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

Sentencing

Case 000930

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is entitled to one additional day of credit for time served.

Holding:

The court awarded 42 days of actual custody credit spent between the date of his conviction and the date of sentencing, but apparently did not recognize that he spent one more day in custody before posting bail the day he was arrested. Presentence actual custody credits include the day of arrest, and any day spent even partially in custody counts for a full day of credit.

The defendant is entitled to a day of actual custody credit for the time that he spent in jail on the day of his arrest. Accordingly, we will order the judgment modified to reflect that the defendant is entitled to 43 days of actual custody credits and six days of conduct credits. (Conduct credit is limited to 15% because he was convicted of a violent felony, and section 2933.1 therefore applies.)

Authority:

PEN 2933.1

People v. Rajnayagam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 42, 48

People v. Valdes (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 953, 955

Sentencing

Case 000929

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant’s presence at his resentencing hearing was not waived. We therefore reverse and remand to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with the defendant’s constitutional right to be present.

First Holding:

A criminal defendant’s right to be personally present at trial is guaranteed under the federal Constitution by the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is also required by section 15 of article I of the California Constitution and by [Penal Code] sections 977 and 1043. This right extends to all critical stages of the criminal prosecution and includes sentencing and resentencing.

Authority:

Cal. Const. art. I, sec. 15

PEN 977

PEN 1043

People v. Concepcion (2008) 45 Cal.4th 77, 81

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 347–348

Second Holding:

The right to be present may be waived. However, pursuant to section 977(b)(1) and (2), in all cases in which a felony is charged, the defendant is required to be personally present at the time of the imposition of sentence unless he or she executed a written waiver of his or her right to be present or the waiver was properly entered orally on the record.

Section 977 lays out specific requirements for the waiver to be held valid. The right to be present at the imposition of sentence includes the right to be present at a resentencing hearing because the trial court has discretion to reconsider the entire sentence on remand for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Concepcion (2008) 45 Cal.4th 77, 82

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 348

Third Holding:

When errors involving a defendant’s federal constitutional rights are implicated, the standard set forth in Champman applies and the error is prejudicial and requires reversal unless we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not affect the outcome of the proceeding.

Authority:

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

People v. Velasco, 97 Cal.App.5th 663, 674

Fourth Holding:

On the facts before us, we are unable to conclude that the error in conducting a resentencing hearing in the defendant’s absence without a valid waiver of his presence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. As in Velasco and Cutting, because the defendant was not physically present at resentencing, he was unable to present any of these types of argument. Nor could he directly address the court or aid his attorney, perhaps by providing new and updated information or circumstances justifying a more lenient sentence.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [resentencing court may consider any pertinent circumstances which have arisen since the prior sentence was imposed]

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000924

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that, in orally pronouncing sentence, the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three pursuant to section 654. Further, the court orally pronounced that count four is the principal determinate term, whereas the abstract lists count three.

First Holding:

In orally pronouncing judgment, the trial court ordered execution of the sentence imposed on count three stayed under section 654. The abstract of judgment, however, does not reflect this pronouncement. The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over any discrepancy with the minutes or the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 864

Second Holding:

Section 654 provides, in pertinent part that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. There is a multiple victim exception to section 654 which allows separate punishment for each crime of violence against a different victim, even though all crimes are part of an indivisible course of conduct with a single principal objective.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Felix (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1618, 1630-1631

Third Holding:

The People did not raise in the trial court their argument that the court could not stay execution of the sentence on count three based on the multiple victim exception. In any event, whether section 654 applies is a factual question, and we review the trial court’s decision for substantial evidence.

In analyzing whether section 654 bars the imposition of multiple sentences, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and affirm the trial court’s sentencing decision—whether express or implied—if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Under this standard, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the record.

Because the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three, we presume that the court implicitly found the multiple victim exception to section 654 inapplicable. The court’s implicit finding (that two others present at the shooting were not victims of the shooting) is supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143

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

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042 [Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it]

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral judgment.

(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for this order, but there is plenty to be had. I have listed some that the court could have cited.)

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

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that, in orally pronouncing sentence, the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three pursuant to section 654. Further, the court orally pronounced that count four is the principal determinate term, whereas the abstract lists count three.

First Holding:

In orally pronouncing judgment, the trial court ordered execution of the sentence imposed on count three stayed under section 654. The abstract of judgment, however, does not reflect this pronouncement. The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over any discrepancy with the minutes or the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 864

Second Holding:

Section 654 provides, in pertinent part that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. There is a multiple victim exception to … section 654 which allows separate punishment for each crime of violence against a different victim, even though all crimes are part of an indivisible course of conduct with a single principal objective.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Felix (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1618, 1630-1631

Third Holding:

The People did not raise in the trial court their argument that the court could not stay execution of the sentence on count three based on the multiple victim exception. In any event, whether section 654 applies is a factual question, and we review the trial court’s decision for substantial evidence.

In analyzing whether section 654 bars the imposition of multiple sentences, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and affirm the trial court’s sentencing decision—whether express or implied—if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Under this standard, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the record.

Because the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three, we presume that the court implicitly found the multiple victim exception to section 654 inapplicable. The court’s implicit finding (that two others present at the shooting were not victims of the shooting) is supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143

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

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042 [Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it]

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral judgment.

(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for this order, but there is plenty to be had. I have listed some that the court could have cited.)

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

Fifth Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Sixth Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case 000923

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The instructional errors were prejudicial regarding the multiple-murder and lying-in-wait special circumstance findings attached to counts 1, 2 and 3.

We reverse those findings, but the prosecution may retry these special circumstance allegations.

The firearm enhancements found true as to counts 1, 2 and 3 must be reversed due to prejudicial error, including pleading deficiencies and insufficiency of the evidence. Retrial of the firearm enhancements is barred by principles of double jeopardy.

The trial court also erred by denying the defendant’s renewed motion for a transfer hearing in juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 as amended by AB 2361 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.).

Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the judgment and remand the matter with directions to refer the case to the juvenile court for a transfer hearing under current law.

First Holding:

In setting forth the relevant pertinent facts in an appellate opinion, we view the record in the light most favorable to the judgment.

Authority:

In re Jesus O. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 859, 861

People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578

Second Holding:

In counts 1 through 3, the jury convicted appellant of first degree murder. The jury found true four special circumstance allegations: (1) lying in wait; (2) multiple murders; (3) murder in the commission of robbery; and (4) murder in the commission of burglary. Because of the special circumstance findings, appellant was sentenced to three consecutive LWOP terms.

There were several instructional errors, but many we find to have been harmless error. The instructional errors were prejudicial regarding the multiple-murder and lying-in-wait special circumstance findings attached to counts 1, 2 and 3.

We reverse those findings, but the prosecution may retry these special circumstance allegations. Even if the People do not elect to do so, however, a full resentencing is required.

(Gary note: The opinion concluded that some of the instructions permitted finding guilt on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, which has been abolished. Cutting to the chase in this summary, the court stated in its analysis whether the instructional error was harmless, the court stated, that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that appellant acted as a major participant in these crimes and with his own reckless indifference to human life. It was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that any rational juror who convicted appellant of first degree murder would have necessarily found the facts required under section 189(e)(3).

(Also, the jury was erroneously told at times that, if appellant was not an actual killer, the lying-in-wait and the multiple-murder special-circumstance allegations could be found true merely if he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. This was legally incorrect. If appellant was not the actual killer, then the prosecution was required to prove that he acted with an intent to kill for each murder in order to establish these special circumstance allegations. The court did not find the error harmless on those instructions, and reversed those special circumstances, allowing the prosecution to retry them.)

Authority:

PEN 188(a)(3) [Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime]

PEN 190.2(c) and (d)

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 449

People v. Hallock (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 595, 607 [conviction reversed for instructional error may be retried if supported by sufficient evidence]

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [when part of a sentence is stricken on review, a full resentencing is required so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances]

Third Holding:

We reject the prosecution’s contention that the defendant has forfeited claims of instructional error by failing to object. Trial courts have a sua sponte duty to correctly instruct on the elements of the charged offenses and on special circumstance allegations.

No objection is required to preserve a claim for appellate review when the jury instructions omit an essential element of a charge.

Moreover, a court may review any question of law involved in an instruction which affects the substantial rights of the defendant. As alleged, the instructional errors in this matter altered the mens rea and actus reus elements that the jury was required to find.

Accordingly, we decline to find forfeiture, and we will review this claim on its merits.

Authority:

PEN 1259

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 409

People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56, 91 [declining to rely on forfeiture doctrine where alleged instructional errors would have impacted defendant’s substantial rights].

Fourth Holding:

The instructional errors impacted appellant’s constitutional rights because they permitted the jury to convict him on an invalid legal theory. Accordingly, we must reverse the convictions unless, after examining the entire cause—including the evidence and considering all relevant circumstances—we determine the errors, including the disputed ones, were all harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

In re Ferrell (2023) 14 Cal.5th 593, 602

People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 13

Fifth Holding:

When a jury is instructed on both a legally valid theory and a legally invalid theory of guilt, harmlessness can be shown if the jury verdict on other points effectively embraces the valid theory or if, based on the evidence, it is impossible to have found what the verdict did find without also finding the facts underlying the valid theory.

To make this assessment, we must rigorously review the evidence to determine whether any rational juror who found the defendant guilty based on an invalid theory, and made the factual findings reflected in the jury’s verdict, would necessarily have found the defendant guilty based on a valid theory as well.

We must be convinced that the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and we must be satisfied that this standard is beyond serious debate.

We have rigorously reviewed the totality of the record to determine whether, based on the evidence, it is impossible for a rational juror to have found what the verdicts did find without also finding the facts underlying a valid theory.

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 443-444

In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562, 568

In re Ferrell (2023) 14 Cal.5th 593, 602

Sixth Holding:

Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court’s instructions.

Authority:

People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852

Seventh Holding:

Section 12022.53(d) requires personal discharge by the defendant; it does not impose vicarious liability for another principal’s firearm discharge. Vicarious firearm liability is available only when a gang enhancement is proven. Once the gang allegations were dismissed on motion of the prosecution, the vicarious theory was unavailable.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53(d) and (e)

PEN 186.22(b)(1)

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

Eighth Holding:

Because personal discharge by appellant was neither charged nor expressly found true by the jury in the verdict forms, the court could not supply that missing fact at sentencing. Any fact increasing punishment must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

The trial court lacked authority to stay the count 1 enhancement merely as an exercise of sentencing discretion. The court was only authorized to strike or dismiss the enhancement, not to stay it even based on its own discretionary sense of justice. Based on principles of double jeopardy, retrial is barred.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53(j)

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 355, 364

Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 132–133 [“Because the prosecution had a full opportunity to prove the facts necessary for a conviction but failed to do so, double jeopardy bars a second bite at the apple”]

Curry v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 712 [jeopardy attaches when a defendant is placed on trial in a court of competent jurisdiction on a valid accusatory pleading]

Ninth Holding:

In January 2011, appellant was 16 years old when he committed the present crimes. In 2012, he was charged directly in adult court. In 2016, appellant filed a motion for remand to the juvenile court and a transfer hearing under Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57). Proposition 57 was passed in November 2016, and it prohibited prosecutors from charging crimes against juveniles directly in adult court.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 303

Tenth Holding:

Before sentencing occurred in this matter, AB 2361 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. These changes were effective January 1, 2023.

AB 2361 increased the burden of proof the prosecution was required to establish in order for a juvenile to be prosecuted in adult criminal court.

Under the newer heightened standard, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that a juvenile should be transferred to adult criminal court.

These developments materially changed the requirements for transfer in effect when the defendant originally waived his right to a transfer hearing. AB 2361 applies retroactively to nonfinal cases.

Authority:

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 416

In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1284

Eleventh Holding:

A person who is eligible to have his case proceed in juvenile court may knowingly waive this statutory right. A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.

A criminal defendant cannot be deemed to have waived or forfeited a legal argument that was not recognized at the time of his trial. Even where a right may be waived, a waiver generally does not include protections that were not reasonably available or contemplated at the time.

The matter must be remanded to the juvenile court to conduct a transfer hearing.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1620

People v. Johnson (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 123, 132 [legal counsel may waive the right to a juvenile fitness hearing for an accused who has reached adulthood]

Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) 304 U.S. 458, 464

People v. Cardenas (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1468, 1479

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 48 [in a negotiated plea, waiver of right to jury trial on charged offenses does not extend to proof of aggravating circumstances when no such jury right was recognized at time of plea]

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 85 [general waiver of right to appeal from a negotiated plea agreement will not bar the appeal of sentencing errors occurring subsequent to the plea]
People v. Becerra (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 178, 188 [defendant cannot knowingly and intelligently waive right to appeal an issue not contemplated at time of waiver].

 

Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000921

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was 16 years old when he committed attempted murder on two people, and he was convicted by plea as an adult in 2015. He subsequently petitioned under section 1172.6 for recall of his sentence in light of changes to the law on liability for murder and attempted murder by those who were not the direct perpetrators. He was resentenced to five years in prison.

On appeal, he contends correctly that the court should have conducted a transfer hearing in light of changes in the statute enacted through Proposition 57.

Holding:

In 2016, voters passed “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016” to obligate the People to criminally charge a minor in the juvenile court unless the juvenile court determines after a transfer hearing that the minor should be tried and sentenced as an adult.

This part of the act applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments. When a court vacates a criminal sentence after a successful petition for resentencing, it reacquires jurisdiction to reimpose punishment and the judgment reverts to being nonfinal for that purpose.

The parties agree that the defendant is entitled to a juvenile court transfer hearing, and for these reasons so do we.

But we emphasize: Whatever potential that hearing may have for reducing his punishment (the nonfinal part of his judgment), it does not authorize or constitute relitigation of guilt.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 303, 304, 305–307

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 158, 161-162, 167, 169-170

Amelioration, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000919

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is entitled to consideration for resentencing under section 1172.75 even though she stipulated to the upper term in her original plea agreement. The matter is remanded.

Under Mitchell, the defendant is free to raise the issue of whether section 1171 precludes the setting aside of her plea if the court modifies the sentence to something less than the stipulated sentence.

First Holding:

The defendant is entitled to the retroactive benefit of section 1170(b)’s provisions notwithstanding her agreement to a specified term as part of a plea bargain.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729

Second Holding:

The proper remedy is to remand this case and permit the defendant to pursue relief under the new benefit that SB 567 confers. On remand, the defendant may either waive or invoke the requirements of section 1170(b). If she reaffirms her acceptance of the plea bargain and enters a new waiver of section 1170(b)’s requirements, the court shall reinstate the original sentence as negotiated by the parties.

If she declines to enter that waiver, in lieu of further proceedings the parties may agree to modify the existing plea agreement to specify a midterm sentence. If the court also accepts the modification it shall sentence the defendant accordingly. If no such agreement is reached and approved, the defendant’s remedy is to withdraw her assent to the bargain. In that case the court shall set aside the plea, the matter shall proceed as to the defendant as if no plea had been entered, and the case shall be set for trial.

In keeping with footnote 9 of Mitchell, however, on our remand to the trial court, the defendant may present her argument that section 1171, enacted effective 1/1/25, provides that any modification of her sentence under ameliorative provisions shall not result in setting aside her plea.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729

Eighth Amendment, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000917

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We are not convinced that section 1202.4 is facially unconstitutional, but we will remand this matter to the trial court to give the defendant an opportunity to bring an as-applied challenge to the restitution fine under the excessive fines clauses of the Eighth Amendment and California Constitution.

First Holding:

Section 1202.4(b) requires that in every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. For a felony, the minimum fine is $300 and the maximum is $10,000. Fines for a misdemeanor range from $150 to $1000.

The court shall impose the restitution fine unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record.

A defendant’s inability to pay shall not be considered a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution fine. Inability to pay may be considered only in increasing the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the minimum fine pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b).

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(b)

Second Holding:

Due process did not require an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine. Kopp instructed instead that the excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines. The excessive fines analysis arises under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 17 of the California Constitution.

Authority:

U.S. Const. Eighth Amendment

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23

Third Holding:

Following Bajakajian, our Supreme Court in Lockyer stated that four factors are relevant to determining whether a fine is unconstitutionally excessive:

(1) the defendant’s culpability;

(2) the relationship between the harm and the penalty;

(3) the penalties imposed in similar statutes; and

(4) the defendant’s ability to pay.

Kopp observed that a fine is excessive only if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense that it punishes, a deferential standard that recognizes that the Legislature makes judgments in the first instance about the appropriate punishment for offenses and judicial determinations of the gravity of a particular criminal offense are inherently imprecise.

Kopp remanded to give the defendant the opportunity to raise such a challenge.

Authority:

United States v. Bajakajian (1998) 524 U.S. 321, 327–328

People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 707, 728

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23-24

Fourth Holding:

A statute will be interpreted to avoid serious constitutional questions if such an interpretation is fairly possible. It would be remarkable and plainly unconstitutional for the Legislature to prohibit a trial court from considering a defendant’s invocation of a constitutional right.

We will therefore not construe section 1202.4 as preventing defendants from raising an excessive fines challenge to the minimum fine. Instead, we read the statute as simply establishing that as a statutory matter in the absence of an excessive fines challenge, a trial court cannot refrain from imposing the minimum $300 restitution fine based on a defendant’s inability to pay alone.

This is congruent with Kopp and excessive fines analysis jurisprudence, which considers a defendant’s ability to pay as one of four relevant factors, not as dispositive on its own.

Authority:

People v. Buza (2018) 4 Cal.5th 658, 682

People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 707, 728

People v. Aviles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1070 [While ability to pay may be part of the proportionality analysis, it is not the only factor.]

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23 [citing Aviles with approval]

Fifth Holding:

Neither the defendant nor the trial court had the benefit of Kopp when the defendant was sentenced, so she did not present her challenge to the restitution fine through the proper excessive fines analysis that Kopp makes clear is appropriate.

Accordingly, as Kopp itself did, we will remand this matter to the trial court to give the defendant the the opportunity to assert the legal analyses applicable to such a challenge and argue how the particular facts of this case inform such an inquiry.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23