply, it is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove to the jury that the charged offenses occurred on or after the effective date of the statute providing for the defendant’s punishment. When the evidence at trial does not establish that fact, the defendant is entitled to be sentenced under the formerly applicable statutes even if he raised no objection in the trial court.

Authority:

People v. Canales (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1230, 1259–1260

People v. Hiscox (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 253, 256–262

People v. Riskin (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 234, 244–245

Third Holding:

An unauthorized sentence may also be corrected on appeal despite the absence of an objection below. A sentence is unauthorized if it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354

Fourth Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, a remand and full resentencing is generally appropriate so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion following the changed circumstances. However, when the trial court imposes the maximum possible sentence, there is no need to remand the matter for resentencing. Where there are no sentencing choices to restructure, it is appropriate to modify the sentence on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893, 896 fn 15

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

People v. Francis (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 876, 887

Fifth Holding:

The one strike law includes a provision requiring consecutive sentences for some, but not all, of the offenses listed in section 667.61(c). The only crime for which the defendant was convicted is identified in section 667.61(c)(8) and therefore, defendant’s convictions do not implicate the mandatory sentencing provision in section 667.61(i). By implication, section 667.61(i) leaves the decision to impose consecutive or concurrent terms on the nonspecified offenses to the sentencing court’s discretion under section 669.

Authority:

PEN 667.61(i)

People v. Lopez (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 287, 291

People v. Valdez (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1515, 1524

Duty of the court, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000203

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying his expungement request under Penal Code section 1203.4 and in failing to consider his request to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17(b). Because the court did not address his request under section 17(b), on remand it must do so.

First Holding:

An order denying relief under section 1203.4 is appealable.

Authority:

People v. Chavez (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 110, 114

Second Holding:

Section 1203.4 provides in pertinent part that a defendant who has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation is entitled as a matter of right to have the plea or verdict changed to not guilty, to have the proceedings expunged from the record, and to have the accusations dismissed. If the petitioner meets the criteria for relief under section 1203.4, the trial court is required to grant the requested relief.

Authority:

PEN 1203.4

People v. Hawley (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 247, 249-250

People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 975, 991

People v. Lewis (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 294, 297-298

Third Holding:

As of 2023, section 1203.4 provides that a petition for relief under this section shall not be denied due to an unfulfilled order of restitution, and an unfulfilled order of restitution shall not be grounds for finding that a defendant did not fulfill the condition of probation for the entire period of probation.

Authority:

PEN 1203.4(c)(3)(A) & (B)

Fourth Holding:

When a crime is punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor it is commonly referred to as a “wobbler,” and the trial court may reduce the offense to a misdemeanor at the time of granting probation, or on application of the defendant or probation officer thereafter. The court has broad discretion in deciding whether to reduce a wobbler to a misdemeanor. In exercising its discretion, the court considers several factors, including “ ‘the nature and circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s appreciation of and attitude toward the offense, or his traits of character as evidenced by his behavior and demeanor at the trial.

Authority:

PEN 17(b)(3)

People v. Tran (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 877,

People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968,

People v. Park (2013) 56 Cal.4th 782, 790-791

Fifth Holding:

Grand theft by embezzlement of property valued at more than $950, the offense for which the defendant was convicted, is a wobbler. The trial court should have addressed the defendant’s request to reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor.

Authority:

People v. Selivanov (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 726, 75

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000201

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred when it sentenced the defendant to an upper term sentence without affording him a jury trial on aggravating factors. The trial court did not obtain defendant’s personal waiver of his right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors. Defendant’s trial counsel stipulated to a court trial on defendant’s behalf, but defendant did not personally stipulate to a court trial or waive the jury trial right. The court found the pleaded aggravating circumstances to be true after a court trial, in violation of defendant’s constitutional right to a jury. We cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt the jury would have found true that the defendant’s prior performance on post release community supervision was unsatisfactory. Because defendant was entitled to a jury trial at a minimum on this aggravating factor, we must remand the matter for a full resentencing to afford defendant that right.

First Holding:

A criminal defendant has a constitutional and statutory right to have a jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt the truthfulness of every aggravating circumstance used to increase the penalty for the crime. Any fact, beyond the bare fact of a prior conviction, that exposes a defendant to harsher punishment, must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, unless the defendant stipulates to its truth or waives a jury trial. Any waiver of this jury trial right must be an express waiver by the defendant and counsel in open court.

Authority:

PEN 1170

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 16

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 288-289

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

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

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 838-840, 842

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 4

Second Holding:

The error is prejudicial unless we can 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. Lack of a jury trial is not harmless if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding’ with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.

Authority:

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

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000200

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant’s sentence on two firearm enhancements and one possession of an explosive device should have been imposed and stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. We modify the judgment accordingly.

First Holding:

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.

Authority:

PEN 654

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. We first consider if the different crimes were completed by a single physical act. If so, the defendant may not be punished more than once for that act. Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single intent and objective or multiple intents and objectives. Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor.

Authority:

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

People v. Dowdell (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1414

Third Holding:

When a trial court sentences a defendant to separate terms without making an express finding the defendant entertained separate objectives, the trial court is deemed to have made an implied finding each offense had a separate objective. We review for substantial evidence a trial court’s implied finding that a defendant had separate intents and objectives for different offenses.

Authority:

People v. Islas (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 116, 129

People v. Dowdell (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1414

In re L.J. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 37, 43

Fourth Holding:

The sentences on each of three counts were based on his simultaneous possession of two completed assault rifles, and we assume that such possession can constitute two physical acts for the purposes of section 654. Even so, multiple punishment can be imposed consistent with section 654—on two of the three counts —only if substantial evidence in the record supports an implied finding that he had a separate objective in possessing one firearm versus the other. Our review of the record reveals no such evidence. Section 654 also prohibits multiple punishment for both possession of an explosive device and possession of ingredients to make an explosive device, because the explosives the defendant possessed were not actually capable of exploding, and thus identical evidence supported both counts. Both counts were based on the defendant’s possession of the ingredients in the box truck, at the same time and place, and under the same circumstances. Both counts were based on, essentially, the same course of conduct.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 358 [suggesting simultaneous possession of different items of contraband’ are separate acts for purposes of section 654]

In re L.J. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 37, 43

Fifth Holding:

Because it is apparent from the sentence imposed that the sentence would be little changed as a result of remand, in the interests of judicial economy, and given that the parties agree on this remedy, we will modify the judgment to stay the sentences on counts 5 and 6 rather than remand for resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1260 [authority to modify unauthorized sentence]

People v. Burns (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 1178, 1184 [staying execution of the penalty imposed is the preferred remedy for section 654 error where the reduction in sentence would be relatively minor because in such cases, it would not serve the interests of justice or judicial economy to require remand]

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473 [exercising authority to modify judgment to impose and stay sentence under section 654 rather than remand for resentencing that will not change defendant’s actual prison time]

Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000199

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was sentenced to state prison after pleading no contest to robbery and injury a girlfriend. The trial court improperly imposed a domestic violence fee. We strike the fee.

Holding:

A domestic violence fee is only authorized when a defendant is granted probation.

Authority:

PEN 1203.097

Sentencing

Case 000198

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in imposing three Life Without The Possiblity Of Parole (LWOP) sentences on each of the two murders, despite the jury having found true three special circumstances as to each murder.

Holding:

The penalty for a defendant who is found guilty of murder in the first degree is death or imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole if one or more special circumstances has been found to be true. Multiple true special circumstance findings do not justify additional punishment.

Authority:

PEN 190.2

People v. Montes (2014) 58 Cal.4th 809, 874 [defendant faced no additional punishment merely as a result of additional special circumstance true finding]

Equal protection, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000194

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Defendant appeals the trial court’s written order vacating its prior order appointing counsel and scheduling a Franklin hearing to preserve mitigating evidence for use in a future youthful offender parole hearing. Defendant asks this court to remand the matter so he may present additional argument to the trial court. The People do not oppose giving defendant an opportunity to establish his eligibility for a Franklin hearing. We accept the People’s concession and will reverse and remand the matter.

First Holding:

As of January 1, 2020, defendants who committed crimes when they were 25 years old or younger are generally eligible for a youth offender parole hearing after specified periods, depending on their sentence. However, the statute excludes those defendants who, like defendant here, were sentenced to LWOP for crimes they committed when they were 18 to 25 years old.

[GARY NOTE: A defendant who is eligible for future consideration of parole as a youthful offender may make a record in the superior court to preserve facts that may be persuasive in a future hearing on whether to grant parole.]

Authority:

PEN 3051

PEN 1203.1

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Second Holding:

Although Hardin rejected an equal protection challenge to section 3051 by an offender sentenced to LWOP for special circumstance murder, it did not foreclose other as-applied challenges to the statute based on particular special circumstances or the factual circumstances of individual cases.

Authority:

People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834

People v. Briscoe (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 479, 484-495 [the defendant successfully raised an as-applied challenge to section 3051’s exclusion of young adult offenders convicted of special circumstance murder under section 190.2(d)]

Third Holding:

There are cases with possibly similar crimes by possibly equally culpable offenders who would now be eligible for parole while the defendant is not. Although these authorities do not conclusively establish any violation of defendant’s right to equal protection, they do allow for the possibility that he might be able to develop such an argument under Harden.

Authority:

People v. Carter (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 831

People v. Mulqueen (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 532

People v. Fortman (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 45

Fourth Holding:

Some states have constitutions that prohibit imposing an LWOP sentence on youthful offenders. While these authorities do not conclusively establish that section 3051’s exclusion of young adult offenders constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the California Constitution, they allow for the possibility that defendant might be able to develop such an argument.

Authority:

Commonwealth v. Mattis (2024) 493 Mass. 216, 234-235

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000191

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is entitled to sentencing relief under section 1172.75 for prior prison term enhancements which were imposed and stayed. Absent a valid waiver of his presence, defendant is entitled to be present at his resentencing hearing on remand.

First Holding:

Any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b), except for enhancements for certain sexually violent offenses, is legally invalid. If a prior prison term enhancement becomes invalid under the section, a trial court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant, and, in doing so, shall apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

Section 1172.75(a) applies to enhancements that were imposed as part of the defendant’s original judgment, regardless of whether the enhancement was stayed or executed. If the enhancement is no longer authorized under the current version of section 667.5(b), section 1172.75(a) renders the enhancement invalid. And the retroactive invalidation of the previously imposed enhancements in turn mandates resentencing under section 1172.75, according to the procedures set forth therein.

[Gary note: This opinion was filed before Espino was decided. It is not applicable here because the prior conviction was stayed. But I think it is important to know the current complete state of the law. Rhodius dealt solely with prior convictions whose punishment was stayed, deferring the question whether section 1172.75 applies to prior convictions that were stricken. On July 2, 2026, the Supreme Court answered that question in People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987). It held that section 1172.75 applies to those prior convictions that were stricken at time of sentencing. This is not discussed in the summary above because the trial court had relied the prior conviction having been stayed, not stricken, which was directly addressed by Rhodius.]

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1068

[People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987)]

Third Holding:

By its own terms, section 1172.75 ensures the defendant’s right to be present, represented by counsel, and present evidence at the hearing.

Authority:

People v. Velasco (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 663, 673-674

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing

Case: 000190

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the court reduced his mandatory assessments due to his inability to pay. We direct the trial court to correct its resentencing minute order and to amend the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

A trial court must accurately set forth all fines and fees in the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 [If the abstract does not specify the amount of each fine, the Department of Corrections cannot fulfill its statutory duty to collect and forward deductions from prisoner wages to the appropriate agency]

Second Holding:

Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. We have the inherent power to correct clerical errors so as to make records such as abstracts of judgment or minute orders conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Thus, we are directing the court to amend the abstract of judgment to conform to its oral pronouncement of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705