Category Archives: Sentencing

Appellate Principles, Jurisdiction, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000977

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals the no-contact and stay-away orders imposed by the trial court as part of his prison sentence and as a condition of his parole following his conviction for petty theft and making criminal threats.

The Attorney General argues the defendant forfeited this issue by failing to object to the orders in the trial court.

We disagree and strike the no-contact and stay-away orders because the trial court lacked authority to issue them and otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

Normally, only claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal. In the sentencing context, we have applied the rule to claims of error asserted by both the People and the defendant.

We have, however, created a narrow exception to the waiver rule for unauthorized sentences or sentences entered in excess of jurisdiction.

Authority:

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

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852

Second Holding:

A claim that a sentence is unauthorized may be raised for the first time on appeal, and is subject to judicial correction whenever the error comes to the attention of the reviewing court. A sentence is generally unauthorized where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. Such error is clear and correctable independent of any factual issues presented by the record at sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Dotson (1997) 16 Cal.4th 547, 554, fn. 6

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

Third Holding:

The trial court did not have statutory authority to impose no-contact or stay-away orders in these circumstances. While there are statutory provisions that allow a trial court to impose no-contact and stay-away orders in other circumstances, for example, domestic violence cases, cases involving sexual assault of a minor, stalking cases, as a condition of probation, or during active criminal proceedings, there are no statutes specifically authorizing the trial court here to impose no-contact and stay-away orders as part of the defendant’s prison sentence or as a condition of his parole.

Authority:

PEN 1203.097

PEN 1202.05(a)

PEN 646.9(k)

PEN 1203.1(j)

PEN 136.2

Fourth Holding:

Ponce rejected the argument that that trial courts, independent of statutes, have inherent authority to protect trial participants, citing both California and federal cases. It held that even if the trial court had relied on inherent judicial authority to issue its order, the result would not change.

An existing body of statutory law regulates restraining orders. Inherent powers should never be exercised in such a manner as to nullify existing legislation. Where the Legislature authorizes a specific variety of available procedures, the courts should use them and should normally refrain from exercising their inherent powers to invent alternatives.

The trial court here should have refrained from acting because there is an existing body of statutory law regulating no-contact and stay-away orders.

Authority:

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 383-384

Fifth Holding:

The Legislature has adopted specific statutory provisions authorizing parole boards to impose no-contact and stay-away orders as a condition of parole. Under this statutory scheme, the victims here can request the parole board to include no-contact and stay-away orders as a condition of the defendant’s parole.

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(a) authorizes trial courts to issue orders to protect against any threats or harassment after notice and hearing.

Therefore, because the Legislature already authorizes available procedures for no-contact and stay-away orders for the victims in this case, the trial court was not authorized to impose them under its inherent authority.

Authority:

PEN 3053.2(a) [the parole board must impose a no-contact order as a condition of parole if requested by the victim]

PEN 3053(a) [the parole board may also impose on the parole any conditions that it may deem proper]

CCP 527.6(a)

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000975

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing because the trial court erroneously believed the law required it to impose consecutive sentences for every count.

First Holding:

Under section 667.61(i), consecutive sentences are mandatory only to offenses listed in section 667.61(c), paragraphs (1) through (7). The crime of which the jury found the defendant guilty is described in 667.61(c), paragraph (8).

Thus, consecutive sentencing was not mandatory.

Authority:

PEN 667.61(c)

Second Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court, and a court that is unaware of its discretionary authority cannot exercise its informed discretion.

When a sentencing court was not aware of the full scope of its discretionary powers at the time the defendant was sentenced, 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. Belmontes (1983) 34 Cal.3d 335, 348, fn. 8

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

Third Holding:

The Attorney General argues that the defendant forfeited his sentencing contention by failing to object below to the court’s error, and that the defendant cannot show his counsel was ineffective for failing to object because it was not reasonably likely the court would have imposed anything less than the 150-year sentence that it did.

We exercise our discretion to reach the question, notwithstanding forfeiture.

Authority:

People v. Leon (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1003 [the trial court’s erroneous understanding that it had no discretion to impose concurrent sentences may fall within a narrow class of sentencing issues that are reviewable in the absence of a timely objection, and in any event, we would exercise our discretion to resolve the claim in the interests of fairness and judicial economy and to forestall unnecessary ineffective assistance of counsel claims.]

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 162, fn. 6 [An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party]

Fourth Holding:

The trial court’s repeated references to section 667.61(i)’s requirement that it impose consecutive sentences leaves no doubt that the court here did not know it retained the discretion to impose concurrent sentences per victim.

The court provided no other reason for imposing consecutive sentences, including no comment that the aggravating factor warranted a maximum sentence or any similar comment.

We therefore cannot conclude that the record clearly indicates the court would have imposed the same sentence if it had understood its full sentencing discretion. We accordingly remand the matter for resentencing.

Authority:

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

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000974

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Punishment for the defendant’s conviction of the false imprisonment count must be stayed under section 654.

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.

Section 654 does not prevent multiple convictions for the same conduct, only multiple punishments for a single, indivisible course of action. A defendant can be punished for multiple offenses where a course of conduct is divisible, giving rise to more than one act.

Authority:

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 551

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

Second Holding:

To determine whether a course of conduct involving more than a single act is divisible for purposes of section 654, we consider whether the course of conduct included multiple intents and objectives.

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

If all of the offenses were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once.

Authority:

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

People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 639

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335

Third Holding:

However, even if there is but a single objective for a course of conduct, a temporal break between individual acts may subject them to multiple punishments. This is particularly so where the offenses are temporally separated in such a way as to afford the defendant opportunity to reflect and to renew his or her intent before committing the next one, thereby aggravating the violation of public security or policy already undertaken.

In assessing whether section 654 applies, the court may consider a number of factors, including whether the defendant had multiple sequential intents, as well as whether he had the opportunity to pause and reflect before continuing his course of action.

Authority:

People v. Andra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 638, 640

People v. Surdi (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 685, 689

Fourth Holding:

The question whether section 654 is factually applicable to a given series of offenses is for the trial court, and the law gives the trial court broad latitude in making this determination. Its findings on this question must be upheld on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them.

Thus, we review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and uphold it if the record contains reasonable, credible evidence of solid value upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have relied in reaching the conclusion in question.

Ultimately, if the trier of fact determines the crimes have different intents and motives, multiple punishments are appropriate.

Authority:

People v. Hutchins (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1312

People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 Cal.5th 432, 450

People v. Saffle (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 434, 439

Fifth Holding:

We agree that defendant cannot be subjected to multiple punishments for the false imprisonment conviction and the second domestic violence conviction. In closing argument, the prosecutor clarified that defendant was charged with false imprisonment for grabbing the victim by her hair as she ran toward the door and pulling her back toward the stairs, where he committed an additional act of domestic violence.

The false imprisonment and second domestic violence offenses were both committed to facilitate one assaultive objective.

Authority:

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335

Sixth Holding:

As a result, the facts here are distinguishable from those in the cases relied upon by the Attorney General, where courts determined that section 654 did not require staying sentences for offenses committed after the other offense had already been completed.

Authority:

People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 162-163 [the defendant had essentially completed the robbery before committing assault; court could reasonably conclude that the defendant committed the assault with the intent and objective of preventing the victim from sounding the alarm about the murder]

People v. Foster (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 20, 27 [false imprisonment not necessary or incidental to commission of robbery because the act of locking the victims in a store cooler occurred only after the robbers had obtained all the money]

Seventh Holding:

Therefore, we shall vacate the sentence and remand the matter for a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379 [sec. 654 previously required court to impose sentence that provided for longest term of imprisonment, but now provides the trial court with discretion to impose sentence of either term]

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate to allow court to exercise its discretion in light of changed circumstances]

Sentencing

Case 000973

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court sentenced the defendant to 15 years to life for deliberate and premeditated attempted murder. This sentence was incorrect as a matter of law.

First Holding:

Willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder is punishable by life with the possibility of parole. A defendant convicted of attempted murder cannot be paroled until he has served at least seven years of his sentence.

We modify the judgment to reflect a sentence on count 1 of seven years to life.

Authority:

PEN 664(a)

PEN 3045(a)(1)

People v. Jefferson (1999) 21 Cal.4th 86, 96 [Section 3046 sets the minimum term for a defendant convicted of premeditated attempted murder]

Second Holding:

The defendant is entitled to an additional day of custody credit.

Authority:

People v. Smith (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 523, 527 [sec. 2900.5 requires court to award credits for all days in custody up to and including the day of sentencing]

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000972

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The $300 restitution fine the court imposed at the defendant’s resentencing must be vacated pursuant to section 1465.9(d), because more than 10 years have elapsed since the trial court imposed the original fine in 1996.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 (2023–2024 Reg. Sess.) amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), which provides that, upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Second Holding:

The restitution fine must be vacated because more than 10 years have elapsed since the original imposition of the fine, and reimposition of the fine in a different amount at a section 1172.75 resentencing does not restart section 1465.9(d)’s 10-year clock.

Authority:

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600–601 [under language of sec. 1465.9(d), resentencing does not restart the 10-year clock], review granted on different issue on Mar. 11, 2026, S295038