Category Archives: Sentencing

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000937

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In this appeal by the People following the resentencing of the defendant under section 1172.75, we affirm the lower court’s granting of a new trial on the gang-related special circumstances and gang enhancement allegations in light of AB 333.

First Holding:

The People contend the trial court erred in granting respondent’s motion for new trial because the evidence at trial demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury would have rendered the same verdict absent the instructional error created by the passage of AB 333.

The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a new trial motion, and its decision will be disturbed only for clear abuse of that discretion. The People recognize this general rule, but contend independent review is more fitting given that the court below was not the original trial judge and based its review on a cold transcript and exhibits.

Authority:

People v. Ault (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1250, 1260

Second Holding:

Presumptions on appeal are in favor of the order, and the appellate court does not independently redetermine the question whether an error was prejudicial. As our Supreme Court explained in Ault, the trial court’s order granting a new trial will not be disturbed if fairly debatable, even if a reviewing court itself, addressing the issues de novo, would not have found a basis for reversal. We will review the trial court’s order for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Ault (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1250, 1262-1263

Third Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature passed AB 333, which became effective January 1, 2022. The new legislation made several changes to the definition of section 186.22 gang enhancements.

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.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

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

Fourth Holding:

Although AB 333 does not expressly address the gang-murder special circumstance set forth in section 190.2(a)(22), the latter statute defines criminal street gang by express cross-reference to section 186.22(f). The same is true for a firearm enhancement alleged pursuant to section 12022.53(e)(1).

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 461

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 746

Fifth Holding:

When a substantive change occurs in the elements of an offense and the jury is not instructed as to the proper elements, the omission implicates the defendant’s right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment, and reversal is required unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same in the absence of the error. To prove harmless error under the Chapman standard, it is not enough to show that substantial or strong evidence existed to support a conviction under the correct instructions. Rather, the question is whether the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the omitted element.

(Gary note: The court then proceeded to examine the written opinion of the trial judge, and discussed the judge’s reasoning and statements of findings that led the trial court to the conclusion that a new trial was warranted. Those facts and that analysis are beyond what these summaries are designed to present, because the facts relied on in an unpublished opinion cannot be related to control a result in another case, and neither can the trial court’s reasoning be cited as authority, persuasitive or otherwise.)

Authority:

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

People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 504

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 668

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 449

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 417

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

Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000936

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court should have stayed the defendant’s eight-month sentence for count 4 under section 654. The sole objective in possessing the firearm (count 3) and the ammunition (count 4) was to have an operable firearm. Accordingly, the possession offenses were part of an indivisible course of conduct and cannot be separately punished. We otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

During the defendant’s sentencing hearing, the court concluded that because the .22-caliber ammunition was not loaded into the .22 rifle, section 654 does not prohibit a separate punishment. And because possession of ammunition increases the ability to use the firearms and the danger, the court imposed sentences of one-third the middle term, or eight months, for each of counts 3 and 4.

Section 654(a) protects against multiple punishment where the crimes arise from either (1) the same act or omission or (2) an indivisible course of conduct united by a single intent and objective. Whether a course of conduct is indivisible depends upon the intent and objective of the actor. If all the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

On the other hand, if the evidence discloses that a defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives that were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for the independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.

A trial court’s implied finding that a defendant harbored a separate intent and objective for each offense will be upheld on appeal if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Blake (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 509, 512

Second Holding:

Courts have found section 654 prohibits punishing a defendant for both being a felon in possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition when all of the ammunition in question was loaded into the firearm or had been fired from it.

Authority:

People v. Broadbent (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 917, 922

Third Holding:

Here, the .22-caliber rifle giving rise to count 3 and the same-caliber ammunition giving rise to count 4 were found in close proximity to each other. The defendant argues the only difference between this case and Broadbent and similar cases is that he safely stored the firearm separately, but in the same room as the ammunition. He contends that this difference is immaterial and does not demonstrate separate intents and objectives. We agree that drawing a distinction on this basis parses the objectives too finely.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 132, 138

Fourth Holding:

Because the record is devoid of evidence to support the court’s implicit finding that the defendant harbored two different objectives in possessing both a rifle and nearby compatible ammunition, we conclude on this record that section 654 precludes multiple punishment for the defendant’s possession of a firearm as well as several rounds of ammunition just feet away.

Although not raised by the parties, section 1170.1(a)’s one-third the middle term rule does not apply to a sentence stayed under section 654. We therefore modify the stayed 8-month consecutive sentence to a stayed middle term of two years.

Authority:

People v. Relkin (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1188, 1197-1198

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000934

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It is not clear whether the court intended to run count 2 concurrently or consecutively. The court stated it was to be run concurrently, but when stating the sentence imposed, it appeared to run the counts consecutively. We remand for clarification of the court’s actual intended sentence.

Holding:

In the course of explaining the sentence to be imposed, the trial court stated that, under section 1170.15, but the trial court said that under Woodworth, it had discretion to impose a concurrent sentence (it said a “current” sentence), and that it was doing so.

On all the remaining counts, the court imposed the sentences concurrently. But when the court announced the sentence, the calculation was based on running count 2 full term consecutively. It appears appropriate under these circumstances to reverse the sentence and remand the matter to permit the trial court to clarify its sentence.

Authority:

Pen 1170.15

People v. Woodworth (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1473

People v. Garcia (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 834, 838-839

Duty of the court, Evidence, Sentencing

Case 000933

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing under section 1172.75, it was error to deny the defendant’s motion for discovery of Brady materials that he sought to prepare his case for the recall hearing.

We remand the case for the trial court to review the sought Brady materials to determine whether anything exists that must be provided to the defendant. If so, then it should conduct a new resentencing hearing. If it determines that there is nothing of Brady material nature to be disclosed, it may deny the request, state its reasons, and reinstate the judgment.

Also, the trial court erroneously concluded that a Pitchess motion cannot be made in section 1172.75 proceedings, and denied the motion.

First Holding:

In the course of the proceedings, the district attorney’s office notified the defendant’s attorney that it had requested Brady information from the law enforcement agency involved in the original investigation of the crimes leading to the defendant’s conviction. The officer’s personnel file may contain information that is potentially exculpatory or may be used for impeachment. The defendant then filed a Pitchess motion to obtain the Brady material. The trial court erroneously concluded that a Pitchess motion cannot be made in section 1172.75 proceedings, and denied the motion.

Under Brady and its progeny, the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose to the defense material exculpatory evidence, including potential impeaching evidence. Although Brady is essentially a trial right, courts have acknowledged that the People’s obligations under Brady are ongoing, even postjudgment.

Authority:

Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83

In re Jenkins (2023) 14 Cal.5th 493, 504

People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1058–1059

In re Lawley (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1231, 1246 [Even after a conviction, the prosecutor is bound by the ethics of his office to inform the appropriate authority of information that casts doubt upon the correctness of the conviction]

Canion v. Cole (2005) 210 Ariz. 598, 599 [the state has a continuing Brady duty to disclose evidence that comes to its attention after sentencing] cited with approval in Jenkins, at p. 505

Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531

Second Holding:

In Pitchess, the California Supreme Court recognized that a criminal defendant may, in some circumstances, compel the discovery of evidence in the arresting law enforcement officer’s personnel file that is relevant to the defendant’s ability to defend against a criminal charge. In 1978, the California Legislature codified the privileges and procedures surrounding what had come to be known as ‘Pitchess motions’ through the enactment of Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 and Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1045.

Authority:

PEN 832.7

PEN 832.8

EVID 1043-1045

Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531

People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1052

Third Holding:

A Pitchess motion may be used to obtain Brady material contained in a peace officer’s confidential personnel file.

However, because the Pitchess process operates in parallel with Brady and does not prohibit the disclosure of Brady information, all information that the trial court finds to be exculpatory and material under Brady must be disclosed, notwithstanding the limitations of the Pitchess process.

Authority:

People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1055

People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696, 720

Fourth Holding:

Although the proceeding below was a resentencing hearing, Brady material may have some relevance. Where, as here, section 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing, not simply striking the now-invalidated priors. This entails applying 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)

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067, fn. 3

Fifth Holding:

Under the resentencing procedures set forth in section 1172.1(a)(5), the trial court must consider evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice, which may include evidence that the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated in the proceedings related to the conviction or sentence at issue, and any other evidence that undermines the integrity of the underlying conviction or sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1(a)(5)

Sixth Holding:

Further, at a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the trial court may exercise its power under section 1385 and Romero to dismiss a prior strike conviction in furtherance of justice. When exercising this power, the court may consider, among other things, the nature and circumstances of a defendant’s conviction.

Authority:

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 361–364

People v. Shaw (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 582, 586

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000931

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment fails to list the imposition of the restitution fine that was ordered for the misdemeanor conviction. It must be corrected.

(Gary note: Yep, not a win, but another example of errant abstracts.)

First Holding:

Where a defendant has been convicted of both a misdemeanor and a felony, it is proper for the court to impose separate restitution fines. The parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45 should match the portion of the restitution fine associated with the felony conviction to which a period of parole applied.

Authority:

People v. Holmes (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 539, 546-548

Second Holding:

The abstract of judgment is missing the $150 restitution fine imposed on the misdemeanor count. We will direct the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment including this additional restitution fine. Because the trial court’s minute order following sentencing already includes this amount, no amendment to that document is required.

(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for its order to correct the abstract of judgment, so I have listed some cases that the court could have drawn from.)

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