Category Archives: Sentencing

Appellate Principles, Equal protection, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000414

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erroneously applied the doctrine of the law of the case to deny the defendant’s section 1170(d) petition in which he sought resentencing under its provisions because 50 years to life was the functional equivalent of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP).

First Holding:

In his original appeal from the 2010 conviction the Court of Appeal concluded that 50 years to life was not the functional equivalent of an LWOP sentence. The trial court denied his petition under section 1170(d) in 2023 on the basis that, under the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court had previously ruled that his sentence was not the functional equivalent of LWOP. However, years after the original appeal was decided, the Supreme Court determined that 50 years to life was the functional equivalent of LWOP.

Authority:

People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349

Second Holding:

The law of the case doctrine states that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal, and this although in its subsequent consideration the court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular.

Authority:

People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 374, fn. 6

People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 442 [The law-of-the-case doctrine binds the trial court as to the law but controls the outcome only if the evidence on rehearing of an issue is substantially the same as that upon which the appellate ruling was based.]

People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 253

People v. Vizcarra (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 422, 430 [The doctrines of collateral estoppel and law of the case bar a defendant from raising an issue that was raised and rejected in a prior appeal.]

Third Holding:

The law of the case doctrine generally precludes a party from obtaining appellate review of the same issue more than once in a single action. It is well settled, however, that the doctrine may be disregarded where the controlling rules of law have been altered or clarified by a decision intervening between the first and second appellate determinations.

Authority:

Truck Ins. Exchange v. Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corp. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 67, 87, fn. 6

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 716-717 [Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) does not apply when there has been a significant change in the law since the factual findings were rendered that warrants reexamination of the issue.]

Fourth Holding:

Here, although defendant raised and this court previously rejected the issue of whether, as a juvenile offender, defendant’s 50-year-to-life sentence was the functional equivalent of LWOP, the law on the issue has changed significantly and is currently split.

Authority:

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 268 [eligibility for parole pursuant to sec. 3051 mooted any assertion that defendant’s 50-year-to-life sentence was the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349, 359 [50 years to life for juvenile offender ineligible for sec. 3051 relief is the functional equivalent of LWOP]People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 624 [103 years to life is the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 441 [140 years to life is the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1054-1061 [107 years to life is the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Munoz (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 499, 513, dis. opn. of Feuer, J. [ majority holds 50 years to life is not the functional equivalent of LWOP, but the dissent would hold that it is], review granted June 25, 2025, S290828

People v. Baldwin (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 978, 999 [44 years to life not functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Thompson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1081, review granted Sept. 24, 2025, S292540 [50 years to life not functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Perez (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 49, 58 [parole eligibility at 47 years of age was by no stretch of the imagination functional or de facto LWOP]

People v. Ortega (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1252, 1260, review granted Sept. 17, 2025, S292070 [The requirement of a youth offender parole hearing moots a juvenile defendant’s constitutional claim that he is serving a sentence that is the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Isayev (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1117, review granted Nov. 12, 2025, S292860 [The requirement of a youth offender parole hearing moots a juvenile defendant’s constitutional claim that he is serving a sentence that is the functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Lara (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 484, review granted Dec. 30, 2025, S294095 [The requirement of a youth offender parole hearing moots a juvenile defendant’s constitutional claim that he is serving a sentence that is the functional equivalent of LWOP]

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000412

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The electronics search condition is invalid under Lent and must be stricken.

First Holding:

In granting probation, courts have broad discretion to impose conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.1. The court may impose and require such reasonable conditions as it may determine are fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done, that amends may be made to society for the breach of the law, for any injury done to any person resulting from that breach, and generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer. The trial court’s discretion, although broad, nevertheless is not without limits.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120–1121

Second Holding:

A three-prong test determines whether a probation condition is unreasonable. A condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. All three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term.

Authority:

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

Third Holding:

The first Lent prong is satisfied because the record does not show a relationship between the defendant’s use of electronic devices and the offending conduct sufficient to justify the search condition. There is no information in the record that he used any kind of electronic device to commit, plan, or facilitate his offenses of molesting a child or dissuading a witness. Nor is there any mention whatsoever of his use of a mobile phone, computer, or social media account in connection with the victim or any other conduct that might be said to relate to the offenses in this case.

Authority:

People v. Castellanos (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 267, 270, 271, 275–276 [defendant had three cell phones in his car at the time of arrest and cell phones are frequently used in drug sales]

People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717, 719–720 [defendant met victim through social media]

Fourth Holding:

As for the second Lent prong, it goes without saying that the use of electronic devices is not criminal in and of itself.

Authority:

In re Amber K. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 559, 566

Fifth Holding:

The third Lent prong contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition. It requires more than just an abstract or hypothetical relationship between the probation condition and preventing future criminality. Nothing in the testimony at the preliminary hearing, the probation report, or the record of the defendant’s personal history revealed anything about his electronics use that might be connected to his past crimes or potential future criminality. The defendant had no prior history of arrests, convictions, or probation, and his risk of recidivism was assessed as below average. Thus, as in Ricardo P., the burden imposed by the electronics search condition on the defendant’s privacy is substantially disproportionate to the condition’s goal” of deterring future criminality.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1122

In re David C. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 657, 663–664

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing

Case: 000411

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court orally sentenced appellant to “life, with the minimum parole date of 7 years” for the attempted murders in counts 7, 8, and 9. It remarked that the sentences on counts 8 and 9 were, “effectively, 7-years-to-life,” and that the sentence on each count when the firearm enhancements were included was “effectively 8-years-to-life.” The minute order reflects terms of “life plus 7 years” on these three counts, and the abstract of judgment indicates the sentence on each of these counts is “7 years to life.” The abstract of judgment and minute order must be corrected to reflect sentences of life on each of the attempted murder counts (counts 7, 8, and 9), plus one year and four months for each related firearm enhancement.

First Holding:

Section 664(a) prescribes a punishment of imprisonment in the state prison for life with the possibility of parole for the crime of attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder. The minimum term a person sentenced to life must serve before parole is seven years; that minimum applies to each consecutively imposed life term.

Authority:

PEN 664(a)

Second Holding:

Although seven years to life is a common shorthand for such a sentence, it is incorrect because it indicates a minimum term exists, rather than a minimum parole eligibility. There is a minimum parole eligibility of seven years, but that is not part of the sentence that is pronounced. Thus, a more accurate statement of the sentence for attempted murder is simply life, plus any determinate enhancements. The trial court accurately stated that the sentences on counts 7, 8, and 9 were life, with the minimum parole date of 7 years, but the minute order and abstract recording the trial court’s oral pronouncement incorrectly impose a minimum term on the attempted murder sentences.

Authority:

People v. Wong (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 972, 977, fn. 4

People v. Robbins (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 660, 678

Third Holding:

Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment or minute order, the oral pronouncement controls, and we may order correction of any such errors.

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000409

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing on the petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.75, the trial court declined to reduce the defendant’s sentence beyond the dismissal of the now-invalid enhancement for prior prison terms. The judgment is reversed and the matter remanded for reconsideration in light of the views expressed in this opinion. We do not conclude the trial court necessarily abused its discretion or that it could not reach the same result upon resentencing. Given the number of questions raised by the record, however, remand is appropriate. To the extent the trial court did not conduct the proper analysis, it will have the opportunity to reconsider its rulings. To the extent the court did apply the correct standards, it will have the opportunity to clarify its reasoning.

(GARY NOTE: This was a lengthy opinion reciting many facts regarding the conducting of the resentencing hearing. The defendant argued that it was error to not impose a mitigated sentence, or a worst, the middle term, and it was error not to strike one or more of the enhancements. The defendant had presented to the trial court an extensive social study on his behalf which, arguably, demonstrated that his circumstances merited great weight in favor of mitigation.

(The opinion recites the pertinent factors, the facts asserted in favor, and the trial court’s responses. The opinion is replete with citations in response to assertions by both the defense and the People on why the trial erred or did not err. To do the opinion justice, I found it very hard to condense its holdings into a summary of the sort I present in this blog. But it still contains some gems worth setting forth, whether the appellate court relied on them in the defendant’s favor or not.

(As indicated in the intro paragraph, the appellate court did not so much as find that the trial court erred but instead it could not tell from the record whether the court gave proper consideration to the factors and understood clearly its options. So it was remanded for a do-over, encouraging at least tacitly that the trial court needs to be clearer in its reasoning if it does not intend to grant any of the relief requested by the defendant. The “holdings” and authorities listed hereafter should be seen simply as pronouncements I thought worthy of mention, and not so much as providing support for the appellate court’s decision to remand for resentencing or clarification.)

First Holding:

The question relevant to the section 1385(c) analysis is whether the defendant would pose a danger to the public if released from prison at the end of a sentence resulting from dismissal of the enhancements. Current dangerousness cannot be determined simply by examining the circumstances of the crime in isolation, without consideration of the passage of time or the attendant changes in the inmate’s psychological or mental attitude. Moreover, under section 1385(c), unless dismissal of the enhancement would result in immediate release, the question is not just current dangerousness but dangerousness at a point in the future.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)

People v. Buford (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 886, 914

In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241, 1255

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 228

Second Holding:

Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it. Here, however, the record reflects several reasons to question whether the court afforded the mitigating circumstances the weight required by section 1385(c)(2) in considering whether to dismiss any of the enhancements.

Authority:

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042

People v. Bravo (2025) 107 Cal.App.5th 1144, 1157

Third Holding:

Section 1172.75 requires full resentencing for all defendants who qualify for recall of sentence under the statute. The court may revisit all prior sentencing decisions and has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the sentence, and not just the portion subjected to the recall.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 358, 361

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

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424-425

Fourth Holding:

When a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the statute specifies three possible terms, the court shall, in its sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2). A trial court may impose an upper term sentence only where there are aggravating circumstances in the crime and the defendant has either stipulated to the facts underlying those circumstances or they have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt. The sentencing court can also rely on certified records of conviction without having to submit the prior convictions to the jury. The amendments also created a presumption in favor of the lower term where specified circumstances were contributing factors in the commission of the offense, unless the trial court finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Flores (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 495, 500

Fifth Holding:

Section 1385(c)(1) provides 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. Subdivision (c)(2) provides that a sentencing court in exercising its discretion to dismiss a sentencing enhancement shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove certain enumerated mitigating circumstances, and 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.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)(1)

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1028

Sixth Holding:

Section 1170(b)(6) now provides for a presumption in favor of the lower term where specified circumstances were contributing factor[s] in the commission of the offense. The sentencing court may only depart from this lower term presumption if it finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances such that the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice. The new law thus dramatically restrains the court’s discretion to impose the middle or upper term, now requiring the court to impose the lower term if a qualifying trauma was a contributing factor in the commission of the offense unless the court finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances so that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice. Accordingly, under the new law, the presumption is that the court shall order imposition of the lower term whenever the defendant has a qualifying trauma.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(6)

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

Seventh Holding:

Section 1170(b)(6) makes clear that the low term is presumed only if the sentencing court first finds the defendant falls into one of the three special categories set forth in section 1170(b)(6) and, second, finds that circumstance was a contributing factor in the commission of the offense.

Authority:

People v. Hillburn (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 189, 205

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000408

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 should have considered the impact of AB 333 on the prior serious felony and strike convictions. We agree with the parties that AB 333 applies retroactively to the substantive gang offense conviction and all the gang-related allegations. We therefore vacate the resentencing order, reverse the substantive gang offense conviction, and vacate the findings on the gang enhancement, prior serious felony, and strike prior. On remand, the prosecution may retry all the gang-related allegations under the new law.

First Holding:

Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5(b) required trial courts to impose a one-year sentence enhancement for each true finding on an allegation the defendant had served a separate prior prison term and had not remained free of custody for at least five years. Section 667.5(b) was amended effective January 1, 2020, to eliminate prior prison term enhancements for all crimes except certain sexually violent offenses. Effective January 1, 2022, SB 483 (2021−2022 Reg. Sess.) added what was later renumbered as section 1172.75 to make this change retroactive. A defendant serving a term for a judgment that includes a now-invalid enhancement is entitled to resentencing. 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) sets forth detailed instructions for resentencing once a sentence has been recalled.

Authority:

PEN 667.5

PEN 1172.75

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 379–380

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1055

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

Second Holding:

In 1988, the Legislature enacted section 186.20 et seq. to eradicate criminal activity by street gangs. Among other things, the Act created the substantive offense of active participation in a criminal street gang and a sentencing enhancement for a felony committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang.

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 333 made several changes to the criminal street gang laws. First, it narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons.

Second, whereas section 186.22, former subdivision (f) required only that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang, AB 333 requires that any such pattern have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, AB 333 also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Fourth, AB 333 narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational.

Also, AB 333 omitted certain nonviolent offenses from the list of offenses that could make up a gang’s primary activities or form the requisite pattern of criminal gang activity, reducing the list of offenses from 33 to 26.

Authority:

AB 333

PEN 186.22

People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818, 828-829

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

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 753

Third Holding:

The recall of the defendant’s sentence under section 1172.75 rendered his judgment no longer final, and the defendant was entitled to the presumption of retroactivity of ameliorative legislation under Estrada. The rule in Estrada has been applied to statutes governing penalty enhancements, as well as to statutes governing substantive offenses.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744–745

People v. Nasalga (1996) 12 Cal.4th 784, 792

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

People v. Mitchell (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1127, 1137–1142 [AB 333 applied retroactively to the defendant’s substantive gang offense conviction and enhancement]

Fourth Holding:

For Estrada purposes, the judgment means the judgment of conviction and the sentence. A criminal case is only reduced to a singular, final judgment following the conclusion of the entire criminal case or prosecution. Thus, a criminal case in which the sentence is not yet final, including one in which an appellate court has affirmed the conviction and remanded for reconsideration of sentencing-related issues, is not final for purposes of Estrada, and the benefits of supervening ameliorative legislation apply retroactively. It was presumed ameliorative changes to the law extend as broadly as possible, distinguishing only as necessary between sentences that are final and sentences that are not.

Estrada applies to statutory amendments which redefine, to the benefit of defendants, conduct subject to criminal sanctions. Here, the defendant’s sentence was vacated when the trial court recalled his sentence under section 1172.75. Once his sentence was vacated, the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence him to a new sentence. Reversal is required unless the error is harmless pursuant to Chapman.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 392-395

People v. Arias (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 213, 219 [recall of [the defendant’s sentence effectively vacates his original sentence and commitment]

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 163 [once a court has determined that a defendant is entitled to resentencing, the result is vacatur of the original sentence, whereupon the trial court may impose any appropriate sentence]

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

Fifth Holding:

As the judgment is no longer final, it is also necessary for the trial court to reassess whether the prior serious felony and strike conviction were based on gang activity, and whether the conduct then would have been considered unlawful gang activity under AB 333. On remand, the prosecution may elect to retry whether the prior conviction qualifies as a serious felony applying the elements of section 186.22 as amended by AB 333.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 582-583, 607-608

People v. Farias (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 619, 650–653

Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000406

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The provision in the probation order requiring the defendant to reimburse the county for public defender and probation related services must be stricken.

Holding:

Section 1465.9(a) provides that the balance of any court-imposed costs imposed under former section 987.8, authorizing public defender fees, and former section 1203.1b, authorizing probation services fees, as those sections read on June 30, 2021, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated. Accordingly, we will strike the portion of the probation order authorizing these fees.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(a)

People v. Portillo (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 577, 602-603

People v. Greeley (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 609, 625

Equal protection, Juveniles, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000404

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

For criminal conduct committed when he was 17, the imposition of a sentence of a determinate term of nine years plus and indeterminate term of more than 150 years to life was the functional equivalent of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), and as a matter of equal protection, the defendant must be considered eligible to petition for recall and resentencing under section 1170(d)(1).

First Holding:

Statutory interpretation and the application of undisputed facts to a statute are questions of law we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Salcido (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1311

Second Holding:

A juvenile defendant who was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole is eligible to seek resentencing under section 1170(d). Although the defendant’s sentence does not fall within the statute’s plain language, the constitutional right of equal protection extends section 1170(d) eligibility to juvenile offenders who were sentenced to the functional equivalent of LWOP.

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)(1)(A)

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 633–634

Third Holding:

The defendant’s sentence exceeds the sentence in Heard, and the People concede it unquestionably exceeds the juvenile offender’s natural lifespan.

Authority:

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 440, 450–451 [10 years plus 130 years to life constituted functional equivalent of LWOP]

People v. Caballero (2012) 55 Cal.4th 262, 265, 267–268 [40 years plus 70 years to life]

Fourth Holding:

The defendant’s youth offender parole eligibility under section 3051 does not affect his eligibility to seek section 1170(d) resentencing because section 3051 relief became available only after his sentence was imposed. As relevant here, under section 3051, a youth offender sentenced to a life term of 25 years to life or more is eligible for parole after 25 years of incarceration. (PC 3051(b)(3).) Because section 1170(d)(1) refers to what the defendant was sentenced to, what matters is the defendant’s original sentence. We acknowledge that other courts have parted ways with Heard, but we do not.

Authority:

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 629

Sentencing

Case: 000403

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing, it was error for the court to impose a sentence on the greater subdivision of the gun use enhancement when, at the original sentencing, it had imposed the lesser enhancement.

First Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances. The trial court may reconsider all its prior discretionary sentencing decisions. The Henderson rule however imposes a limitation on the court’s sentencing discretion. Under the Henderson rule, when a defendant successfully appeals a criminal conviction, California’s constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy precludes the imposition of more severe punishment on resentencing.

Authority:

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

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681

People v. Burbine (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1259 [upon remand for resentencing, the trial court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the defendant’s sentence]

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

People v. Hanson (2000) 23 Cal.4th 355, 357

People v. Vizcarra (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 422, 431

People v. Henderson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 482, 495-497

Second Holding:

When a trial court pronounces an unauthorized sentence,such a sentence is subject to being set aside judicially and is no bar to the imposition of a proper judgment thereafter, even though it is more severe than the original unauthorized pronouncement. The Serrato rule protects the People’s right to mandated, lawful sentences. The limitations of the rule rebut any appearance of vindictiveness. If an increase in penalty has no nexus to the original illegality in the sentence, the protection against vindictiveness is not applicable. The general rule applies that in California a harsher penalty may not be imposed after a successful appeal.

Authority:

People v. Serrato (1973) 9 Cal.3d 753, 764

People v. Price (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1405, 1413

People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 348–350

Third Holding:

Imposition of the firearm enhancement undersection 12022.53(b) on count 1 was not unauthorized. An unauthorized sentence is one that could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case, regardless of the facts. Our criticism of the firearm enhancement in the prior appeal was limited to the manner in which it was imposed rather than the fact of its imposition. Because the challenged enhancement had no nexus to the original illegality in the sentence, we conclude that the trial court erred by imposing the greater enhancement under section 12022.53(d) on this count, in lieu of the lesser enhancement under section 12022.53(b) that it had originally imposed.

We will therefore remand the matter back to the trial court for a full resentencing hearing. While the trial court may reconsider all discretionary sentencing choices under no circumstances should the aggregate sentence be more than the sum of the original sentence and the mandatory increase required due to any Serrato errors.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Trammel (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 415, 435

Juveniles, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000402

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court violated section 1170 and the defendant’s right to a jury trial by relying on aggravating factors that were not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or stipulated to under to section 1170(b). And the court must conduct a Franklin hearing.

First Holding:

On January 1, 2022, SB 567 went into effect, amending section 1170. Section 1170 now authorizes a trial court to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when 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. However, the court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(3)

Second Holding:

While not directly addressing section 1170, the United States Supreme Court held that, under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt or freely admitted in a guilty plea. An exception to this allows a trial court to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Under that exception, a judge may do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.

Authority:

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 834, 838

Third Holding:

In accordance with Erlinger, Wiley held that 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. The court also addressed two specific aggravating factors specified in the Rules of Court–the increasing seriousness of a defendant’s prior convictions and a defendant’s unsatisfactory performance on probation or parole, and held that each must be found true by a jury before it can be used to justify an upper term sentence.

Authority:

Rules of Court rules 4.421(b)(2) and (b)(5)

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082-108

Fourth Holding:

When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review. Under that standard, a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Authority:

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

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

Fifth Holding:

In selecting the upper term on count 5, the trial court relied on the defendant’s extensive serious record. While the court did not refer to any specific aggravating factor, it appears the court relied on, at the very least, the increasing seriousness of his prior convictions or sustained juvenile petitions. However, a jury determination is required before a court can rely on this aggravating factor to justify an upper term sentence. Here, there was no jury trial, stipulation, or jury trial waiver on this factor in aggravation. Accordingly, the court’s reliance on this factor to impose an upper term sentence was error.

Authority:

People v. Wiley [(2025)] 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090

Sixth Holding:

The determination of whether these prior convictions are of increasing seriousness is a comparative and qualitative one, which makes it 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. A rational juror may not have been persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt. As we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found this aggravating factor true, the error was not harmless. As the trial court erred and the error was not harmless, we will vacate the sentence and remand the case for a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Wiley [(2025)] 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087, 1090

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

Seventh Holding:

The trial court also misunderstand its responsibility to conduct a Franklin hearing itself, believing that it was a parole matter to be handled by the Parole Board. A Franklin proceeding gives an opportunity for the parties to make an accurate record of the juvenile offender’s characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense so that the Parole] Board, years later, may properly discharge its obligation to give great weight to youth-related factors in determining whether the offender is fit to rejoin society. On remand, the court must conduct a Franklin hearing.

Authority:

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 449

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

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000401

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is entitled to a new resentencing because the trial court failed to apply relevant provisions of The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 at his resentencing under section 1172.75.

First Holding:

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(d)(2)

Second Holding:

Once the trial court received that identification information from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), it had authority over the matter and was statutorily authorized to act. That is, under section 1172.75, subdivision (b), once the CDCR provided this identification to the trial court, it triggered the trial court’s review and resentencing obligations under section 1172.75(b) thereby placing the matter within a statutorily authorized exception to the general rule that a trial court has no jurisdiction to modify a final judgment. And though section 1172.75 does not authorize a defendant to seek resentencing on his or her own motion or petition, the filing of such a procedurally unauthorized motion did not deprive the trial court of the jurisdiction afforded to it by statute to resentence a defendant as mandated by section 1172.75.

Authority:

People v. Cota (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 318, 332–333

Third 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

Fourth Holding:

Should the court determine to provide relief under the Three Strikes Reform Act, it may also exercise its discretion with regard to which sentence to stay under section 654, now that the statute does not bind the court to impose the sentence on the count that carries the longer potential sentence.

Authority:

PEN 654

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

Effective assistance of counsel, Juveniles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000400

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Where the defendant’s judgment was not final when Proposition 57 was passed (making major changes in the treatment of juvenile offenders as adults), and counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to seek application of Proposition 57 on appeal, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted, and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court to consider whether it would have transferred the case to the adult court for prosecution as an adult even under Proposition 57 (in which case, the conviction will be reinstated as of that date) or to instead proceed by juvenile adjudication (in which case the court must conduct a dispositional hearing).

First Holding:

Among other provisions, Proposition 57 amended the Welfare and Institutions Code so as to eliminate direct filing of criminal charges against a juvenile by prosecutors. Certain categories of minors can still be tried in criminal court, but only after a juvenile court judge conducts a transfer hearing to consider various factors such as the minor’s maturity, degree of criminal sophistication, prior delinquent history, and whether the minor can be rehabilitated. The provisions apply to every minor to whom it may constitutionally apply [i.e., it is retroactive to judgments that were not final prior to its passage].

Authority:

People v. Superior Ct. (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 305-306

Second Holding:

Where a judgment that was final before Proposition 57 was passed is reopened, as when a sentence is vacated under habeas corpus, the judgment is no longer final and is subject to the provisions of Proposition 57.

Authority:

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152

Third Holding:

To establish constitutionally inadequate representation, the defendant must show that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. We defer to trial counsel’s reasonable tactical decisions in examining a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. If the record on appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, an appellate claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be rejected unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or there simply could be no satisfactory explanation. In this instance, however, the defendant’s attorney submitted a declaration that she had no tactical reason for not raising Proposition 57 on direct appeal demonstrates constitutional ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard set forth above. The defendant was prejudiced by the failure to raise the Proposition 57 issue earlier, because it provides ameliorative benefits.

Authority:

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687

People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 925

People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 207

Abstracts and Minutes, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000399

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is entitled to a new resentencing because the trial court failed to apply relevant provisions of The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 at his resentencing under section 1172.75.

First Holding:

Under the Three Strikes law as originally enacted in 1994, an individual convicted of any felony offense following two prior convictions for serious or violent felonies was subject to an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of no less than 25 years. The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 lessened the prescribed sentence for a third strike defendant whose current offense is not a serious or violent felony. But under the Reform Act, a defendant does not qualify for this ameliorative change if his current offense is one of several specified violations. Even if not convicted of a disqualifying offense, the ameliorative provisions of the Reform Act also do not apply in cases in which the court finds that release of the defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

People v. Conley (2016) 63 Cal.4th 646, 651, 653

Second Holding:

Where a person serving a life term under the original Three Strikes law is before the court for resentencing under section 1172.75 (under which now-invalid prior prison term enhancements must be vacated and the defendant must be fully resentenced to something no greater than the sentence just vacated), the person must be resentenced under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, unless the court finds that release of the defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as that term was contemplated in the Reform Act.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it continues to reflect the five prior prison terms that were stricken by the court under section 1172.75.

[GARY Note: No authority was cited for correcting the abstract, likely because the error and remedy are so obvious, but the there is much authority supporting such orders, such as those I have set forth 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