Category Archives: Sentencing

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000106

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court modified the defendant’s sentence only to the extent required under sections 1172.75 and 1170.18, but otherwise left the balance intact, finding that the defendant remained a danger to the public. The case is remanded for the trial court to calculate the days of actual custody and to correct the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

Because the sentence was modified under PC 1172.75, the trial court erred in not calculating the actual days in custody.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

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

Second Holding:

We review the trial court’s finding that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety under the clear and convincing evidence standard.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(1)

Third Holding:

The clear and convincing evidence standard requires the party with the burden of proof to convince the trier of fact that it is highly probable the facts which he asserts are true.

Authority:

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998

Fourth Holding:

The narrow definition of danger to public safety under PC 1170.18 does not apply to the undefined term of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. [GARY NOTE: after the opinion in this case 000106 was filed, the Supreme Court ruled in Guevara that it was constitutionally necessary to apply the Three Strikes Reform Act’s understanding of the term “unreasonable risk to public safety” within the meaning of section 1170.126 (enacted by initiative) in order to reconcile the application of section 1172.75 (enacted by the Legislature) to those who would otherwise qualify but are serving a sentence under the Three Strikes Law (an initiative provision).]

Authority:

People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 374, 374-375

[People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838]

Fifth Holding:

The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects a determinate term of 14 years instead of 10 years, and it must be corrected. [GARY NOTE: The court did not cite authority, most likely because the error and solution are obvious. There are many relevant cases supporting this holding, some of which I have set out below.]

Authority:

People v. Hamed (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 928, 937–938

People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 242

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

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000105

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The section 12022.7(a) enhancement, which was stayed at sentencing, must instead be stricken under subdivision (g) of the statute because infliction of great bodily injury is an element of battery with serious bodily injury; and the trial court improperly limited the defendant’s presentence conduct credits to 15 percent of actual days served.

First Holding:

A sentence cannot be enhanced by section 12022.7 for infliction of bodily injury if that is an element of the underlying offense.

Authority:

PEN 12022.7(g)

Second Holding:

Great bodily injury is an element of battery with serious bodily injury.

Authority:

People v. Hawkins (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1375–1376

People v. Otterstein (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1548, 1550

People v. Johnson (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 384, 391

People v. Arnett (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1609, 1616

People v. Hawkins (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 527, 531

People v. Beltran (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 693, 696–697

Third Holding:

Serious bodily injury is the essential equivalent of great bodily injury.

Authority:

People v. Burroughs (1984) 35 Cal.3d 824, 831

People v. Sloan (2007) 42 Cal.4th 110, 117 [noting that a true finding on a great bodily injury enhancement would effectively establish the elements of the charged battery with serious bodily injury]

Fourth Holding:

Section 246 is not a violent felony per se so section 2833.1 does not limit behavior credit to 15 percent.

Authority:

In re Cabrera (2023) 14 Cal.5th 476, 491E

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000104

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Under section 654, the trial court should have stayed the sentence imposed on either of two counts, each of which was based on the same assault and committed with the same intent and objective.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 654 prohibits punishment under more than one provision for any act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law. This section applies not only where there was but one act in the ordinary sense, but also where there was a course of conduct which violated more than one statute but nevertheless constituted an indivisible transaction. 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.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 309

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

Second Holding:

Whether a defendant possessed a single intent and objective is a factual question subject to substantial evidence review on appeal. However, where the facts are undisputed, whether Penal Code section 654 precludes multiple punishment is a legal question, subject to de novo review.

Authority:

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 552, fn. 5

People v. Moseley (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1598, 1603

People v. Goode (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 484, 493

People v. Pitts (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1547, 1552, 1560 [multiple punishment precluded where mayhem and assault convictions were based on a course of conduct in which the defendant threw the victim down, punched her, took a box cutter that she tried to use to defend herself, and used the weapon to slash the victim]

Third Holding:

A course of conduct divisible in time, although directed to one objective, may give rise to multiple violations and punishment.

Authority:

People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 639, fn. 11

People v. Kwok (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1253

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000103

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude the concurrent sentences on two counts constitute multiple punishment proscribed by section 654. Accordingly, we modify the judgment to stay the sentence on the second of those two counts.

First Holding:

An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. An acquittal or conviction and sentence under any one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other. Section 654 proscribes multiple punishment for crimes arising from a single act. This statutory protection has also been extended to proscribe punishment for multiple crimes arising from an indivisible course of conduct.

Authority:

PEN 654

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

Second Holding:

Errors in the applicability of section 654 are corrected on appeal regardless of whether the point was raised by objection in the trial court or assigned as error on appeal. This is an exception to the general rule that only those claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal. This exception is not required by the language of section 654, but rather by case law holding that a court acts in excess of its jurisdiction and imposes an unauthorized sentence when it fails to stay execution of a sentence under section 654.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

The accepted procedure where section 654 applies is to sentence defendant for each count and stay execution of sentence on certain of the convictions to which section 654 is applicable. Accordingly, the sentence for either of the two counts should be stayed instead of running concurrent as the court did here.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 353

Fourth Holding:

An appellate court has the discretion to modify a judgment to stay sentences that should have been stayed. An appellate court may reverse, affirm, or modify a judgment, or may remand for further proceedings as may be just under the circumstances.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000101

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2022, defendant was resentenced under Penal Code section 1172.75 and the trial court struck seven years from his determinate term. Defendant appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion under section 1385 when declining to further reduce defendant’s sentence because the court found he currently posed a danger to public safety. We agree and accordingly vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for a full resentencing.

First Holding:

The court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so.” Section 1385(c)(2) provides: “In exercising its discretion under this subdivision, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) 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.

Authority:

PEN 1385

Second Holding:

We review the trial court’s decision not to strike an enhancement under section 1385 for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court, for example, is unaware of its discretion, fails to consider a relevant factor that deserves significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or impermissible factor, or makes a decision so arbitrary or irrational that no reasonable person could agree with it.

Authority:

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

In re White (2020) 9 Cal.5th 455, 470

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

Third Holding:

The trial court abused its discretion because the plain words of section 1385 do not support the trial court’s singular focus on whether the defendant currently poses a danger and instead focuses on the danger associated with the dismissal of an enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Williams (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1057

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 228-229

Fourth Holding:

Determining whether resentencing a defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society is necessarily a forward-looking inquiry. When determining whether resentencing poses an unreasonable risk of danger, the trial court must look to when a defendant would be released if the petition is granted and the defendant is resentenced. A defendant who would obtain immediate release if the petition is granted poses a different potential danger to society than a defendant who could be released only in his or her 70s.

Authority:

People v. Williams (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1057, 1063

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000099

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We find the trial court committed prejudicial error in not obtaining a personal waiver of the defendant’s right to a jury trial on the alleged aggravating factors. We vacate the sentence and remand the matter for litigation of the alleged aggravating circumstances and full resentencing. During the bench trial on the prior convictions, the trial court specifically noted that it was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the prior convictions were true. It was therefore error for the court to rely on them.

Holding:

The trial court committed prejudicial error in not obtaining a personal waiver of the defendant’s constitutional right to a jury trial on the alleged aggravating factors.

Authority:

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

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

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

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000098

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The petitioner argues the trial court erred by failing to hold a hearing on his PC 1172.6 petition as to whether he has stated a prima facie case for relief or even appoint counsel for him. The People concede error. We agree, and reverse.

First Holding:

Upon receiving a petition with sufficient information or a petition where any missing information can readily be ascertained by the court, if the petitioner has requested counsel, the court shall appoint counsel to represent the petitioner.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

Second Holding:

Following appointment of counsel and a briefing period, the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief. Following this initial hearing, the trial court shall issue an order to show cause, if a prima facie case for relief was made, or shall provide a statement fully setting forth its reasons for declining to issue an order to show cause. If an order to show cause issues, then the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether to vacate the conviction and to recall the sentence and resentence the petitioner on any remaining counts. All of these steps are mandatory, if the conditions are met, and the court has no discretion to refuse to follow these statutory directives.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

Third Holding:

We review de novo a trial court’s analysis of whether a petitioner under section 1172.6 has made a prima facie showing.

Authority:

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52

Fourth Holding:

Since the decision to appoint counsel is not discretionary, we review that without deference as well.

Authority:

Bontilao v. Superior Court (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 980, 987–988

Sentencing

Case: 000097

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant claims the trial court erred in sentencing him to five years in prison, and alternatively asserts the court was unaware of its discretion to strike the enhancement in the earlier case. The People concede the trial court did not appreciate its discretion but argue it did not err because the original sentencing court would not have struck the enhancement. We vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing but otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

The trial court erred because it failed to understand its discretion to correct what we conclude was an unauthorized sentence. We will remand to allow the court to exercise its informed discretion to correct the unauthorized sentence and resentence defendant. A sentence is unauthorized when it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Martinez (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1516-1517

Second Holding:

The original sentencing court was required to either suspend imposition of a sentence or impose and suspend execution of a sentence before placing defendant on probation. Instead, the original sentencing court did not pronounce a sentence for the underlying driving under the influence offense but imposed and suspended execution of the great bodily injury enhancement. As a result, we conclude the original sentencing court’s oral pronouncement of judgment was unauthorized. To determine the sentence imposed by the first sentencing court, we look to the oral pronouncement of the sentence. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order, the oral pronouncement controls. Ordinarily, this principle of law would let us apply the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment as the definitive sentence, but here the sentence orally pronounced was unauthorized. The record cannot be harmonized to correct the unauthorized sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Hill (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 831, 834 [an aggregate prison term is not a series of separate independent terms, but one term made up of interdependent components–the invalidity of one component infects the entire scheme]

People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 243

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

Third Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court. A court that is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no more exercise that informed discretion than one whose sentence is or may have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant’s record. In such situations, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion had it been aware of the scope of its discretion.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391

Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000096

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Our review has disclosed the trial court’s failure to award updated custody credits at the resentencing hearing. We will remand the matter solely for this purpose and otherwise affirm.

Holding:

The trial court failed to award updated custody credits at the resentencing hearing. Where there is a modification of a felony sentence during the term of imprisonment, the trial court must calculate the actual time the defendant has already served and credit that time against the subsequent sentence.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000095

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the superior court applied an incorrect legal standard in deciding whether to dismiss the five-year enhancement, we reverse the judgment and direct the court to exercise its discretion whether to strike that enhancement and to resentence the defendant.

First Holding:

By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements.

Authority:

People v. Dixon (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 236, 243, review granted Oct. 22, 2025, S292223

Second Holding:

We conclude the superior court erred by applying an incorrect legal standard in denying the defendant’s request to dismiss the five-year enhancement for the prior serious felony. Section 1385 provides that the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so. It also provides that, in exercising its discretion, the court must consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove any of nine listed mitigating factors, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. If the court does not find dismissing an enhancement would endanger public safety, the court must consider whether the defendant has presented evidence of one or more of the mitigating factors listed in section 1385. If so, the court must engage in a holistic balancing with special emphasis on the [nine] enumerated mitigating factors and must dismiss the enhancement unless the 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.

Authority:

PEN 1385

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

Third Holding:

Without the benefit of Walker, decided several months after the resentencing, the superior court did not apply the correct legal standard. It did not find that reducing the sentence by five years would endanger public safety. Nor did it consider dismissing the prior conviction that was more than five years old, instead relying on the fact that the original court found the prior conviction to be true. By deferring to the original trial court on whether to strike the serious felony conviction enhancement, the superior court ignored section 1172.75’s mandate to apply changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion. In 2015 the trial court had to impose the five-year prior serious felony enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), but effective 2019, SB 1393 gave trial courts discretion to strike that enhancement under section 1385. In addition, section 1172.75 authorized the superior court to consider postconviction factors, such as the defendant’s disciplinary record and rehabilitation while in prison, his age, and his physical condition—factors not available to the trial court in 2015.

Authority:

People v. Carter (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 960, 968 [simply striking the one-year enhancement imposed under the repealed portion of former section 667.5(b) deprived the defendant of his right to full resentencing under the changes in the law]

People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562, 567 [court erred by failing to provide the defendant with a full resentencing hearing, meaning a hearing in which he could have sought further sentencing relief under at least two other statutes that were enacted after his conviction]

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

Fourth Holding:

The superior court’s error was prejudicial because the record does not clearly indicate the court would have reached the same conclusion had it applied the correct legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424 [where the trial court fails to exercise informed discretion, the appropriate remedy is to 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. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 [same]

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402 [remand was required where the defendant was entitled to, but did not receive, a full resentencing under the terms of section 1172.75, including the application of any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion]

Fifth Holding:

On remand, the superior court should consider whether dismissing the prior serious felony enhancement and reducing the defendant’s sentence from 25 years six months to 20 years six months would endanger public safety. If the court does not make that finding, it should dismiss the enhancement, unless it finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that neutralize the great weight of any applicable mitigating circumstance enumerated in section 1385(c)(2), including that the enhancement was based on a prior conviction that was more than five years old.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 230-231 [in assessing whether dismissing an enhancement would endanger public safety, the trial court should have considered the date on which the defendant could be released if the enhancement was dismissed, not only whether the defendant currently posed a danger to the public]

Sixth Holding:

We review a trial court’s sentencing decisions in a section 1172.75 resentencing proceeding for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Moseley (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 870, 874

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 855-856

Seventh Holding:

In reviewing matters of statutory interpretation we review the trial court’s decision de novo.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 323

People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 804 [The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law that this court reviews de novo]

Sentencing

Case: 000093

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant challenges his sentence on the ground it violates Penal Code section 654. We agree that the course of criminal conduct in two of the counts was indivisible, and the trial court should have stayed execution of the sentence on one of them. We will remand the matter to the trial court to correct the sentence. In all other respects, we affirm.

Holding:

When a defendant’s single course of conduct violates two criminal statutes, the defendant may be convicted of both crimes, but may only be sentenced on one.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 358–359

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000092

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The clerk of the superior court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that the court did not impose any prior-prison-term enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b). The clerk of the superior court is directed to forward copies of the corrected abstract of judgment to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

First Holding:

As the judge did not orally impose any prior-prison-term enhancements, section 1172.5 does not come into play, despite a reference to the priors in the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

Effective January 1, 2020, SB 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, sec. 1) amended section 667.5 to limit the enhancement to prior prison terms for sexually violent offenses (sec. 667.5(b)).

Authority:

PEN 667.5(b)

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 854

Third Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, SB 483 made the change retroactive to all persons currently serving a term of incarceration in jail or prison for these repealed sentence enhancements.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1062

Fourth Holding:

Penal Code 1172.75 affords relief when the sentence enhancement was imposed but the punishment on the enhancement was stricken.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

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

Fifth Holding:

An appellate court reviews the trial court’s ruling, not its reasoning, and will affirm on any correct ground.

Authority:

People v. Battle (2021) 11 Cal.5th 749, 800

Sixth Holding:

An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize.

Authority:

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

Seventh Holding:

The abstract may be corrected at any time when it does not reflect the oral pronouncements.

Authority:

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