Category Archives: Sentencing

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000493

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s reckless indifference finding. Accordingly, we will reverse the trial court’s order denying the petition for resentencing and remand the matter with directions to grant the petition, vacate defendant’s murder conviction, and resentence him. Under the circumstances, we need not address whether defendant was a major participant or whether the trial court applied the correct standard.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 amended the felony-murder rule to provide, in relevant part: A participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony listed in subdivision (a) in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven: (1) The person was the actual killer. (2) The person was not the actual killer, but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree. (3) The person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 189

Second Holding:

Where the trial court issues an order to show cause and holds an evidentiary hearing, the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of murder under California law as amended by SB 1437. The parties may rely on evidence in the record of conviction or offer new or additional evidence at the hearing. The trial court acts as an independent fact finder and determines whether the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant would be guilty of murder under the amended sections 188 and 189 and, therefore, ineligible for relief under section 1172.6.

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 1172.6

People v. Cody (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 87, 110

Third Holding:

Because the sufficiency of the evidence is ultimately a legal question, we must examine the record independently for substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value that would support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. We must review the whole record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

In applying this test, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. Conflicts and even testimony that is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.

Authority:

People v. Montanez (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 245, 270

Fourth Holding:

The major participation and reckless indifference requirements contained in capital case special circumstances section 190.2(d), and incorporated into the felony-murder rule by SB 1437, codify the holding of Tison and a prior decision on which it is based, Enmund, collectively place conduct on a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum is a defendant like Enmund, who planned and participated, as the getaway driver, in an armed robbery that resulted in the unplanned murder of the robbery victim and his wife.

At the other end of the spectrum are “actual killers and those who attempted or intended to kill. In between are defendants like the Tison brothers, who helped plan and carry out the escape of two convicted murderers from prison, including their father, who was serving a life sentence for killing a guard in the course of a previous escape. The Tison brothers brought a cache of weapons to prison, armed both murderers, and held at gunpoint guards and visitors alike. During their subsequent escape, they carjacked and kidnapped a family of four, took the family’s possessions, and the convicted murderers then killed all four family members. Although the Tison brothers did not kill or intend to kill, their major participation in the felony committed, combined with reckless indifference to human life, was sufficient to satisfy the Enmund culpability requirement.

Authority:

Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137,

Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782,

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 794, 799, 800, 802

Fifth Holding:

Reckless indifference to human life is implicit in knowingly engaging in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death. The defendant must be aware of and willingly involved in the violent manner in which the particular offense is committed, demonstrating reckless indifference to the significant risk of death his or her actions create. Although the major participation and reckless indifference elements are interrelated such that the greater the defendant’s participation in the felony murder, the more likely that he acted with reckless indifference to human life, significant participation does not necessarily establish reckless indifference, which encompasses a willingness to kill (or to assist another in killing) to achieve a distinct aim, even if the defendant does not specifically desire that death as the outcome of his actions.

The degree of risk to human life is crucial to the analysis. The possibility of bloodshed is inherent in the commission of any violent felony, such that one who perpetrates or attempts to perpetrate such a crime may well anticipate the use of lethal force as a possibility. Were that degree of culpability sufficient, however, it would amount to little more than a restatement of the former felony-murder rule that SB 1437 retired. Awareness of no more than the foreseeable risk of death inherent in any violent felony is insufficient” to establish reckless indifference to human life; only knowingly creating a grave risk of death satisfies the statutory requirement.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 883, 884

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 801

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 615

Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137, 153

Sixth Holding:

In determining whether defendant acted with reckless indifference, we analyze the totality of the circumstances using the following factors derived from Clark: (1) Did defendant know that a weapon would be used during the felony? (2) Was defendant present during the murder and did he have an opportunity to restrain the perpetrator or aid the victim? (3) What was the duration of the interaction between the perpetrators of the felony and the victim? (4) What was defendant’s knowledge of his confederate’s propensity for violence or likelihood of using lethal force? (5) What efforts did defendant make to minimize the risk of violence during the felony? With the foregoing factors in mind, we conclude substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

In re Scoggins (2020) 9 Cal.5th 667, 677

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 884-88

Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000492

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing, the court must recalculate the credit for time served. The matter is remanded for the court to do so here. (The matter was complicated by the trial court awarding credit against this case for by credit earned in a separate case, making it difficult to determine how much the court credited in this particular case.)

Holding:

When a trial court resentences a defendant who is currently in custody, it must credit him with all actual days he spent in custody (whether in jail or prison) up to that time, including his time in custody after the original sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000491

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court improperly imposed the high term on the firearm enhancement. The sentence on the section 12022.5(a) enhancement is stricken, and the case is remanded for further proceedings as discussed herein.

First Holding:

Section 1170(b)(2) states that when imposing a sentence under a statute that 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 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

Second Holding:

Under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 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. A Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established. The violation 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. In other words, Lack of a jury trial is not harmless under Chapman if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding’ with respect to the aggravating fact at issue. The reviewing court must be able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found the unproven aggravating facts to be true had it been properly instructed. This prejudice inquiry does not allow us to uphold the trial court’s imposition of an upper term sentence based on some subset of aggravating facts.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078, 1087

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 761, 768

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

Third Holding:

We presume the court relied on the manner in which the defendant used the firearm, rather than the fact that he used a firearm, because the latter is an element of the section 12022.5(a) enhancement. A court cannot use a fact constituting an element of the offense to aggravate a sentence. However, where the facts surrounding the charged offense exceed the minimum necessary to establish the elements of the crime, the trial court can use such evidence to aggravate the sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(5) [The court may not impose an upper term by using the fact of any enhancement upon which sentence is imposed under any provision of law]

Rules of Court rule 4.420(h) [A fact that is an element of the crime on which punishment is being imposed may not be used to impose a particular term]

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 350

People v. Castorena (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 558, 562

Fourth Holding:

The proper remedy for this type of failure of proof—where aggravating facts were never tried to the jury—is to remand and give the People an opportunity to retry the aggravating facts. This is the correct remedy here. After such a trial, the court retains its discretion to impose an upper term sentence if it concludes that one or more properly proved circumstances justify such a sentence. If the court cannot so conclude, or if the People elect not to retry the defendant on the aggravating circumstances, the court may impose no more than the middle term on the section 12022.5 enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 776, 778

Sentencing

Case 000490

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the section 1172.75 sentence recall hearing, the court imposed a sentence longer than the original sentence, which violates section 1172.75. Remanded for a full resentencing hearing in compliance with section 1172.75.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 makes it clear that resentencing pursuant to this section 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. Here, appellant was originally sentenced to an aggregate term of 25 years to life plus five years.

At resentencing, the trial court significantly increased appellant’s sentence when it imposed three consecutive 25-year-to-life terms, rather than concurrent terms as were previously imposed, plus three years for the great bodily injury enhancement on count 2 and a consecutive, rather than a concurrent, upper term of six years on count 3. Defendant was resentenced to an aggregate term of 75 years to life plus nine years.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

We conclude that appellant’s sentence is unauthorized since it directly violates section 1172.75(d)(1)’s proscription against imposing a longer sentence at resentencing An unauthorized sentence is one that could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. It is well established that when the trial court pronounces a sentence which is unauthorized that sentence must be vacated and a proper sentence imposed when the mistake is brought to the attention of the reviewing court. Therefore, because defendant’s sentence is unauthorized, we vacate defendant’s sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing in compliance with section 1172.75(d).

Authority:

In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1130

People v. Benton (1979) 100 Cal.pp.3d 92, 102

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000486

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit that same murder. It was error to impose sentence on both counts concurrently. One of the counts should have been 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. A defendant may not receive more than one punishment for a single act, nor may a defendant receive multiple punishments for acts that comprised a single, indivisible course of conduct in service of a single objective. As a result, section 654 prohibits punishing a defendant for both conspiracy to commit murder and the underlying murder.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 550-552

People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 835, 866, disapproved of on another ground by People v. Riccardi (2012) 54 Cal.4th 758, 824, fn. 32

Second Holding:

In pronouncing the defendant’s sentence, the court did not stay the sentence on count two, which was necessary to avoid double punishment.

Authority:

People v. Caparaz (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 669, 689

Third Holding:

Where, as here, the punishment is the same for the two counts at issue, a remand is unnecessary because it would not change the defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, we will modify the judgment to stay the sentence for count two.

Authority:

People v. Bey (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 144, 167

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000485

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court abused its discretion in ordering interest on the restitution award to accrue from the date of the offense.

First Holding:

In every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims” in an amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)

Second Holding:

We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion. A victim’s restitution right is to be broadly and liberally construed. Once the victim makes a prima facie showing of economic losses incurred as a result of the defendant’s criminal acts, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the amount of losses claimed by the victim. Sentencing judges are given virtually unlimited discretion as to the kind of information they can consider in determining victim restitution. When there is a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered, no abuse of discretion will be found.

Authority:

People v. Phu (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 280, 283, 284

People v. Pittman (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1252, 1258

Third Holding:

Section 1202.4(f)(3)(G) provides that a restitution order shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct, including interest, at the rate of 10 percent per annum, that accrues as of the date of sentencing or loss, as determined by the court. Here, there was no evidence that the victim incurred losses as early as ordered by the court. For this reason, we reverse the portion of the trial court’s restitution order concerning interest accrual and remand for the court to select an appropriate date from which interest on the restitution award accrues.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)(3)(G)

Abstracts and Minutes, Elements of crime, Pleading, Sentencing

Case 000484

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court failed to award presentence conduct credits, and the abstract of judgment must be corrected (a) to show the correct section and description of the crime the jury convicted the defendant of in count 7, and (b) to delete the $10,000 restitution fine and the $10,000 parole revocation restitution fine that were waived by the court.

First Holding:

When the defendant is sentenced under section 667.61, the one strike law, the court need not grant such presentence conduct credit. But here it was error to deny the defendant credit for his presentence conduct under PC 667.61, because the People never invoked section 667.61 by alleging the strikable circumstances in the accusatory pleading. The lack of such notice precluded the trial court from sentencing the defendant subject to section 667.61. Further, such a sentencing scheme would have required the court to impose an indeterminate term, and it did not. The defendant was therefore entitled to an award of conduct credits at the rate of 15%, based on his conviction of violent felony.

Authority:

PEN 667.61

PEN 2933.1

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1036–1037

People v. Jimenez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 373, 393–397

Second Holding:

Though the information charged the defendant in count 7 with section 245 as assault with a deadly weapon (defendant’s hands and feet), the jury was instructed only as to section 245 as assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury. The verdict form showed simply as charged under count 7 of the information. The jury could not have convicted the defendant of anything other than assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury because it was never instructed on any other crime for the purposes of count 7.

Thus, the verdict form’s reference to the erroneous charge is a clerical error rather than a reflection of the true verdict. We may correct a clerical error on a verdict form when the error does not reflect the jury’s actual verdict. The abstract lists the offense as section 245 assault with a deadly weapon. In light of the jury instruction and the verdict form, it must be corrected to reflect that the conviction was for section 245 as assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury.

Authority:

People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1055, 1065 [Hands and feet are not deadly weapons as a matter of law]

People v. Frederickson (2020) 8 Cal.5th 963, 1026 [we presume the jury understood and followed instructions]

People v. Trotter (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 363, 370-371 [clerical correction to verdict forms after jury is discharged is not modification of verdict itself]

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [a reviewing court has the authority to correct clerical errors at any time]

Third Holding:

The trial court ordered direct restitution to the victim but waived the separate mandatory fines and fees. The abstract of judgment erroneously lists two fines: a $10,000 restitution fine and a $10,000 parole revocation restitution fine per section 1202.45. When the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment are inconsistent with one another, the oral pronouncement controls over the abstract of judgment. The abstract of judgment may be corrected at any time for accuracy.

On appeal, the Attorney General argues the abstract of judgment need not be amended because the fines have a mandatory minimum that can only be waived by a finding of compelling and extraordinary reasons, and the court’s reasoning here was insufficient. We need not reach this question. Any such argument was waived when the prosecutor did not object in the trial court.

Authority:

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

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

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

Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000483

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We find insufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction for sexual penetration and remand for resentencing on the remaining counts.

First Holding:

Even considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, we find no evidence to support the defendant’s unlawful sexual penetration conviction. During the victim’s police interview, she made general statements describing the defendant’s conduct, but they constituted vague, euphemistic language requiring followup questions to prove the required penetration. But the officers did not ask any. The officer’s trial testimony regarding what the victim meant, based on the officer’s experience and training, did not clarify the statements. Nothing indicates that the victim ascribed the same meaning and the officer’s testimony asserted. Nor did the victim clarify the acts in her testimony. Taken together, this evidence does not constitute precise and specific testimony to prove the required penetration beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Haynes (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1291

People v. Paz (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1038

People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 316 [though a child sexual crime victim need not specify precise dates, times and circumstances, she must describe the kind of act or acts committed with sufficient specificity, both to assure that unlawful conduct indeed has occurred and to differentiate between the various types of proscribed conduct]

People v. Quintana (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1362, 1371

Second Holding:

On this record, we must reverse the sexual penetration conviction. We strike his sentence for that count and remand for a full resentencing as to all counts so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [trial courts have jurisdiction to modify every aspect of sentence on the counts that were affirmed, including the term imposed as the principal term]

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

Case 000481

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Denial of the petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 is reversed, and the matter is remanded for the court to redetermine whether petitioner acted with reckless indifference to human life, taking into consideration his youth at the time of the offense. We also conclude substantial evidence does not support the court’s finding that petitioner aided and abetted the murder with intent to kill and the denial of the petition therefore cannot be upheld on this alternative ground.

First Holding:

Although petitioner briefly argued in the superior court that his youth should be considered in the court’s analysis of whether he was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, the superior court did not address this argument. Indeed, the superior court may have felt compelled to conclude, based on the state of the law at the time, that petitioner’s youth was not a relevant factor, given that petitioner was a young adult at the time he committed the offense and not a juvenile.

We continue to find there was substantial evidence for the trial court to conclude that the defendant acted with indifference of human life, but pending this appeal, there have been cases that squarely hold that the court should consider youth of a nonjuvenile in that determination.

If we do not address this issue, petitioner may be able to file a second petition for resentencing in the superior court to have the court consider his youth as part of the totality of circumstances bearing on whether he acted with reckless indifference to human life. In the interests of justice and for the sake of judicial economy, we address this argument on the merits. We conclude that petitioner is entitled to a new evidentiary hearing to apply new law relating to the effect, if any, of his youth on the court’s reckless indifference finding.

Authority:

People v. Jimenez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 994, 1008

Second Holding:

We review the court’s findings for substantial evidence. Under this standard, we review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner acted with reckless indifference.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 988

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 885

Third Holding:

In the first stage of this appeal–before review was granted and the matter was transferred back to this court–petitioner raised the argument (that the court should take into consideration the defendant’s youth) in his reply brief for the first time. Ordinarily, we do not consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief. As such, this argument was not addressed in our prior opinion.

Authority:

In re Luke H. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1090

Fourth Holding:

During the pendency of this appeal, the appellate court in Jones addressed the relevance of youth to the reckless indifference finding in a case involving a young adult who was 20 years old at the time of the offense.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1076, 1091–1093

Fifth Holding:

In Oliver, the appellate court assumed, without deciding, that the trial court was required to consider the petitioner’s youth (23 years of age) in reference to the petitioner’s mental state, but held that its failure to do so was harmless under the standard of Watson

Authority:

People v. Oliver (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 466, 488–489 and fn. 8

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836

Sixth Holding:

In Pittman, the court applied the Watson standard and concluded there was a reasonable possibility the failure to consider the petitioner’s youth impacted the trial court’s decision. The court noted inferences of immaturity could be drawn from the fact that the petitioner was 21 years old when he participated in the attack with two peers who were 16 and 17 years old. Additionally, the crime suggested the participants acted impulsively, under the influence of rashness, and while intoxicated. Thus, the court determined the interests of justice were best served by remanding for the court to consider whether youth impacted the petitioner’s ability to form the requisite mental state for second degree murder.

Authority:

People v. Pittman (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 400, 417-418

Seventh Holding:

In Jiminez, the appellate court agreed that there had been a significant change in the law governing young adult offenders since the ruling on the first petition, and therefore the doctrines of collateral estoppel and law of the case did not apply. In this regard, the court noted that early cases addressing this issue of a petitioner’s youth applied only to juvenile offenders under the age of 18, and only to the major participant and reckless indifference findings.

Thereafter, however, the law was expanded to hold that youth was a consideration for other mental state requirements, including implied malice, and additionally expanded to include young adults who were in their late teens and early 20’s when they committed the crimes. Additionally, the Legislature had enacted similar changes to a variety of statutes to expand youth-related considerations to persons 25 years of age and younger. The court also determined that the error in failing to consider the petitioner’s age was not harmless under the Watson standard.

Authority:

People v. Jimenez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 994, 1001-1004

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000480

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by failing to apply Penal Code section 1170(h)(5)(A) and (B), regarding mandatory supervision, after sentencing the defendant to county jail.

First Holding:

Punishment for a conviction of possession for sale of methamphetamine is governed by section 1170(h), which provides that punishment shall be by imprisonment in county jail. Although the section 12022(c) firearm enhancement directed imprisonment in state prison, section 1170(h)(9) required the sentence to be punishable as directed by the underlying offense. Under section 1170(h)(5)(A) and (B), a court imposing a sentence under subdivision (h)(1) must suspend execution of a concluding portion of the term for a period selected at the court’s discretion, known as mandatory supervision, unless it finds, in the interest of justice, that it is not appropriate in a particular case.

This section creates a statutory presumption in favor of the imposition of a period of mandatory supervision in all applicable cases, and, if the court denies mandatory supervision, it must state its reasons on the record. Given that the court ordered a term of imprisonment in county jail under section 1170(h), it is appropriate to remand for resentencing for consideration of mandatory supervision.

Authority:

PEN 1170(h)

Second Holding:

After the date of offense in this matter, section 12022(c)(2) was amended and now provides for imprisonment in state prison as punishment for a violation with a firearm enhancement under that section, not under section 1170(h). Applying this statute retroactively would likely violate the ex post facto clause.

Authority:

PEN 12022(c)

U.S. Const., art. I, secs. 9, 10

People v. White (2017) 2 Cal.5th 349, 360 [A statute violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws if it increases the punishment for a crime after it is committed]

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000477

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing under section 1172.75 for recall of sentence and resentencing, the trial court failed to conduct a full resentencing because it limited resentencing to only one of the several cases consolidated into an aggregate sentence. The defendant had been sentenced in the 1990s in two separate sentencing hearings involving multiple cases. Only one of the cases was enhanced by a now invalid prior prison term enhancement. That case made him eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75. The trial court conducted a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75 on only that single case, and declined to resentence on the others. The trial court should have conducted a full resentencing that reconsidered sentencing choices in all five cases in the late 1995 aggregate sentence.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75(a) provides thatany sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense is legally invalid. Once the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) identifies those persons currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a) to the sentencing court, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. Here, defendant’s sentence was subject to recall and resentencing because the CDCR identified his now invalid prison prior.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(b), (c)

Second Holding:

On recall of his sentence, defendant was entitled to a full resentencing that included all aspects of his aggregate sentence. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements. Section 1172.75(d)(2) specifies that the court shall 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.

When a sentence is subject to recall, the resentencing court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the sentence, and not just the portion subjected to the recall. Where there are multiple counts and discretionary decisions at play, the trial court may consider the entire sentencing scheme and reconsider all sentencing choices. This includes an aggregate prison term, which is not a series of separate, independent terms, but one term made up of interdependent components. The invalidity of one component infects the entire scheme.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

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

People v. Hill (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 831, 834

People v. Walker (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 198, 206

People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562, 568

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

People v. Marcus (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 201, 214

Third Holding:

Defendant’s sentence is an aggregate prison term comprised of five separate cases. Even though defendant only referenced the one of the 1995 sentences instead of both of the 1995 sentences, the trial court mistakenly believed it was limited to resentencing defendant on the narrow portion of his sentence that included the prison prior. Defendant’s sentence contains interdependent component parts from multiple cases. Therefore, the court erred by treating the portion of the sentence with the invalid prison prior as an independent, separate term, rather than an integral part of the whole and reconsidering every aspect of the sentencing scheme as required. The trial court should have conducted a full resentencing that reconsidered sentencing choices in all five cases in the later 1995 aggregate sentence.

Authority:

People v. Hill (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 831, 834

People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562, 568

People v. Marcus (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 201, 214

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000476

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The imposition of the upper term of imprisonment violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and was unauthorized under section 1170, subdivision (b) as he did not expressly waive the right as to the aggravating circumstances relied on by the sentencing court to justify imposing the upper term nor stipulate to their truth.

First Holding:

The court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only if there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the upper term. The facts underlying those aggravating circumstances must 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

Second Holding:

The Sixth Amendment entitles a defendant 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.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 755–767

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1086

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490 [Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.]

Third Holding:

An express waiver of a federally-derived jury trial right is required even in cases in which the circumstances make it apparent that all involved—the trial court, the prosecutor, defense counsel, and the defendant—assumed that the defendant had waived or intended to waive the right to a jury trial. That is, the right to a jury trial on aggravating circumstances, which is guaranteed by the federal constitution, may not be forfeited without an express waiver by the defendant.

Authority:

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47

Fourth Holding:

Here, appellant did not expressly waive his right to a jury trial on the aggravating circumstances and therefore has not surrendered his claim. No aggravating circumstances were pled in the complaint; as such, appellant’s plea, and his corresponding waiver of his constitutional rights, did not encompass any aggravating circumstances. A defendant does not waive his right to a jury trial on aggravating sentencing factors by pleading no contest to substantive offenses. Even if forfeiture did apply, we would nevertheless exercise our discretion to reach the issue. Such discretionary review is typical when a forfeited claim involves an important issue of constitutional law or a substantial right.

Authority:

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 50

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party]

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887, fn. 7

Fifth Holding:

We cannot determine from this record beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found every aggravating factor relied on by the trial court properly proven. Several of the factors relied on by the sentencing court were fact-specific, which a reasonable jury could disagree on. Moreover, the sentencing court relied on factual recitations in the police reports, which counsel did not stipulate to admitting into evidence for the purpose of establishing aggravating factors, and which contained hearsay. Additionally, we cannot necessarily assume that the record reflects all of the evidence that would have been presented had aggravating circumstances been submitted to the jury.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 775 [To the extent a potential aggravating circumstance at issue in a particular case rests on a somewhat vague or subjective standard, it may be difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court]

Sixth Holding:

One court has held that the rule 4.421(c) residual clause [which was relied on in part by the trial court here, and lists as a potential factor in aggravation “Any other factors statutorily declared to be circumstances in aggravation or that reasonably relate to the defendant or the circumstances under which the crime was committed” exceeds the legislative delegation in section 1170.3 and thus violates the separation of powers clause of the California Constitution. It reasoned that because the 4.421(c) residual clause specifies no criteria for its use in jury factfinding, it supplies prosecutors unrestricted authority to make fundamental policy decisions on an ad hoc basis by letting prosecutors draft aggravating factors to submit to the jury not based on any statute or rule in order to expose the defendant to increased penalty. The court held that rule 4.421(c) is no longer appropriate under the current determinate sentencing law.

Authority:

Lovelace v. Superior Court (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1099