Category Archives: Sentencing

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000366

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by: (1) refusing to strike a prior serious felony enhancement attached to the defendant’s conviction for one count of possession of a firearm after an associated gang enhancement was dismissed; and (2) maintaining an indeterminate sentence on that same count. Accordingly, we will vacate the sentence for that count, strike one of the associated serious felony enhancements, and remand for resentencing consistent with Penal Code section 667(e)(1).

First Holding:

The defendant was sentenced to a Three Strikes indeterminate sentence and the sentence was enhanced for a prior serious felony conviction. During the appeal from that conviction, AB 333 was enacted to change the elements of section 186.22 regarding the crime and enhancements for gang criminal activity. As a result of the opinion in Valencia we reversed the conviction for violation of section 186.22 in count 5, and the jury’s finding that defendant committed the attempted shooting at an occupied vehicle (count 1) and possessed a firearm (count 7) for the benefit of a criminal street gang.

We remanded to give the prosecution an opportunity to retry count 5 and the gang enhancement allegations on counts 1 and 7 under amended section 186.22. The trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss count 5 and the gang enhancement allegations as to counts 1 and 7. The court denied the defendant’s request to sentence the defendant to a determinate term and rejected his argument that the basis of the count 7’s status as serious felony had been undermined by AB 333, and it was no longer a serious felony to support either the five-year enhancement for his prior serious felony or as a third strike. The court erred. Count 7 was only considered a serious felony by reason of the jury’s true finding on the gang enhancement. With the gang enhancement out of the picture, count 7 could no longer be considered a serious felony.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

PEN 667

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818

Second Holding:

Count 7 was only a serious felony by reason of the gang enhancement, which had been stricken. Therefore, he was not convicted in the current case of a third strike, and was subject to only a doubling of his sentence, not a life term.

Authority:

PEN 667

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000365

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We affirm the conviction. The defendant is entitled to remand for resentencing under AB 518 because of the amendment to section 654, which formerly required the trial court to select as the principal term the offense with the longest potential sentence; and under SB 567 because the trial court imposed an upper term for the attempted murder of the victim based on unpleaded and unproven aggravating factors.

First Holding:

In addressing a claim of insufficient evidence to support a conviction, this court reviews the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, from which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We presume every fact in support of the judgment the trier of fact could have reasonably deduced from the evidence. If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.

Although it is the jury’s duty to acquit a defendant if it finds the circumstantial evidence susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court that must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Reversal for insufficiency of the evidence is unwarranted unless it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conviction. We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a firearm enhancement using the same standard we apply to a conviction.

Authority:

People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 345

People v. Campbell (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 463, 484

People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 577

People v. Bryant (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1472

Second Holding:

The ameliorative changes effected by AB 518 and SB 567 apply retroactively to defendant’s nonfinal judgment on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Fugit (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 981, 995-996

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379

Third Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 518 amended section 654 to authorize trial courts to punish an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law under either of such provisions. Before the enactment of Assembly Bill No. 518, and when the trial court sentenced defendant, section 654 required the court to punish an act that was punishable in different ways by different laws only under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment.

Thus, section 654 now provides the trial court with discretion to impose and execute the sentence of either term, which could result in the trial court imposing and executing the shorter sentence rather than the longer sentence. Because the court imposed the sentence on count three on the basis that it had a longer maximum exposure than that of count four, as was required by section 654 at the time of sentencing, we will vacate the sentence and remand for a full resentencing hearing based on current law.

Authority:

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379

Fourth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, section 1170(b) was amended by SB 567. The amended statute created a presumption in favor of a low prison term when a defendant is under 26 years of age at the time of the offense. Section 1170(b)(6) provides that unless the court finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice, the court shall order imposition of the lower term if any of specified factors was a contributing factor in the commission of the offense, including that the person is a youth, or was a youth as defined under section 1016.7(b) at the time of the commission of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(6)

PEN 1016.7

People v. Flores (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1038-1039

Fifth Holding:

Additionally, SB 567 amended section 1170(b)(2) to provide that a trial court may 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. With the exception of prior conviction allegations, under the Sixth Amendment, any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by a jury’ and ‘established beyond a reasonable doubt. Under section 1170(b), a Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 747

Sixth Holding:

A 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, but the prior conviction exception to the Sixth Amendment permits a trial court to do no more than determine of what crime, with what elements, defendant was convicted

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(3)

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 837-838

Seventh Holding:

Because the court did not apply the presumption in favor of a low term due to defendant’s youth, and imposed the upper term based on aggravating factors that had not been pleaded or found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury, the court’s imposition of the upper term was improper. As we are already remanding for a full resentencing, we need not and do not consider whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. But reliance on aggravating circumstances not found in accordance with section 1170(b) is prejudicial unless an appellate court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court to justify an upper term sentence, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statutory requirements.

Authority:

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

Eighth Holding:

At resentencing, the trial court must revisit all its sentencing choices in light of all applicable legislation. That includes, but is not limited to, AB 518, SB 567, and SB 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which became effective January 1, 2022, and amended section 1385 to specify factors that the trial court must consider when deciding whether to strike enhancements from a defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice.

Authority:

PEN 654

PEN 1170

PEN 1385

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

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 674

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000362

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The record of conviction does not show as a matter of law that defendant is ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6 on his murder and attempted murder convictions. The jury was instructed on the natural and probable consequence doctrine, and the record does not show the jury necessarily found all elements of murder and attempted murder under current law. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition.

First Holding:

SB 1437, effective in 2019, the Legislature amended sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code to eliminate natural and probable consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting, and to limit the scope of the felony-murder rule. Amended section 188 provides that except as stated in the amended section 189 governing felony murder, in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought. Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime. The bill also added what is now section 1172.6, which creates a procedure for convicted murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief. Relief is potentially available for a person convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime, attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or manslaughter .

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 1172.6

People v. Lee (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1164, 1173

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957

Second Holding:

The section 1172.6 petitioning process begins with the filing of a petition containing a declaration that all requirements for eligibility are met, including that the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to section 188 or 189 . If the petition and record in the case establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief, the trial court may dismiss the petition. A defendant who petitions for resentencing under section 1172.6 is ineligible for resentencing only if the record conclusively establishes every element of the offense. In making that determination a court may give effect to a jury’s factual finding. If the petition survives the prima facie stage, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing at which the People bear the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder or attempted murder under California law as amended by SB 1437.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6.

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 724

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 463, 465

Third Holding:

Under the jury instructions given at defendant’s trial, the defendant could have been found guilty even if not the slayer, because there was a second person who was the slayer. Additionally, the finding defendant personally discharged a firearm and proximately caused great bodily injury and death does not establish the defendant intended to kill or was aware of the danger to life that his act posed. In sum, the jury verdict does not show as a matter of law defendant harbored malice aforethought. Under the trial court’s instructions, the jury could instead have concluded defendant aided and abetted an assault with a firearm the natural and probable consequences of which was murder. Thus, the entire record of conviction does not foreclose that defendant was convicted based on a now invalid theory of murder.

Authority:

People v. Offley (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 588, 598

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 463, 465

Fourth Holding:

Under current law, attempted murder requires intent to kill. We cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that the record of conviction shows defendant harbored intent to kill. The jury finding that the attempted murder was committed willfully and with premeditation and deliberation shows only that the slayer harbored this mental state. The jury does not further identify the slayer. Additionally, the fact defendant intended to discharge a firearm does not show the defendant harbored a particular mental state.

Authority:

People v. Morales (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1120, 1132

People v. Offley (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 588, 598 [explaining that section 12022.53(d) provides that the defendant must have intended to discharge a firearm, but does not refer to an intent to achieve any additional consequence.]

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing

Case: 000361

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After the trial court denied the defendant’s request at the section 1172.75 resentencing hearing to resentence him on one of his nonserious felony counts under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (thus reducing his Three Strikes sentence of 25 years to life on that count to a doubled determinate term), the Supreme Court concluded that the Reform Act does apply, subject to the finding of unreasonable risk to public safety. The matter is remanded for resentencing consideration accordingly.

First Holding:

As a matter of constitutional avoidance, section 1172.75 incorporates section 1170.126’s discretionary public safety override as a condition for nonserious, nonviolent third strike offenders to obtain resentencing under the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act. The case must be remanded for the superior court to determine whether sentencing the defendant under the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. If it is so determined, the superior court must reimpose the indeterminate term. If the superior court does not determine that resentencing the defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, and the defendant is otherwise eligible under the Reform Act, the court shall resentence the defendant pursuant to the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 878

Second Holding:

The superior court did not have the benefit of Guevara, meaning that it was not fully aware of the scope of its discretionary powers when it resentenced the defendant. We remand for resentencing because the record does not clearly indicate that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 425

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000360

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After the trial court denied the defendant’s request at the section 1172.75 resentencing hearing to resentence him under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (thus reducing his Three Strikes sentence of 25 years to life to a doubled determinate term), the Supreme Court concluded that the Reform Act does apply, subject to the finding of unreasonable risk to public safety. The matter is remanded for resentencing consideration accordingly.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 incorporates section 1170.126’s discretionary public safety override as a condition for nonserious, nonviolent third strike offenders to obtain resentencing under the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act. Because section 1172.75 and section 1170.126, thus interpreted, operate harmoniously, the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act may constitutionally apply at a resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 850

Second Holding:

It is unclear from the record as originally filed how the section 1172.75 proceedings had been initiated. Section 1172.75 does not authorize a defendant to seek resentencing on his or her own motion or petition. Rather the process is triggered by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR] identifying a defendant as a person serving a sentence that includes a prior prison term enhancement. On our own motion, we took judicial notice of a CDCR list, which identifies individuals potentially eligible for section 1172.75 relief; defendant’s name appears on that list.

Authority:

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

People v. Newell (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 265, 268

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 382 [Lower and appellate courts lack jurisdiction over a request for section 1172.75 relief brought solely by a defendant)

Third Holding:

Construing the discretionary public safety determination of section 1170.126 as applicable at a section 1172.75 resentencing maintains the integrity of both statutes, such that the two may stand together. The legislative history suggests the voters understood that where a court conducting a resentencing inquiry for Third Strike defendants serving an indeterminate term found relief would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, the defendant would not be entitled to resentencing. Interpreting section 1172.75 as incorporating the discretionary public safety determination of section 1170.126 would honor this concern and thus eliminate constitutional doubt.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 865-866

Fourth Holding:

In exercising this discretion, the voters established that the resentencing court may consider: (1) The petitioner’s criminal conviction history, including the type of crimes committed, the extent of injury to victims, the length of prior prison commitments, and the remoteness of the crimes; (2) The petitioner’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated; and (3) Any other evidence the court, within its discretion, determines to be relevant in deciding whether a new sentence would result in an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 866, fn. 9

Fifth Holding:

The resentencing court is not bound by the prior dangerousness determination associated with the defendant’s section 1170.126 petition. Rather, section 1172.75 requires that the resentencing court makes a new determination as to whether a defendant’s resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety’ as of the present day. A prior finding that a particular defendant poses a risk to public safety under section 1170.126(f) is unquestionably relevant, and will no doubt be given consideration by a court subsequently resolving a resentencing under section 1172.75 involving an indeterminate Three Strikes sentence.

However, given significant passage of time, it is possible that a defendant who once presented a threat to public safety may no longer do so. For instance, not only may defendants present evidence that they have significantly rehabilitated since a prior section 1170.126 proceeding, but serious illness or advanced age may have substantially reduced the danger to public safety they once posed. Realistically assessing such changed circumstances is appropriately left to the trial court on remand.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 878, fn. 17

Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000359

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The minor challenges a probation condition prohibiting use of “illegal drugs or mind altering substances except as prescribed by a physician,” and another condition stating defendant “must not be around persons the minor knows to be users or sellers of illegal drugs or mind altering substances.” The minor contends these conditions are constitutionally vague and overbroad because “mind altering substances” could include legal substances such as caffeine.

We hold the conditions, reasonably read, apply only to illegal drugs and illegal mind-altering substances, and therefore are neither vague nor overbroad. To avoid any ambiguity between the two conditions, however, we modify the second condition to include the same exception for physician-prescribed substances present in the first condition. As modified, we affirm the dispositional order.

First Holding:

To withstand a challenge on the ground of vagueness, a probation condition must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated. The question is not whether a greater degree of precision would be desirable in principle, but whether it is constitutionally compelled. The vagueness doctrine demands no more than a reasonable degree of certainty. When reviewing the language of a probation condition, we assign it the meaning that would appear to a reasonable, objective reader. A probation condition is overbroad if it imposes limitations on a person’s constitutional rights but is not closely tailored to the purpose of the condition.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890

People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 503

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 382

Second Holding:

Although the minor did not assert his constitutional challenge in the trial court, that challenge presents pure questions of law that can be resolved without reference to the particular sentencing record developed in the trial court and therefore may be raised for the first time on appeal. We review this constitutional challenge de novo.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889

In re Malik J. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 896, 901

Third Holding:

The minor argues that the conditions are vague as to whether they are limited to illegal mind-altering substances, or apply to legal mind-altering substances as well. Specifically, he contends it is ambiguous whether the term “illegal” modifies “mind altering substances” or simply modifies “drugs,” the term “illegal” directly precedes. We do not think a reasonable, objective reader would parse the conditions to apply the term “illegal” to “drugs” but not to “mind altering substances.”

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 382

Fourth Holding:

Defendant correctly notes condition No. 18 does not contain a prescription exception. Again, because condition No. 18 is limited to illegal substances, a prescription exception strictly speaking is unnecessary, and therefore, read by itself, the language of condition No. 18 is neither vague nor overbroad. In tandem with condition No. 17, however, the presence of a prescription exception in one condition and not the other arguably could create confusion. To remedy any such confusion, we modify condition No. 18 to include a prescription exception. Condition No. 18 is modified to read, “You must not be around persons you know to be users or sellers of illegal drugs or mind altering substances except as prescribed by a physician.”

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 892 [approving reviewing court’s insertion of language to secure the constitutional validity of the probation condition]

In re Luis F. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 176, 192 [tailoring probation condition to remedy vagueness and overbreadth]

Amelioration, Discretion, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000358

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is remanded for the trial court to properly consider its discretion on whether to strike the prior serious felony conviction in light of the presence of one or more mitigating circumstances enumerated in section 1385(e), in the absence of a finding of danger to public safety.

First Holding:

Senate Bill No. 81, effective January 1, 2022, added subdivision (c) to section 1385. Section 1385(c) provides, “(1) Notwithstanding any other law, 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. (2) In exercising its discretion under [subdivision (c)], the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in [the subparagraphs to subdivision (c)(2)] are present.

Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. Endanger public safety means there is a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others.

The mitigating circumstances identified in the subparagraphs include, among others, that multiple enhancements are alleged in a single case. In this instance, all enhancements beyond a single enhancement shall be dismissed. And they include that the application of an enhancement could result in a sentence of over 20 years. In this instance, the enhancement shall be dismissed.

Authority:

PEN 1385

Second Holding:

Absent a danger to public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice. This furtherance of justice inquiry requires a trial court’s ongoing exercise of discretion. Thus, notwithstanding the presence of a mitigating circumstance, trial courts retain their discretion to impose an enhancement based on circumstances long deemed essential to the furtherance of justice inquiry

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1033–1036

Third Holding:

In determining whether dismissing an enhancement would endanger public safety, the plain words of the statute do not support a trial court’s singular focus on whether the defendant currently poses a danger. Although the current dangerousness of the defendant is an appropriate factor to consider, as it will have some bearing on whether dismissing the enhancement would endanger the public, a crucial part of the inquiry is how the dismissal will impact the length of the defendant’s sentence. Thus, a currently dangerous defendant who will be released from prison within a short timeframe might be found by the trial court to pose a greater danger to the public than a defendant who is currently dangerous but who has no prospect of release from prison until he is elderly.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 225, 228

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision not to strike a sentence enhancement under section 1385 for abuse of discretion. The abuse of discretion standard is highly deferential. When a discretionary power is statutorily vested in the trial court, its exercise of that discretion must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.

We presume that the trial court acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives. The burden is on the party challenging the sentencing decision to show that the court abused its discretion. We may not presume error from a silent record. Unless the record affirmatively demonstrates otherwise, the trial court is deemed to have considered all the relevant sentencing factors set forth in the rules. In addition as a general rule a trial court is presumed to have been aware of and followed the applicable law. Thus, where a statement of reasons is not required and the record is silent, a reviewing court will presume the trial court had a proper basis for a particular finding or order. A trial court abuses its discretion by rendering a sentencing decision based on impermissible factors or on an incorrect legal standard. Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion.

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 371

People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 298

People v. Knowles (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 757, 765

People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 156

People v. Nakano (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 623, 635 [an abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court applies the wrong legal standard]

People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371, 431

Fifth Holding:

When the trial court does not conclude that dismissal would result in a danger to public safety, the court must assign great weight to any mitigating factors, if present, and exercise its discretion in determining whether dismissal would be in the furtherance of justice. The term “great weight” did not create a presumption in favor of dismissal, but should be interpreted to mean that absent a danger to public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.

Without credible evidence to support findings on aggravating circumstances, judges could disregard mitigating factors without a proper basis for doing so. This would be incompatible with the great weight the Legislature has attached to the enumerated mitigating circumstances. Section 1385(c)(2)’s mandate to give great weight to enumerated mitigating circumstances requires a sentencing court to engage in a holistic balancing with special emphasis on the enumerated mitigating factors.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1033–1036

People v. Ortiz (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1087, 1094

Sixth Holding:

On appeal, we presume that a judgment or order of the trial court is correct, all intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.

Authority:

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 644, 666

Seventh Holding:

The court did not explicitly conclude that dismissal of the enhancements would result in a danger to public safety. Indeed, the trial court did not discuss public safety in its findings, nor did it make any statements related to the possibility of the defendant committing further crimes if his sentence were to be reduced, and he were to be released early, following dismissal of the enhancements. when the trial court does not conclude that dismissal would result in a danger to public safety, the court must assign “great weight” to any mitigating factors, if present, and exercise its discretion in determining whether dismissal would be in the furtherance of justice.

Walker and Gonzalez had not been decided at the time of the trial court’s ruling, and that in making its findings, the trial court did not use the word “mitigating factors,” or specifically discuss the mitigating factors listed under section 1385(c). While we acknowledge that a silent record does not, on its own, reflect an abuse of discretion , we find it is not evident from the instant record and findings that the trial court would have still exercised its discretion not to dismiss the enhancement if it had the guidance provided in those cases. The trial court did not make any indication that the defendant would pose a danger to public safety if he were to be released early as a result of a reduced sentence.

Further, while the trial court’s final order cited the serious nature of the defendant’s offenses, as well as his criminal history. it is unclear if such findings reflected the trial court engaging in a holistic balancing with special emphasis on the enumerated mitigating factors as required under Walker. Under these circumstances, we conclude that remand for resentencing is required. In reaching our decision, we do not express any position on how the court should exercise its discretion under section 1385 regarding dismissal of the section 667(a) enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424 [noting that if the trial court is unaware of the scope of its informed discretion at the time of sentencing and fails to exercise it in making a sentencing decision, the appellate court must remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion]

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

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1036

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000357

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On remand from the Supreme Court, the prior opinion is amended to vacate the strike finding and prior serious felony enhancement in light of AB 333, enacted after he was sentenced. As held in the original opinion, three of the four counts of felon in possession of a firearm must be vacated, because the same gun was possessed for all four underlying robberies.

First Holding:

The evidence is insufficient to support three of the four charged counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm because he possessed the same gun continuously and can therefore be convicted of only one count. As the Attorney General concedes, the evidence shows a single continuing offense without the interruption in possession necessary for separate crimes. (Indeed, to help prove identity of the perpetrator, the prosecutor relied on the fact that the same gun was used in all the offenses.) We will therefore reverse the judgment and order all but one firearm possession conviction vacated.

Authority:

People v. Mason (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 355, 365

Second Holding:

After defendant was sentenced, section 1170(b) was amended to create a presumption in favor of the low term under certain circumstances, including where the defendant was under age 26 at the time of the offense and youth was a contributing factor in the offense. Because that new provision is ameliorative, it applies retroactively to this nonfinal judgment.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(6)

People v. Flores (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1039

Third Holding:

The Attorney General does not dispute defendant was under 26 at the time of the offenses but argues resentencing is not required because there is no evidence youth was a contributing factor and the aggravating factors found by the court outweigh the mitigating factors such that the court would not have imposed the low term in any event. But when a court has imposed a sentence while unaware of the extent of its discretion—in this case because the legislation was not yet in effect—resentencing is required unless the record clearly indicates the court would have imposed the same sentence under the new standard. We are not persuaded that a lack of evidence showing youth contributed to the offense obviates the need for remand, as before the enactment of the new law, counsel may have had less incentive to present mitigation on the point, and defendant should now be allowed the opportunity to do so.

Authority:

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1096

Fourth Holding:

Defendant’s sentence was increased based on the finding that he was convicted in 2012 of a serious felony. The prior conviction is for assault under former Penal Code section 245(a)(1), which qualified as a prior serious felony because it was found to have been committed to benefit a criminal street gang under the version of Penal Code section 186.22 then in effect. The strike finding and prior serious felony enhancement must be vacated because legislation enacted after his sentencing (AB No. 333) added several elements to the gang enhancement statute and, if the current standard is applied to his 2012 conviction, the evidence in the record is insufficient to prove the new elements. Where a defendant has suffered a conviction under the prior version of section 186.22, AB 333 applies to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements. We will therefore remand for possible retrial as contemplated in Fletcher, or for resentencing without an increase to defendant’s sentence based on a prior serious felony conviction.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583

Fifth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2020, Penal Code section 667.5(b) was amended to limit prior prison term enhancements (for nonviolent offenses not listed in 667.5(c)) to sentences that were served for sexually violent offenses as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600(b). The amendment applies retroactively and requires the prior prison term enhancements to be vacated because they were not based on sexually violent offenses.

Authority:

SB 136

PEN 667.5

Sixth Holding:

The trial court imposed a concurrent prison term for possessing ammunition, which should have been stayed under section 654 because the ammunition offense is based on the same conduct as unlawfully possessing a firearm, for which the court also imposed a prison term. When resentencing defendant, the trial court shall apply section 654 to stay any prison terms arising from conduct for which punishment is otherwise imposed.

[GARY NOTE: Section 654 now gives the court the discretion to impose punishment for ANY ONE of multiple counts (and stay the punishment on the other(s)) where section 654 applies, and does NOT require that it impose the sentence on the count bearing the greater sentence.]

Authority:

PEN 654

Sixth Holding:

On resentencing, the defendant will be entitled to consideration under the amendments to section 1385 under SB 81 to to limit sentencing enhancements by requiring that great weight be given to evidence of certain mitigating circumstances. By its terms, amended Penal Code section 1385 applies to all sentencings after January 1, 2022, which will include defendant’s resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1385

Fines and fees, Juveniles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000354

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because of legislation enacted since the disposition hearing, the $300 restitution fine is ordered stricken in this Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 juvenile proceeding. The statutory change regarding joint and severally liability, however, does not apply retroactively.

First Holding:

While this appeal was pending, the Legislature amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 and removed the requirement that a minor pay a restitution fine. The relevant portion of the statute now states that the court shall not impose a separate and additional restitution fine against a minor found to be a person described in section 602. Because the judgment is not final, the appellant is entitled to the ameliorative benefits of this amendment.

Authority:

WIC 730.6

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740

Second Holding:

The modification of section 730.6(b)(3), eliminating joint and several liability for juvenile offenders for direct restitution, is not punitive, but civil. Because it is not ameliorative of punishment, there is no presumption that it applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments. Enacted after the order imposing direct restitution jointly and severally with other parties, it has prospective effect only, and does not apply retroactively to this minor’s case.

Authority:

WIC 730.6(b)(3)

In re J.L. (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 388

Discretion, Duty of the court, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000353

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights by imposing a sentence based on aggravating circumstances that were neither admitted by him nor tried to a jury. The trial court conducted an inadequate inquiry when the defendant requested that new counsel be substituted.

[GARY NOTE: The unpublished opinion lays out several observations that it characterizes as possibly arguable deficiencies in counsel’s performance that would support a finding that it would be necessary to substitute new counsel as the defendant requested. Many of the specifics have been redacted from the filed opinion itself, as the Marsden hearing is a confidential inquiry conducted outside the presence of the prosecution and the public, and the matters stated by any participants (the defendant, the attorney for the defendant, the court) at the hearing are not subject to public disclosure.]

First Holding:

The defendant is entitled to resentencing because the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by relying on aggravating circumstances based on facts that had not been admitted or tried to a jury. Although the defendant did not preserve this claim in the trial court, his failure to do so does not forfeit his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

Authority:

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47-48

Second Holding:

In Cunningham, the United States Supreme Court held that, except for prior conviction allegations, the Sixth Amendment requires any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence to be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The sentencing scheme in effect in California at the time violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because it allowed a defendant’s prison sentence to be increased beyond the statutory maximum based on facts that had not been found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or admitted by the defendant. The statutory maximum, for Sixth Amendment purposes, is the maximum sentence the court may impose without finding any additional facts beyond those necessary to support the verdict. Cunningham explained that California could comply with the Sixth Amendment either by requiring jury findings for any facts necessary to impose an aggravated sentence or, alternatively, by authorizing sentencing courts to exercise broad discretion within a statutory range.

Authority:

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281, 294

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 746-747

Third Holding:

California’s current sentencing scheme (in effect at the time of the defendant’s sentencing) adopts the first option Cunningham outlined. Under section 1170(b), when a statute specifies three possible terms, the court must order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial. After revoking the defendant’s probation, the court found in aggravation that the crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threats of great bodily harm, and other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness. But this aggravating factor was not admitted or otherwise proved to the trier of fact.

Authority:

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 294

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 748

Fourth Holding:

We apply the rigorous Chapman standard of review to determine whether the trial court’s reliance on unproven aggravating circumstances was prejudicial. Under that standard, the violation is prejudicial unless we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a jury would have found true all the aggravating facts upon which the challenged sentence was based. The defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing unless the appellate court can conclude that the omission of a jury trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to every aggravating fact the trial court used to justify an upper term sentence. Put another way, the defendant is entitled to a remand unless no reasonable jury would have found in favor of the defendant as to any of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court. In conducting this analysis, moreover, we may not assume that the record contains all the evidence that would have been presented had the aggravating circumstances been tried to a jury.

Authority:

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768, 775

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

Fifth Holding:

Further, because the court imposed an enhancement for great bodily injury under section 12022.7, it was improper to also rely on great bodily injury as a factor in aggravation for purposes of imposing the upper term, although that error is subject to harmless error analysis. The court could, without running afoul of section 1170(b)(5), rely on other aggravating circumstances independent of the great bodily injury enhancement, such as a finding that the offense involved great violence or reflected a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness.

Authority:

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

Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1)

People v. Gutierrez (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1729, 1735-1736

People v. Castaneda (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 611, 614-615

Sixth Holding:

When a defendant requests that his appointed counsel be relieved and new counsel be appointed under Marsden, the trial court must give the defendant an opportunity to explain his concerns about his counsel’s performance and provide examples of deficiencies. The defendant is entitled to substitute counsel when the record clearly shows that the appointed counsel is not providing adequate representation. The trial court abuses its discretion when the defendant has shown that a failure to replace the appointed attorney would substantially impair the right to assistance of counsel. The trial court also abuses its discretion if it does not conduct an adequate inquiry into the defendant’s motion. When the defendant has identified shortcomings by counsel, the court must obtain counsel’s response and conduct any further inquiry that is needed to determine whether counsel had adequate explanations for all of the defendant’s complaints.

The critical factual inquiry in a Marsden hearing will often involve whether counsel consulted sufficiently with their client, adequately investigated the facts, and properly prepared for the relevant hearing. When the trial court’s inquiry is deficient, we remand the case for a new Marsden hearing. On this record, the trial court lacked an adequate basis to determine whether counsel had properly investigated and prepared the defendant’s mitigation case for the sentencing hearing. Likewise, we lack an adequate record to review the trial court’s denial of Marsden relief. On remand, the trial court should conduct a Marsden hearing to determine whether the defendant is entitled to substitute counsel for purposes of his resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 123-124

People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 599

People v. Carter (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1092, 1099, 1102-1104

People v. Ng (2022) 13 Cal.5th 448, 500

People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 488

People v. Ivans (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1666 [stating the trial court must make a careful inquiry before it can intelligently rule on the Marsden motion]

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000352

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in not conducted a full resentencing under section 1172.75 after striking the now-invalid prior prison term enhancements and in conducting the hearing in the absence of the defendant without his express consent.

First Holding:

A defendant is entitled to a full resentencing hearing under section 1172.75.

Authority:

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402 [by its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements]

Second Holding:

Absent a valid waiver under section 977, defendant is entitled to be present physically or by remote appearance at resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Velasco (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 663, 673-674

Third Holding:

Resentencing under section 1172.75 ordinarily must be initiated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), by the CDCR notifying the trial courts—no later than December 31, 2023—of all incarcerated individuals who may be entitled to relief under the statute. Compare Burgess with Cota–two cases discussing different circumstances under which a defendant-initiated resentencing petition is improper, but the CDCR’s failure to notify trial court by deadline does not preclude full resentencing hearing. Here, it appears the trial court’s early, but incomplete action granting defendant some resentencing relief by striking his section 667.5(b) prison-prior terms in 2022 made it unlikely defendant would appear on the CDCR resentencing-eligibility lists submitted to the trial court in 2023. That defendant may have fallen through the cracks in this manner does not deprive him of full resentencing eligibility under section 1172.75. To the extent necessary for procedural regularity, we deem defendant’s appeal here a petition for habeas corpus to secure the resentencing hearing the People concede is necessary.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(b) and (c)

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 379-382

People v. Cota (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1131

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 71-72 [appeal may be treated as a habeas corpus petition in the interest of judicial economy]

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000351

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of aggravated sexual assault by sexual penetration under section 289. The One Strike law applies only to certain offenses. The offense resulting in conviction of Count 18 is not one of those offenses, and the One Strike Sentence for that count is modified accordingly.

First Holding:

Section 289 defines various terms pertaining to the conduct it describes as a crime. [Gary note: you just witnessed a little adjustment of precise language to maintain a “G” rating for this movie. If you have an issue involving this section, read it carefully for its definitions. In this case, the conduct in question did not meet the definition for violation of this section.]

Authority:

PEN 289(k)

Second Holding:

When reviewing for substantial evidence, we examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if a rational factfinder could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence is reasonable, credible evidence of solid value, even if circumstantial. We will reverse only if upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support it.

Authority:

People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357

People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755

Third Holding:

When insufficient evidence supports a conviction for a greater offense, we may modify the judgment to reflect a conviction for a lesser included offense.

Authority:

People v. Bailey (2012) 54 Cal.4th 740, 748

Fourth Holding:

The only lesser offenses here are time barred. Although the defendant did not raise the statute of limitations in his supplemental brief, a defendant may not inadvertently forfeit the statute of limitations and be convicted of a time-barred charged offense. Because the only applicable lesser included offenses are time-barred, we must reverse the defendant’s conviction for count 19 for insufficient evidence.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1999) 21 Cal.4th 335, 338

Kellett v. Superior Court (1966) 63 Cal.2d 822, 827 [Failure to unite all such offenses will result in a bar to subsequent prosecution of any offense omitted if the initial proceedings culminate in either acquittal or conviction and sentence.]

Fifth Holding:

The One Strike law, section 667.61, applies only to certain felony sex offenses. The defendant’s Count 18 conviction is not among those offenses. Consequently, we reverse the jury’s two count 18 true findings under section 667.61.

Authority:

PEN 667.61(c)

People v. Anderson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 92, 102

People v. Seals (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1385

Sixth Holding:

The defendant contends his sentence of [hundreds of years to life] constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the United States and California Constitutions. The defendant forfeited this claim of error. A claim that a sentence is cruel or unusual requires a fact specific inquiry and is forfeited if not raised below. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel never invoked the state constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17). The defendant did not adequately preserve an objection under the Eighth Amendment either. To the contrary, after imposing the sentence, the court asked if counsel for either side wanted to be heard, and defense counsel responded, “No.” As a result, the defendant’s federal constitutional claim is also forfeited.

Authority:

People v. Baker (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 711, 720

People v. Boyce (2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 731