Category Archives: Sentencing

Abstracts and Minutes, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing

Case 000510

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the correct sentence to 27 years rather than the 27 years two months as shown, and to reflect that the term imposed for one count is one-third the middle term.

First Holding:

A reviewing court may order correction of an abstract of judgment that does not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment by the sentencing court.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

As a general rule, only claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal. Our Supreme Court adopted this forfeiture rule to reduce the number of errors committed in the first instance], and the number of costly appeals brought on that basis. In the context of criminal sentencing, this forfeiture rule applies to claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices. Included in this category are cases in which the stated reasons allegedly do not apply to the particular case, and cases in which the court purportedly erred because it double-counted a particular sentencing factor, misweighed the various factors, or failed to state any reasons or give a sufficient number of valid reasons.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 235

Third Holding:

At resentencing, the defendant did not ask the trial court to strike the prior serious felony enhancements or argue that imposing both the firearm enhancement and the upper term on count 16 would result in an impermissible dual use of facts. The record contains no sentencing brief; and both defense counsel and the defendant himself responded in the negative when the trial court asked if they wished to be heard at the resentencing hearing. To preserve his claims, the defendant was required to object at resentencing. Because he did not do so, his current appellate contentions are forfeited.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331,353

People v. Coleman (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 709, 723-725

Fourth Holding:

If the defendant believes that evidence outside the record would support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the proper remedy would be a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Authority:

People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 111

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000509

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Three counts of conviction of section 220 were but one crime, and could give rise to only a single conviction.

First Holding:

Section 954 authorizes multiple convictions for different or distinct offenses, but does not permit multiple convictions for a different statement of the same offense when it is based on the same act or course of conduct. Whether multiple convictions are proper under section 954 requires our independent evaluation of the statutes at issue.

Authority:

PEN 954

People v. Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632, 650

People v. Aguayo (2022) 13 Cal.5th 974, 979, 994 fn. 8 [we confirm that the same course of conduct may not form the basis of separate convictions for the same offense]

People v. Rodriguez (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 921, 936

Second Holding:

The jury convicted the defendant of three violations of section 220(a)(1). The charging information and verdict forms for each section 220 violation did not identify separate assaultive acts. Nor did the jury instruction on the crimes. It grouped the three assault charges together, did not require multiple actus rei, and only potentially differentiated between the charges based on the intended sex crime. The jurors, evaluating the evidence, could have reasonably assigned the same act or acts to all three offenses.

Authority:

People v. Aguayo (2022) 13 Cal.5th 974, 982–993 [finding assault with a deadly weapon and force-likely assault different statements of the same offense under section 954]

People v. Frank (1865) 28 Cal. 507, 513 [enumerated series of acts in a single statutory provision constitute but one and the same offense]

People v. Thompson (1896) 111 Cal. 242, 247–250 [same, even when a single statutory provision referenced multiple intents]

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000507

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was entitled to full resentencing under section 1172.75, even though the now-invalid prior prison enhancement was stayed at the original sentencing.

First Holding:

When a prior conviction pursuant to section 667.5(b) is stricken pursuant to the procedures in section 1172.75, a defendant is entitled to full resentencing under section 1172.75(d).

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

The failure of the People to raise the issue in the trial court forfeits the issue on appeal. The reason for the forfeitur] rule is that it is both unfair and inefficient to permit a claim of error on appeal that, if timely brought to the attention of the trial court, could have been easily corrected or avoided. The forfeiture rule ensures that the opposing party is given an opportunity to address the objection, and it prevents a party from engaging in gamesmanship by choosing not to object, awaiting the outcome, and then claiming error.

Authority:

People v. Sperling (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1101

People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 433-434

Third Holding:

If the appellate court’s order upon remand requires correction as to one part of a sentence but the remand order limits the scope of resentencing, the trial court must adhere to the limits set forth in the remand order. At the hearing upon remand, the trial court addressed only the section 667(a), prior convictions as directed by disposition in the Opinion. While the trial court could have addressed the section 667.5(b) priors and the stayed sentences at that time of remand based on a change of the law, it did not do so and was never asked to consider resentencing on the prior prison terms.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 198, 205

People v. Hargis (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 199, 205-207 [where a change in the law becomes effective after the appellate court’s opinion but before the hearing on the limited remand, the trial court could consider the new law despite the limited remand]

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000505

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the defendant’s sentence, and we remand for the trial court to hold a new sentencing hearing, at which it shall consider whether to exercise its discretion under section 1385 to dismiss the one-year enhancement it imposed under section 12022(b)(1).

First Holding:

During the sentencing of the defendant for second degree murder in which it was found true that he used a knife, the court stated it had no discretion to dismiss the enhancement allegation. Section 1385 governs a trial court’s discretion to dismiss an enhancement. Specifically section 1385(c)(1) states that the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute. In exercising its discretion, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present. Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.

Under section 1385(a), if the court does not find that dismissal would endanger public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.) One enumerated mitigating circumstance is that the current offense is connected to mental illness. The defendant identifies that circumstance as potentially applicable here in light of information developed during the mental competency proceedings in this matter.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1029

Second Holding:

The record establishes the trial court was not aware of its discretion under section 1385 to dismiss the weapon enhancement. Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court. A court that is not aware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no more exercise that informed discretion than one whose sentence is or may have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant’s record. Where the trial court was not aware of its discretion to dismiss a sentencing allegation under section 1385, it abuses its discretion. We accordingly conclude the trial court abused its discretion because it was not aware of its discretion to dismiss the weapon enhancement.

Authority:

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

Nazir v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 478, 490

Third Holding:

When a court has not exercised its informed discretion, remand is the default 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. Here, we find no indication in the record as to how the trial court would have exercised its discretion had it known it had the discretion to dismiss the enhancement. We will therefore remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion under section 1385 regarding the weapon enhancement imposed under section 12022(b)(1).

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 431

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000504

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

When a person serving a three strikes sentence is resentenced under section 1172.75, it must apply the ameliorative provisions of the Reform Act of 2012, if applicable, subject to a finding that it would post an unreasonable risk of danger to the public as that has been interpreted in the context of the Reform Act.

First Holding:

SB 483, effective on January 1, 2022, added section 1171.1 to the Penal Code, subsequently renumbered as section 1172.75. This section declares that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to ssection 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense is legally invalid. Section 1172.75 establishes a mechanism to provide affected defendants an avenue for relief from now invalid prison prior enhancements.

After the court receives notice from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and county correctional administrator that the defendant qualifies for resentencing under section 1172.75, the court shall review the judgment and verify that the current judgment includes a sentencing enhancement described in subdivision (a), and if so, recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

When resentencing a defendant under section 1172.75, the court must apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and 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:

The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 modified the original Three Strikes law of 1994. Under Three Strikes, a third felony of any nature would draw a term of a minimum of 25 years to life if the defendant had previously suffered convictions for two serious felonies (as defined). Under the Reform Act, with certain exceptions, if the current felony is NOT one of the specified serious felony, the sentence would be treated as a two-strike case, in which the sentence would be a doubled determinate sentence rather than a life term.

When a defendant serving a Three Strikes term is resentenced under section 1172.75, the court must modify the Three Strikes term if the triggering third strike was not a serious or violent felony as defined, unless the resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the public as that term has been construed in the context of the Reform Act.

Authority:

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

Sentencing, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000503

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to impose concurrent terms on two counts, because section 654 prohibited multiple punishment. The sentence for count 1 is modified from concurrent to stayed.

First Holding:

Section 654(a) provides, in part, 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 has been applied not only where there was but one act in the ordinary sense but also where a course of conduct violated more than one statute and the problem was whether it comprised a divisible transaction which could be punished under more than one statute within the meaning of section 654. Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 637

Second Holding:

We apply the substantial evidence standard of review. Substantial evidence does not support a finding of separate intents and objectives. The evidence that defendant pointed the gun at the victim when threatening her supports a finding that defendant used the gun to emphasize his threat and cause the victim mental anguish. Accordingly, defendant held a single intent and objective during the course of conduct—to cause the victim to fear for her life. We will modify defendant’s suspended prison sentence.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Leonard (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 465, 499

Abstracts and Minutes, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000500

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The condition that the defendant participate in and complete, at his expense, any counseling, rehabilitation, or treatment program deemed appropriate by his probation officer is unconstitutional. The sentencing memorandum must be amended to reflect the court’s waiver of all fines and fees.

First Holding:

By leaving key determinations to be decided ad hoc, a vague probation condition may result in an impermissible delegation of authority to the probation officer. Under the separation of powers doctrine (Cal. Const., art. III, sec. 3), judicial powers may not be delegated to nonjudicial officers. While the probation officer may properly specify the details necessary to effectuate the court’s probation conditions, it is the court’s duty to determine the nature of the requirements imposed on the probationer.

The court may leave to the discretion of the probation officer the specification of the many details that invariably are necessary to implement the terms of probation. However, the court’s order cannot be entirely open-ended. Here, defendant’s condition does not specify the kind of program defendant might be required to complete; rather, it allows defendant’s probation officer to determine whether and in what type of program defendant could be ordered to participate. Thus, the probation condition improperly delegates judicial authority to the probation officer.

Authority:

Cal. Const. art. III sec. 3

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358-1359

Second Holding:

Where the condition includes the possibility of participation in a residential treatment program, as directed by the probation officer, it is an improper delegation of judicial authority.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 903

People v. Cruz (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1310 [Invalidating probation condition that gave the probation officer sole discretion to decide whether the defendant should be subject to global positioning system monitoring]

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1355, 1359 [Invalidating condition that provided that the defendant shall not associate socially, nor be present at any time, at any place, public or private, with any person, as designated by your probation officer] [CONTRA] People v. Kwizera (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1240-1241 [Upholding probation condition which directed defendant to follow such course of conduct as the probation officer may prescribe] [CONTRA:] People v. Penoli (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 298, 307 [Upholding condition that probation officer may unilaterally select a residential drug rehabilitation program and determine whether defendant successfully completed that program]

Third Holding:

The sentencing memorandum should be modified to accurately reflect the court’s oral pronouncement that all applicable fines and fees be waived. We shall direct the court to correct the sentencing memorandum.

Authority:

People v. Serrano (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1324, 1340 [The oral pronouncement of judgment ordinarily controls when there is a discrepancy between it and the clerical recording of the judgment]

People v. Contreras (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1300, fn. 3 [The reviewing court has the authority to correct clerical errors]

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 000499

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in determining that the defendant was ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 where the now invalid prior conviction enhancement had been stricken at the original sentencing.

First Holding:

Legislation effective at the beginning of 2020 (SB 136) prospectively abolished most prior prison enhancements that were previously imposed under section 667.5(b). Our Legislature made that abolition retroactive in 2022 through SB 483, which enacted section 1171.1, later renumbered as section 1172.75. The statute declares invalid most prior prison enhancements imposed before the enhancements were abolished, with just one exception (defendants convicted of sexually violent offenses).

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.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

Upon resentencing, the court will be required to calculate all credits Hernandez has accrued since his initial sentencing and award them against his new sentence.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37 [the trial court, having modified defendant’s sentence on remand, was obliged, in its new abstract of judgment, to credit him with all actual days he had spent in custody, whether in jail or prison, up to that time.]

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000498

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court must recaculate credits for time served.

First Holding:

Upon modification of a felony sentence during the term of imprisonment, the trial court must recalculate and credit the actual time the defendant had served on their sentence prior to the modification. Where a defendant has served any portion of their sentence under a commitment based upon a judgment which judgment is subsequently declared invalid or which is modified during the term of imprisonment, such time shall be credited upon any subsequent sentence they may receive upon a new commitment for the same criminal act or acts.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23, 32

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [directing correction of abstract of judgment]

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000496

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court should have stayed the sentence on one count under section 654.

Holding:

The defendant was convicted under two separate Penal Code sections for the same act. Section 654 provides that an act punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act be punished under more than one provision. The sentence imposed for count 7 should have been stayed. The defendant requests a remand for resentencing, but we may modify the judgment ourselves to stay the count 7 sentence.

(GARY NOTE: The opinion does not mention whether it concluded that the trial court would have imposed sentence on the count carrying the longer sentence (15 years to life) rather than on the count carrying the shorter term (180 days), a choice that has been restored to the judiciary with the passage of AB 518 several years ago. But the defendant’s total sentence on the numerous counts consisted of several hundred years to life. Allowing the trial court to choose between the counts would likely not have resulted in earlier release. On the other hand, it is conceivable that on remand, the trial court might have had other options on a full resentencing.)

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 353

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 132, 139

Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000495

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On recalling the sentence under section 1172.75, the court should have stricken the balance due on the restitution fine ordered more than 10 years previously.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, Assembly Bill No. 1186 amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), which provides: “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.” Here, the trial court imposed a restitution fine of $10,000 when it sentenced defendant in 2001. Because more than 10 years have elapsed since the date of imposition, we order the restitution fine vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Second Holding:

Section 1465.9 does not contemplate vacating parole revocation fines under section 1202.45. Section 1465.9(d) does not mention section 1202.45. When a statute is silent on a point, the courts resort to statutory interpretation. The proper interpretation of a statute is a question of law we review de novo. When interpreting a statute, our fundamental task is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose. To determine the Legislature’s intent, we must look to the statute’s words and give them their usual and ordinary meaning. If there is no ambiguity in the language, we presume the Legislature meant what it said and the plain meaning of the statute governs.

There is no support in the plain language of the statute for the premise that the Legislature intended section 1465.9 to provide relief from parole revocation fines. If the Legislature intended such a result, it could have so specified. It did not. As such, we conclude that a section 1202.45 parole revocation fine cannot be vacated under section 1465.9.

Authority:

Waterman Convalescent Hospital Inc. v. State Dept. of Health Services (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1439

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961

People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1215

People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1126

People v. Guzman (2005) 35 Cal.4th 577, 587 [inserting additional language into a statute violates the cardinal rule of statutory construction that courts must not add provisions to statutes]

Appellate Principles, Pleading, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000494

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to impose the upper term on aggravating factors there were not stipulated to or found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury.

First Holding:

We review the validity of a jury trial waiver under the totality of the circumstances unique to each case. Relevant circumstances can include the nature of the colloquy prior to the court’s acceptance of a waiver, the presence of counsel and references to discussions between the defendant and counsel regarding the jury right, and the existence and contents of a written waiver. Ultimately, the record must affirmatively show the waiver is voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. When a defendant is denied the right to a jury trial on aggravating factors, this error is not structural but subject to harmless error analysis.

Authority:

People v. Morelos (2022) 13 Cal.5th 722, 753

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 167

People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 991

People v. Collins (2001) 26 Cal.4th 297, 310

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 750-751, 755

Second Holding:

We review procedural due process claims de novo because the ultimate determination of procedural fairness amounts to a question of law.

Authority:

In re Jonathan V. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 236, 241

Third Holding:

Ordinarily, an appellate court will not consider a claim of error if an objection could have been, but was not, made in the lower court. However, a defendant’s failure to object would not preclude his asserting on appeal that he was denied his constitutional right to a jury trial. Also, it is well-established that an appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching questions that have not been preserved for review by a party.

Authority:

People v French (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 36, 46

People v. Smith (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1207, 1215

Fourth Holding:

Under Apprendi, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum prescribed for that crime must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Varnell court nevertheless held there is no due process right to notice in the accusatory pleading with respect to a sentencing factor. A sentencing factor is a circumstance, which may be either aggravating or mitigating in character, that supports a specific sentence within the range authorized by the jury’s finding that the defendant is guilty of a particular offense.

Because sentencing factors do not operate to increase the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum, they are not required to be pleaded. Unlike penalty provisions and enhancements, the finding of an aggravating factor by a jury does not require or prescribe an added penalty; it merely authorizes the sentencing court to impose the upper term. The California Supreme Court has yet to squarely address whether due process requires pleading and notice of aggravating factors under the most recent sentencing laws.

Authority:

In re Varnell (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1132, 1135, fn.3, 1142

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490

Chavez Zepeda v. Superior Court (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 65, 95

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 769 [stating it was not necessary to decide exactly what the statute and the federal Constitution demand in the pleading and notice context]

Fifth Holding:

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. For example, 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. Under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the federal Constitution, a judge may do no more than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.

The burden is on the People to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the facts relied on to justify an upper term sentence. If those facts are properly proven, the court may take them into account and exercise its discretion under section 1170(b) to determine what sentence to impose. Here, the court’s findings that the defendant “has an extensive prior criminal history” and he “was on a grant of misdemeanor probation when he picked up the new charge” constitute qualitative decisions that go beyond the bare fact of the existence of the prior conviction and, absent a waiver, he was entitled to a jury trial on those factors.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(3)

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1076, 1085, 1086

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

Sixth Holding:

When a court improperly relies upon a factor that was not properly proven at a jury trial, the error is prejudicial unless an appellate court 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. If the reviewing court cannot so determine, applying the Chapman standard of review, the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing. If any aggravating circumstance fails to meet this standard, “the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing.

Authority:

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

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