Category Archives: Sentencing

Discretion, Sentencing

Case: 000429

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

An insurer is not a “direct victim” eligible for restitution under section 1202.4

First Holding:

We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Percelle (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 164, 179

Second 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 established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court. Victim includes a corporation or any other legal or commercial entity when that entity is a direct victim of a crime. Thus, only the direct victim of a crime is entitled to restitution from the perpetrator of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)

People v. Duong (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1537

Third Holding:

Direct victims include only the real and immediate objects of the defendant’s offenses Insurance companies that suffered the consequences of crime only by reimbursing the crime-related losses of their policyholders do not reasonably fit within this definition. As a result, restitution may not be awarded to insurers that partially reimbursed the direct victims for their losses, and trial courts may not divide the full amount of restitution between the victims and their insurers.

Authority:

People v. Birkett (1999) 21 Cal.4th 226, 233

Fourth Holding:

Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded restitution to the insurer. Instead, the court should have awarded the full restitution amount, including any amount awarded to the insurer, to the water district, which was the direct victim of the defendant’s crime, notwithstanding any reimbursement it already received from the insurer.

Authority:

People v. Duong (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1537[a restitution order resting upon a demonstrable error of law constitutes an abuse of the court’s discretion]

People v. Hove (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1266, 1272 [insurance payments to the victim do not allow the defendant to escape responsibility for the losses he caused]

Fifth Holding:

Because the defendant does not contest the amount of restitution or the water district’s entitlement to that amount on appeal, we vacate the insurer restitution order and remand the matter so the court can order full restitution to the correct victim under section 1202.4.

Authority:

People v. Duong (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1540 [remanding so the trial court can order restitution to the victim for the amount that the hospital will accept as full payment for the medical services the victim received at the hospital]

Juveniles, Sentencing

Case: 000428

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The juvenile court’s review of the probation report and relation motions before determining jurisdiction was prejudicial error and merits reversal.

First Holding:

The history of section 701 indicates that the Legislature intended to create a bifurcated juvenile court procedure in which the court would first determine whether the facts of the case would support the jurisdiction of the court in declaring wardship and thereafter would consider the social study report at a hearing on the appropriate disposition of that ward. The primary purpose of the jurisdictional hearing “is to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to declare the minor a ward of the juvenile court. If the court finds that the minor is a person described in section 602, the court must determine whether the minor’s offense would be a misdemeanor or a felony if committed by an adult. The court then proceeds to hold a disposition hearing.

Authority:

WIC 701

In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855, 859

In re P.A. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 23, 31–32

Second Holding:

At the jurisdictional hearing, the admission and exclusion of evidence shall be pursuant to the rules of evidence established by the Evidence Code and by judicial decision. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt supported by evidence, legally admissible in the trial of criminal cases, must be adduced to support a finding that the minor is a person described by [Welfare & Institutions Code] [s]ection 602. Rule 5.780(c) further provides that the juvenile court must not read or consider any portion of a probation report relating to the contested petition before or during a contested jurisdiction hearing.

Authority:

WIC 701

Rules of Court, rule 5.780(c)

Third Holding:

The juvenile court’s erroneous consideration of a probation report before determining jurisdiction is reviewed for harmless error under Watson. Under that standard, we determine whether it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

An objection is sufficient if it fairly apprises the trial court of the issue it is being called upon to decide. In a criminal case, the objection will be deemed preserved if, despite inadequate phrasing, the record shows that the court understood the issue presented. In any event, to the extent the court did not understand the issue based on its colloquy with counsel, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal.3d 284, 290

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]

Fifth Holding:

Invited error bars a claim on appeal when a defendant, for tactical reasons, makes a request acceded to by the trial court and claims on appeal that the court erred in granting the request.

Authority:

People v. Russell (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1228, 1250

Sixth Holding:

If the jurisdictional facts presented at the hearing are far from conclusive, the juvenile court’s review of the probation report prior to determining jurisdiction constitutes prejudicial error. Thus, if the determination of jurisdiction is made by closely balanced evidence, reversal is proper.

Authority:

In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855, 862

In re James B. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 862, 875

Abstracts and Minutes, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000427

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is remanded for limited resentencing proceedings concerning the imposition of mandatory ancillary costs under Penal Code section 1465.8 and Government Code section 70373, both of which were omitted from the trial court’s original oral sentencing pronouncements.

First Holding:

The sentencing hearing transcript shows the trial court only imposed restitution and parole revocation fines, both in the amount of $500. The court purported to waive all fees and other fines without providing an explanation. Yet, the minute order and the indeterminate abstract of judgment indicate an imposed $200 court security fee pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8, as well as a $150 criminal conviction assessment pursuant to Government Code section 70373.

The court security fee and the criminal conviction assessment are properly characterized as ancillary costs. That is, they are funding mechanisms created by the Legislature to raise funds for court operations and facilities; they are not punitive in nature. Imposition of these ancillary costs is mandatory for every criminal conviction except parking offenses. However, due to a robust fee waiver system in civil cases for the same types of ancillary costs, the unavailability of a fee waiver in criminal cases violates equal protection guarantees. Upon request by a criminal defendant, a trial court must consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under section 1465.8(a)(1) or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1). This includes allowing the parties to present and contest any relevant evidence or argument on the question.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 14-15, 26-27, 30

Second Holding:

[Gary Note: The court sidestepped the issue because it remanded for a Kopp hearing, but oral pronouncements prevail over written orders. The court has the authority to order corrections where the abstract of judgment or minute order does not reflect exactly what the court ordered. Had the court decided to order the correction, there are many cases it could have chosen from as authority. I have set forth a few below. Again, the discrepancy was moot in this case.]

Authority:

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

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

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

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing

Case: 000426

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the jury to convict defendant of counts 1 and 2, which appeared to be based on the same facts. The conviction on count 2 should be stricken. Further, counts 1 and 3 were part of an indivisible course of conduct with the same intent and objective, and section 654 therefor applies. And the abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect the correct count number for one of the counts.

First Holding:

The record shows that defendant was charged with kidnapping for ransom (PC 209(a)) in count 1 and kidnapping (sec. 207(a)) in count 2. The jury acquitted him of counts 1 and 2 as charged and found him guilty of false imprisonment (sec. 237(a)) as a lesser included offense on both counts. During closing argument and again at sentencing, the prosecutor acknowledged that counts 1 and 2 were charged in the alternative and were based on the same facts. 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. The conviction on count 2 should be stricken.

Authority:

PEN 954

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

Second Holding:

Section 654(a) provides, in pertinent 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. It precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct.The purpose of section 654 is to prevent multiple punishment for a single act or omission or indivisible course of conduct, even though that act or omission or indivisible course of conduct violates more than one statute and thus constitutes more than one crime.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294-295

People v. Liu (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1135

Third Holding:

It is defendant’s intent and objective, not the temporal proximity of his offenses, which determine whether the transaction is indivisible. If all of the offenses were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, the defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once. But if the defendant acts with multiple criminal objectives that are independent of, and not merely incidental to, each other, he may be punished for separate violations, even though the violations shared common acts or were part of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct. Thus, the principal inquiry in each case is whether the defendant’s criminal intent and objective were single or multiple. Each case must be determined on its own facts. The trial court has broad latitude in determining whether section 654(a) applies in a given case.

Authority:

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

People v. Richardson (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1203, 1214

People v. Liu (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1135-1136

People v. Garcia (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1550, 15

Fourth Holding:

A court’s determination, express or implied, that two crimes were separate, involving separate objectives, under section 654 is a question of fact we review for substantial evidence. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and will affirm the court’s sentencing decision if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Richardson (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1203, 1214

Fifth Holding:

Gratuitous violence against a helpless and unresisting victim has traditionally been viewed as not incidental to robbery for purposes of section 654. Section 654 cannot, and should not, be stretched to cover gratuitous violence or other criminal acts far beyond those reasonably necessary to accomplish the original offense.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 181, 190-191

Sixth Holding:

So long as some substantial evidence to support the implied finding exists, there can be no reversal. Where the court made no express findings on the issue, a finding that the crimes were divisible is implicit in the judgment and must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. Under this standard, the appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the record.

Authority:

People v. Ibarra (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1070, 1083

People v. Vasquez (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 732, 737

Seventh Holding:

We note a clerical error. Generally, a clerical error is one inadvertently made. Clerical errors can be made by a clerk, by counsel, or by the court itself. A court has the inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records at any time so as to make these records reflect the true facts. The abstract of judgment for the indeterminate term lists the assault with a deadly weapon as count 5; however, the assault was count 4 and should be listed as such.

Authority:

People v. Schultz (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 804, 808

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000425

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Having been sentenced to a term of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) and an indeterminate sentence of 25 years to life, it was error to impose the parole revocation restitution fine. The abstract of judgment also must be corrected to reflect the custody credits awarded at the sentencing hearing.

First Holding:

Section 1202.45(a), provides that the court shall assess a parole revocation restitution fine in every case where a person is convicted of a crime and his or her sentence includes a period of parole. This parole revocation fine statute, however, does not apply in cases where the defendant is sentenced to LWOP and indeterminate terms. The parole revocation fine shall be stricken.

Authority:

People v. Alvarez (2025) 18 Cal.5th 387, 485–486 [parole revocation fine under sec. 1202.45 inapplicable where sentence was death]

People v. Battle (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 50, 63 [improper to impose parole revocation fine where the defendant received an indeterminate term of 25 years to life and LWOP]

People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1184 [where the defendant is sentenced to LWOP, there can be no parole, and therefore the parole revocation fine was improperly assessed]

People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1075 [parole revocation fine proper where the defendant, in addition to being sentenced to death, also sentenced to determinate term]

Second Holding:

The abstract of judgment is incorrect in reflecting the custody credits. The court’s oral pronouncement is correct, and it controls over the abstract of judgment or sentencing minute order. The trial court is directed to issue an amended abstract of judgment that accurately reflects the correct number of days of actual custody credit awarded by the court in its oral pronouncement of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts with jurisdiction have the power to order correction of abstracts of judgment that do not accurately reflect the oral judgment of the sentencing court]

Sentencing

Case: 000424

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is entitled to three additional days of credit for time served.

Holding:

Based on calculations, the defendant was in custody for three days longer than the amount granted by the trial court. As for conduct credit, PC 2933.1 limits the amount of presentence conduct credit to 15% of the actual period of presentence confinement. If the 15% results in a number that includes a partial day, the conduct credit is not rounded up (because that would exceed 15%), and partial days cannot be awarded.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

PEN 2933.1

People v. Valenti (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1184

People v. Ramos (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 810, 815–816

Discretion, Sentencing

Case: 000423

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The minor appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying his petition for termination from the sex offender registry. He argues the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving community safety would be significantly enhanced by requiring his continued registration and the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding otherwise. We agree and reverse the court’s order.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 290.008 sets forth the sex offender registration requirements for juvenile offenders. It requires registration as outlined in the section, unless the duty to register is terminated under section 290.5 or as otherwise provided by law. It provides for tiered periods of registration. A tier one juvenile offender is subject to registration for a minimum of five years; a tier two juvenile offender is subject to registration for a minimum of 10 years.

Authority:

PEN 290.008

Ruelas v. Superior Court (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 374, 380

Second Holding:

It also provides procedures for juvenile offenders to petition the juvenile court to terminate their registration requirement at the expiration of their mandated minimum registration period, pursuant to section 290.5. Section 290.5 provides the procedures for adult offenders to terminate their registration requirement; the procedures are, therefore, the same, and the process begins by filing a petition for termination and serving it on the district attorney. Upon receiving a petition, the district attorney may request a hearing and present evidence regarding whether community safety would be significantly enhanced by requiring continued registration.

Authority:

PEN 290.008

PEN 290.5

Third Holding:

Section 290.5 sets forth seven factors for the court to consider when ruling on the petition. The court may base its determination on declarations, affidavits, police reports, or any other evidence submitted by the parties that is reliable, material, and relevant. If the court denies the petition, it shall set the time period after which the person can petition again for termination, which shall be at least one year from the date of the denial, but not to exceed five years.

Authority:

PEN 290.5

Fourth Holding:

When the prosecution requests a hearing on a petition, it is its burden to produce evidence and to show that requiring continued registration will appreciably increase society’s safety because the defendant is currently likely to reoffend. The trial court’s task when ruling on a petition is to assess whether the prosecution has carried its burden.

Authority:

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 432, 433

People v. Franco (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 184, 192

Fifth Holding:

We evaluate a trial court’s decision whether to grant or deny a petition for removal from the sex offender registry for an abuse of discretion, reviewing any subsidiary factual findings based on disputed facts for substantial evidence and any subsidiary legal findings—including questions of statutory construction—de novo. A trial court abuses its discretion when its factual findings are not supported by the evidence, or its decision is based on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Franco (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 184, 192

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 432, 433

Sixth Holding:

The defendant committed the offenses 20 years earlier when he was only 14. Since then, he had no convictions, albeit a few arrests, the most recent involving being drunk in public. Consistent with the legislation’s purpose to cull from the registration rolls low-risk offenders so that resources could be concentrated on high-risk ones (Sen. 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 384 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) as amended Sept. 8, 2017, pp. 12-13), it was incumbent upon the prosecution to present reasonable, credible, and solid evidence establishing a current risk of reoffense. It did not. Without evidence establishing such risk, the juvenile court abused its discretion in determining that community safety would be significantly enhanced by continued registration. Accordingly, the order of the juvenile court must be reversed.

Authority:

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 432, 433, 435

Immigration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000422

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to deny the defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea under section 1473.7. We reverse the judgment. The superior court shall enter an order vacating the defendant’s conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7(a)(1).

First Holding:

Penal Code section 1473.7 allows those no longer in custody to vacate a conviction if it is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of the conviction.

Authority:

PEN 1473(a)(1)

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316

Second Holding:

The superior court denied the defendant’s motion. It concluded that the defendant’s prosecution had no adverse immigration consequences because the charge he pleaded to did not name cocaine as the controlled substance. It also concluded that because he had completed the Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) arrangement and achieved a dismissal, there was no conviction left to vacate. The court erred. In fact, a DEJ disposition can result in adverse immigration consequences.

Authority:

PC 1203.43

Third Holding:

We apply independent review when the record indicates there was no evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319

Fourth Holding:

A conviction of Health and Safety Code section 11350 involving cocaine can have adverse immigration consequences. And in federal immigration tribunals and the Ninth Circuit, a police report forming the factual basis of a plea can furnish details, otherwise missing from charging documents, that allow the imposition of adverse immigration consequences.

Authority:

Lazo v. Wilkinson (9th Cir. 2021) 989 F.3d 705, 714

Matter of Milian-Dubon (B.I.A. 2010) 25 I. & N. Dec. 197, 201,

United States v. Almazan-Becerra (9th Cir. 2008) 537 F.3d 1094, 1097–1100

Suazo Perez v. Mukasey (9th Cir. 2008) 512 F.3d 1222, 1226

In re Sanudo (B.I.A. 2006) 23 I. & N. Dec. 968, 975,

Parrilla v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2005) 414 F.3d 1038, 1044

United States v. Ramos-Medina (9th Cir. 2013) 706 F.3d 932, 939–940

Fifth Holding:

Under the totality of circumstances in this conceded case, we agree with the parties that the misinformation the defendant received regarding his plea was prejudicial and that reversal to ensure prompt relief under Penal Code section 1473.7(a)(1), rather than remand, is appropriate.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 321, 325–326

People v. Martinez (2013) 57 Cal.4th 555, 559

Immigration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000421

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The superior court denied the defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction under section 1473.7 because he did not provide a declaration from his defense counsel at the time of his plea or his counsel’s case file, despite the defendant’s diligent efforts in attempting to contact his prior counsel, who had retired since representing him. After independent review, we conclude the defendant met his burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, error affecting his ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the immigration consequences of his plea and reverse the denial of his motion.

First Holding:

Under federal law, a noncitizen convicted of a crime of domestic violence is deportable. This includes an offense under section 273.5(a). A section 273.5 conviction is also a crime of violence under federal immigration law. If a defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least 365 days for a crime of violence, the offense qualifies as an aggravated felony conviction. This designation carries even harsher consequences. A noncitizen who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is conclusively presumed deportable and is subject to mandatory removal. An aggravated felony conviction renders a noncitizen ineligible for cancellation of removal, a form of discretionary relief allowing some deportable aliens to remain in the country. Accordingly, removal is a virtual certainty for a noncitizen found to have an aggravated felony conviction, no matter how long he has previously resided here.

Authority:

8 U.S.C. sec. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i)

8 U.S.C. sec 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)

8 U.S.C. sec. 1228(c)

8 U.S.C. sec.1229b(a)(3), (b)(1)(C)

18 U.S.C. sec. 16(a)

People v. Villalba (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 659, 666-667

People v. Manzanilla (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 891, 903-904

Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder (9th Cir. 2010) 611 F.3d 1080, 1083

Second Holding:

Penal Code section 1473.7 allows noncitizens who have served their sentences to vacate a conviction if they can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that their conviction is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging their ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence. To establish a prejudicial error under section 1473.7, a person need only show by a preponderance of the evidence: 1) he did not meaningfully understand or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of the plea; and 2) had he understood the consequences, it is reasonably probable he would have instead attempted to defend against the charges.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316

People v. Mejia (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 859, 862

Third Holding:

The focus of the first prong of the inquiry is on the defendant’s own error in not knowing that his plea would subject him to mandatory deportation and permanent exclusion from the United States. There is no additional need to establish the petitioner’s mistake was caused by some third party. A defendant may show, but is not required to show, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The error supporting section 1473.7 relief need not be one made by defense counsel or the court but may be one made by the moving party herself if supported by contemporaneous evidence.

Authority:

People v. Mejia (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 859, 871

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 958-959

People v. Lopez (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 698, 713-714 [At the heart of the prejudicial error analysis is the mindset of the defendant and what he or she understood—or didn’t understand—at the time the plea was taken]

People v. Alatorre (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 747, 769

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 16

People v. Ruiz (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 1061, 1067

People v. Camacho (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 998, 1008 [ineffective assistance of counsel not required for relief]

People v. Rodriguez (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 301, 311

Fourth Holding:

A party seeking relief under section 1473.7 is not required to provide the declaration of plea counsel or to submit contemporaneous documentation from the time of the plea. Rather, the inquiry under section 1473.7 requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances, which necessarily involves case-by-case examination of the record, and no specific kind of evidence is a prerequisite to relief. Even a court’s advisement that a guilty plea will result in immigration consequences does not preclude a petitioner from demonstrating that he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea. Depending on the surrounding circumstances, even a warning that deportation will result is not a categorical bar to relief. A general advisement under section 1016.5 does not establish meaningful understanding of immigration consequences.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 320, 325

People v. Curiel (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1160, 1175

People v. Lopez (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 561, 577

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 962

People v. Camacho (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 998, 1011 [petitioner may present sufficient evidence of his lack of understanding such that the court’s advisement cannot be taken as irrebuttable proof that defendant likely would have entered his plea notwithstanding adverse immigration consequences]

Fifth Holding:

As to the prejudice prong, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the defendant would have rejected the plea if the defendant had correctly understood its actual or potential immigration consequences and must corroborate any assertions with objective evidence. A reasonable probability does not mean more likely than not, but merely a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311,

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 530

People v. Lopez (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 698, 714

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 959

People v. Soto (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 602, 610

Sixth Holding:

We independently review the denial of a section 1473.7 motion. Under independent review, an appellate court exercises its independent judgment to determine whether the facts satisfy the rule of law. If the superior court heard testimony, we give particular deference to any factual findings based on the trial court’s personal observations of witnesses. But where, as here, the facts derive entirely from written declarations and other documents, there is no reason to conclude the trial court has the same special purchase on the question at issue; as a practical matter, the trial court and this court are in the same position in interpreting written declarations when reviewing a cold record in a section 1473.7 proceeding. Ultimately it is for the appellate court to decide, based on its independent judgment, whether the facts establish prejudice under section 1473.7.

Authority:

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 527-528

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 959

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000420

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

When a defendant is elgible for resentencing under section 1172.75, the court must sentence under current law, including ameliorative provisions enacted since the original sentence, including the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012.

First Holding:

A defendant is entitled to a full resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75, including resentencing pursuant to the revised penalty provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, provided that he or she can satisfy the substantive eligibility criteria established in section 1170.126 (the section establishing the procedure for those serving life sentences under the Three Strikes Law to seek resentencing as a second strike offender if they met the eligibility requirements of the Reform Act). The Supreme Court harmonized the Legislature-enacted statute section 1172.75 with the initiative Three Strikes Reform Act section 1172.126, construing the discretionary public safety determination of section 1170.126 as applicable at a section 1172.75 resentencing to maintain the integrity of both statutes, such that the two may stand together.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 865, 869-870, 875, 878

Second Holding:

Given Penal Code section 1170.126(k) [“Nothing in this section is intended to diminish or abrogate any rights or remedies otherwise available to the defendant”], the voters for the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 did not intend for the Reform Act petition process to be the sole avenue for defendants sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment under the original Three Strikes law to seek resentencing relief. Rather, third strike defendants can also seek relief through the separate vehicle of section 1172.75 resentencing. Those defendants are nonetheless subject to the substantive requirements of section 1170.126, including its discretionary public safety override, but need not comply with the ancillary procedural requirements of that statute. They must instead fulfill the separate procedural requirements of the section 1172.75 resentencing mechanism.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 858, 861-862, 865, 869-870

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000417

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to impose a $10 crime prevention fine under section 1202.5. It is ordered stricken. The minute order must be corrected to reflect that the resentencing proceedings were under section 1172.75, not under section 1172.6 as the minute order indicated.

First Holding:

The original imposition of the section 1202.5 crime prevention fine was unauthorized.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [claims of unauthorized sentencing error may be raised at any time]

Second Holding:

Under section 1202.5(a), courts are required to impose a $10 crime prevention fine on a defendant who is convicted of a theft-related offense listed in the statute. Here, the $10 crime prevention fine was unauthorized because defendant’s convictions are not among the offenses listed in section 1202.5(a). Thus, we strike the $10 crime prevention fine from defendant’s sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1202.5(a)

People v. Jefferson (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 660, 663

Third Holding:

The minute orders refer to the proceedings as taking place pursuant to section 1172.6. As the record is clear these were resentencing proceedings pursuant to section 1172.75, this appears to be a clerical error.

[Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for the order or observation regarding the correction of the minute order, but there is authority aplenty. The court could have cited one or more of the cases I have set out below.]

Authority:

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

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

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

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000416

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A trial court may properly rely on uncontroverted evidence in a preliminary hearing transcript to refute conclusory allegations in determining whether a petitioner has stated a prima facie entitlement to relief under section 1172.6. We affirm the denial but remand to give the defendant the opportunity file an amended petition.

First Holding:

A trial court may properly rely on uncontroverted evidence in a preliminary hearing transcript to refute conclusory allegations in determining whether a petitioner has stated a prima facie entitlement to relief under section 1172.6.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

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

Second Holding:

Hearsay testimony by a police officer at a preliminary hearing could support a trial court’s finding that the petitioner did not make a prima facie case under section 1172.6.

Authority:

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