Category Archives: Sentencing

Appellate Principles, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case: 000142

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Defendant contends the trial court could not impose a more severe punishment than was contemplated in the plea agreement without first giving him an advisement of such a possibility prior to taking his plea, or without an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Finding merit in the contention, we will reverse the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

First Holding:

The plea bargain did not contemplate that a failure to return for sentencing would result in a higher sentence than specified in the plea bargain. At the conclusion of taking the plea, the court advised the defendant that he would be released from custody on a Cruz waiver, and if he failed to appear, the court would impose a higher term upon his apprehension. The defendant agreed to the waiver. He failed to appear, and on his apprehension he was sentenced to the upper term rather than the agreed-on middle term. This was error.

Authority:

People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1249

Second Holding:

When the plea is accepted by the prosecuting attorney in open court and is approved by the court, the defendant, except as otherwise provided in this section, cannot be sentenced on the plea to a punishment more severe than that specified in the plea and the court may not proceed as to the plea other than as specified in the plea. If the court approves of the plea, it shall inform the defendant prior to the making of the plea that (1) its approval is not binding, (2) it may, at the time set for the hearing on the application for probation or pronouncement of judgment, withdraw its approval in the light of further consideration of the matter, and (3) in that case, the defendant shall be permitted to withdraw the plea if the defendant desires to do so. The court shall also cause an inquiry to be made of the defendant to satisfy itself that the plea is freely and voluntarily made, and that there is a factual basis for the plea.

Authority:

PEN 1192.5

Third Holding:

A defendant may expressly waive the right to withdraw the plea. But any such waiver would have to be obtained at the time of the trial court’s initial acceptance of the plea, and it must be knowing and intelligent.

Authority:

People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1254, fn. 5

Fourth Holding:

A defendant who fails to appear for sentencing does not breach the terms of the plea agreement but instead commits the separate offense of failure to appear, and thus a defendant who fails to appear does not lose the protections of section 1192.5. A plea agreement may validly provide for a specified greater term to be imposed if the defendant fails to appear for sentencing or fails to satisfy other terms and conditions of the agreement. When the parties themselves agree as part of the plea bargain to a specific sanction for nonappearance, the court need not permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea but may invoke the bargained-for sanction.

Authority:

People v. Masloski (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1212, 1219, 1222-1224

Fifth Holding:

Absent compliance with the section 1192.5 procedure, the defendant’s constitutional right to the benefit of his bargain is not waived by a mere failure to object at sentencing. There can be no waiver of a constitutional right absent an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. No less should a court presume from mere silence that defendant is waiving implementation of the consideration that induced him to waive his constitutional rights. Thus, when the trial court fails to give a section 1192.5 admonition, the defendant’s failure to object at sentencing does not waive his claim on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Silva (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 578, 589

People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1024-1025

People v. Cruz (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 61, 65

Sixth Holding:

A certificate of probable cause is not required if the issue on appeal arose after the entry of the plea and does not affect the validity of the plea. Defendant did not agree, as part of the plea agreement, to the six-year term. That term was imposed after his plea. Under these circumstances, a certificate of probable cause is not required.

Authority:

People v. Vargas (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 644, 651

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000141

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court prejudicially erred by imposing the upper term without submitting aggravating factors to the jury pursuant to amended section 1170(b).

First Holding:

It was error for the court to impose the upper term on finding the defendant’s criminal history was of increasing seriousness and the convictions were numerous without submitting the aggravating factors to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt or obtaining a stipulation from the defendant. 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. A defendant is entitled to have a jury determine whether his prior convictions were of increasing seriousness and whether he had performed unsatisfactorily on probation, before the court could rely on those aggravating facts to find justification for an upper term sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1170

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

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

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

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1085

Second Holding:

Under the narrow exception under which a jury is not required for proof of the fact of a prior conviction, a judge may do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

Generally, a party’s failure to raise a sentencing issue in the trial court forfeits the issue on appeal. The purpose of this rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected. Additionally, it is both unfair and inefficient to permit a claim of error on appeal that, if timely brought to the attention of the trial court, could have been easily corrected or avoided. The forfeiture rule ensures that the opposing party is given an opportunity to address the objection, and it prevents a party from engaging in gamesmanship by choosing not to object, awaiting the outcome, and then claiming error.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 352–353

People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 46

Fourth Holding:

An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party. Indeed, it has the authority to do so, and whether or not it should do so is entrusted to its discretion. Such discretionary review is typical when a forfeited claim involves an important issue of constitutional law or a substantial right. Here, the defendant initially requested a jury trial. Further research by the court and counsel led the court to erroneously believe that an exception to the jury trial applied, and determined that it would proceed by court trial rather than by jury. Under these circumstances, it is neither unfair nor inefficient to permit the defendant’s claim of error on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887, fn. 7

People v. McCullough, (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593

Fifth Holding:

But even assuming the forfeiture rule applies, we exercise our discretion to address the issue. Where, as here, the issue on appeal implicates a constitutional right, we will not apply the rule of forfeiture.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 327

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082 [the Sixth Amendment requires a jury determination of the increasing seriousness of a defendant’s prior convictions]

Sixth Holding:

When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review. Under that standard, a sentence must be reversed unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute. Lack of a jury trial is not harmless under Chapman if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding’ with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 742–743

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

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

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000139

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant contends, the People concede, and we agree the superior court erred in finding that the defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law with respect to his attempted murder conviction because in 2022 the Legislature clarified with the enactment of Senate Bill No. 775 that relief was available for individuals convicted of attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter. We reverse the order as to his attempted murder conviction. We remand for the court to appoint counsel and to consider the petition in light of the current provisions of section 1172.6.

First Holding:

Senate Bill 775, effective January 1, 2022, expanded the scope of potential relief by applying Senate Bill 1437’s ameliorative changes to individuals convicted of attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

Second Holding:

Once a defendant files a facially valid petition with the required statutory language and a declaration that the defendant was eligible for relief under section 1172.6, subdivision (a), the court was required to appoint counsel upon request.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 962-963

Sentencing

Case: 000136

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by imposing sentences for both counts 2 and 3 in violation of section 654.

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. Therefore, section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for offenses committed during a single or indivisible course of conduct.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294

People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1207–1208

Second Holding:

Section 654 prohibits the imposition of concurrent sentences for offenses committed during a single or indivisible course of conduct. The accepted procedure for such offenses is to sentence defendant for each count and stay execution of sentence on certain counts to which section 654 is applicable.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

The trial court erred by imposing punishment for both count 2 and count 3 because both offenses arose out of a single or indivisible course of conduct. Both counts 2 and 3 were committed during the defendant’s single or indivisible course of conduct of driving his car and causing injury to one victim. Therefore, section 654 prohibits punishment of the defendant for both counts. Because under amended section 654, the trial court has discretion whether to punish the defendant for either count 2 or count 3, we reverse its imposition of punishment for both counts and remand the matter for the limited purpose of resentencing him on count 2 and count 3.

Authority:

PEN 654

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000135

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We find that in making the prima facie determination, the trial court properly reviewed the preliminary hearing and partial trial transcripts as part of the record of conviction, completely independent from the factual basis stipulation at the plea hearing, to find defendant was the actual killer and ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. Defendant’s contrary claims, including his alleged “immunity” and ineffective assistance arguments, are refuted by the record. As in Patton, however, we grant defendant’s request to remand the matter for him to have the opportunity to file a supplemental petition in the trial court.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 amended the felony-murder rule by adding section 189(e). It provides that a participant in the qualifying felony is liable for felony murder only if the person: (1) was the actual killer; (2) was not the actual killer but, with the intent to kill, acted as a direct aider and abettor; or (3) was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. The Legislature also amended the natural and probable consequences doctrine by adding subdivision (a)(3) to section 188, which states that malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.

Authority:

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 50–51

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707–708

People v. Reyes (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 292, 295

Second Holding:

While this appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court decided Patton and held that in making the prima facie determination as to whether a petitioner, who entered a plea instead of going to trial, was convicted under a now-invalid imputed malice theory of homicide in a section 1172.6 petition, the trial court may rely on unchallenged, relief-foreclosing facts within a preliminary hearing transcript to refute conclusory, checkbox allegations made in a form section 1172.6 petition. It disapproved of appellate decisions that conditioned the use of preliminary hearing transcripts to make the prima facie determination on whether a petitioner previously admitted the truth of testimony contained therein or stipulated to the transcript as the factual basis of a plea. It affirmed the trial court’s denial of the section 1172.6 petition in that case but granted the defendant’s request to remand the matter for the opportunity to file an amended petition consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 569 fn. 12, 564, 569-570

Third Holding:

As relevant herein, the petitioner must declare (1) A complaint, information, or indictment was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder, 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, or attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (2) The petitioner was convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter following a trial or accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which the petitioner could have been convicted of murder or attempted murder. (3) The petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(a)(1)–(3)

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 569 fn. 12, 564, 558

Fourth Holding:

When a petitioner files a facially sufficient petition, the trial court must appoint counsel to represent the petitioner. The trial court may consider the record of conviction to determine whether the petitioner makes a prima facie showing only after the appointment of counsel and the opportunity for briefing has occurred.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 292, 298

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 569 fn. 12, 564, 559

Fifth Holding:

The amendments to sections 188 and 189 did not invalidate murder convictions based on the theory that the defendant was the actual killer. Where the record of conviction shows the defendant was the actual killer, he was not convicted under a now-invalid imputed malice theory and is ineligible for relief as a matter of law, and no evidentiary hearing is required. If the trial court commits error in making the prima facie finding to deny the petition without an evidentiary hearing, the error is harmless if the defendant is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law.

Authority:

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707

People v. Mares (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1158, 1166–1167

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

People v. Garcia (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 956, 973

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 973–974

Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000134

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court erred in imposing the upper term on factors that had not been proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

A criminal judgment does not become final for purposes of Estrada when an appellate court affirms a conviction, but leaves sentencing issues pending before the trial court following remand. During the resentencing on remand, the benefits of supervening ameliorative legislation apply retroactively.

Authority:

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

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

Second Holding:

Absent waiver or stipulation, aggravating factors such as the increasing seriousness of a defendant’s prior convictions and unsatisfactory performance on probation must be found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury before those facts can be used to justify an upper term sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1170

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

Third Holding:

This case must be distinguished from Brannon-Thompson, which found that the plain language of section 1172.75(d)(4) indicated the Legislature intended the new burden of proof amendments to section 1170(b) to apply only if the trial court is imposing the upper term for the first time at a section 1172.75 resentencing. In this case, the defendant was not being resentenced after a prior sentence that imposed an upper term was recalled.

Instead, he was on remand from the prior appeal directive to strike prior prison term enhancements before section 1172.75 even went into effect (which the court did). As such, when the trial court proceeded to resentence defendant in 2023, his sentence already lacked any enhancements imposed pursuant to former section 667.5(b). Defendant accordingly was not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 in 2023, making the provision inapplicable. Instead, appearing for resentencing based on a remand in the prior appeal, the defendant was entitled to the benefits of supervening ameliorative legislation, including the new evidentiary standards of section 1170(b).

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)

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

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

People v. Brannon-Thompson (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 455

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000132

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We shall reduce one conviction to reflect a lesser included offense, remand for resentencing, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

In considering the sufficiency of evidence, we must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, presuming in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. We also accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence. We do not resolve credibility issues or evidentiary conflicts.

Authority:

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690

People v. Baker (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1044, 1103

People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181

Second Holding:

In considering the substantiality of generic testimony regarding multiple indistinguishable instances of child sexual abuse, a victim of child molestation need not specify precisely the date, time, or circumstances of each crime. Rather, the victim must describe the kind of act or acts committed with sufficient specificity, both to assure that unlawful conduct indeed has occurred and to differentiate between the various types of proscribed conduct (e.g., lewd conduct, intercourse, oral copulation or sodomy). Moreover, the victim must describe the number of acts committed with sufficient certainty to support each of the counts alleged in the information or indictment, a requirement that can be met with such testimony as “twice a month” or “every time we went camping.”

Authority:

People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 299–300, 315–316

Third Holding:

The jury was instructed pursuant to CALCRIM No. 1015 that duress means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, hardship, or retribution that causes a reasonable person to do or submit to something that he or she would not otherwise do or submit to, and that in making its determination the jury should consider all the circumstances, including the age of the other person and his relationship to the defendant.

As to fear, the jury was told, “[a]n act is accomplished by fear if the other person is actually and reasonably afraid.” The existence of duress is an objective inquiry, and it is not dependent on the response exhibited by a particular victim.

We consider the totality of the circumstances, including the victim’s relationship to the perpetrator, whether the perpetrator physically controlled the victim when the victim attempted to resist, and the relative physical vulnerability of the victim. Duress may arise in a variety of ways related to psychological and/or situational factors between the perpetrator and victim, including an uneven power dynamic between a victim and perpetrator inhabiting a position of authority. Not all forms of coercion necessarily constitute duress, however.

Authority:

People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229, 246

People v. Guenther (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 483, 518 [courts apply reasonable person standard to inquiry into duress]

People v. Thomas (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1063, 1072–1073

People v. Veale (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 40, 44, 47

People v. Espinoza (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1321

Fourth Holding:

A variance between the crime charged and proved is not material unless it is of such a substantive character as to mislead the accused in preparing his defense, or is likely to place him in second jeopardy for the same offense.

Authority:

PEN 960 [No accusatory pleading is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment, or other proceeding thereon be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter of form which does not prejudice a substantial right of the defendant upon the merits]

People v. Williams (1945) 27 Cal.2d 220, 226

People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342

Fifth Holding:

A lesser offense is necessarily included in a charged offense if one of two tests is met: either all the legal ingredients of the corpus delicti of the lesser offense are included in the elements of the greater offense (the “elements test”) or the charging allegations of the accusatory pleading include language describing the offense in such a way that if committed as specified the lesser offense is necessarily committed (the “accusatory pleading test”). We do not consider the evidence presented at trial to determine whether one offense is necessarily included in the other.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 282, 288–289

People v. Cheaves (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 445, 454

People v. Ortega (1998) 19 Cal.4th 686, 698

Sixth Holding:

Despite the constitutional prohibition of a second trial if a conviction is reversed for insufficient evidence, when a trial or appellate court concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction of a greater offense, it can reduce the conviction to a lesser included offense that is supported by the evidence.

Authority:

PEN 1181

PEN 1260

People v. Goolsby (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1225

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 677

People v. Espinoza (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1321–1322, 1324 [reducing conviction to reflect lesser included offense where there was no evidence defendant used direct or implied threat to commit a lewd act]

Seventh Holding:

We review a court’s award of restitution to a victim for abuse of discretion, reversing only if it is arbitrary or capricious. An abuse of discretion exists when there is no rational and factual basis for the amount of restitution ordered. The court must demonstrate a rational basis for its award, and ensure that the record is sufficient to permit meaningful review. The burden is on the party seeking restitution to provide an adequate factual basis for the claim.

Authority:

People v. Gomez (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 111, 116

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Discretion, Plea bargains, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000130

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Following remand from the defendant’s prior appeal, the trial court declined to strike a firearm enhancement. The court did not realize the impact of recent changes in the law on gang criminal activity, asserting that its jurisdiction was limited to the scope defined in the remittitur (which remanded for reconsideration of the request to dismiss the firearm enhancement). We reverse the judgment and remand the matter for the trial court to rule on defendant’s motion to dismiss the gang enhancements, and to reconsider its determination declining to dismiss the firearm enhancements under section 1385 under the standard more recently articulated by the Supreme Court.

First Holding:

The scope of the superior court’s jurisdiction as defined by a remittitur does not prevent the retroactive application of ameliorative laws. We review associated questions of statutory construction de novo. Whether a statute applies retroactively is a question of statutory construction we review de novo. We review for abuse of discretion the trial court’s exercise of discretion under section 1385(c).

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 396

People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 242

People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 319

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

Second Holding:

Section 1385(c)(1) provides that, 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. 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 nine 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.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)

Third Holding:

Absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a court retains the discretion to impose or dismiss enhancements provided that it assigns significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances, when they are present. In other words, if the court does not find that dismissal would endanger 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.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

The Legislature amended PC 186.22(g) to redefine the phrase “benefit, promote, further, or assist” a criminal street gang for the purposes of section 186.22. The phrase now means “to provide a common benefit to members of a gang where the common benefit is more than reputational.” Those elemental changes apply retroactively to all nonfinal cases such as this one.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(e)(1)

PEN 186.22(g)

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

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

Fifth Holding:

Where a statute is silent regarding retroactivity, we employ the ordinary presumptions and rules of statutory construction to discern the Legislature’s intent. Ordinarily, statutes are presumed to apply only prospectively, unless the Legislature expressly declares otherwise. Estrada, however, held that an amendment to a statute that lessened punishment for a crime gave rise to an inference of contrary legislative intent; that is, that the Legislature must have intended that the amendment mitigating punishment would apply retroactively to every case to which it constitutionally could apply. The Estrada rule rests on an inference that the Legislature intends an amendment reducing punishment under a criminal statute to apply as broadly as possible, distinguishing only as necessary between sentences that are final and sentences that are not.

Authority:

Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, LLC (2006) 39 Cal.4th 223, 230

People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, 7

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

People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 308

Sixth Holding:

If the trial court exercises its discretion to dismiss the gang enhancements, the prosecution will be entitled to the same remedy as the defense (i.e., withdrawal from the plea agreement) and the trial court may withdraw its approval of the plea agreement as well. In that event, the trial court must restore the parties to the status quo ante, including permitting the prosecution to request to reopen the preliminary hearing and present evidence on the new elements of the gang allegations or to proceed without those charges.

Authority:

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 707-708

People v. Superior Court (Garcia) (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 256

Mendoza v. Superior Court (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 42

Seventh Holding:

Penal Code section 1016.7 provides that, in the interest of justice and to reach a just resolution during plea negotiations, the prosecutor shall consider whether the defendant has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, whether the defendant is or was a youth at the time of the commission of the offense, and whether any of those considerations contributed to the commission of an alleged offense. The statute defines youth as any person under 26 years of age on the date of the offense. But it is not retroactive. It does not reduce punishment for a criminal offense, create discretion to reduce punishment, narrow the scope of criminal liability, or create a concrete avenue for certain individuals charged with a criminal offense to be treated more leniently or avoid punishment altogether.

Authority:

People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, 13

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000129

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court must correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that the court never imposed fines or fees other than restitution to the Victim’s Compensation Board, and must recalculate his actual custody credits.

First Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that the court waived the imposition of a restitution fine and the parole revocation fine and other fines and fees.  [GARY NOTE: The court did not cite authority for correction of the abstract of judgment, but the law is clear that it has the authority to do so, and I have listed some authorities below.]

Authority:

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324

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

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–388

People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Second Holding:

As the People did not object in the court below, the People have forfeited the issue of the propriety of the trial court order waiving the restitution and other fines and fees.

Authority:

People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 303

Third Holding:

When a trial court resentences a defendant who is currently in custody, it must calculate and credit him with all actual days spent in custody (whether in jail or prison) up to that time, including time in custody after the original sentencing. [GARY NOTE: the court did not cite authority for remanding for the court to determine custody credits, but the law is clear, per the authorities I have set forth below.]

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

PEN 2900.5

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

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000126

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erroneously used the defendant’s 2012 prior conviction to sentence him under the Three Strikes law without first determining whether that gang-enhanced felony could have been obtained after amendments enacted by AB 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 699).

First Holding:

Where a defendant has previously suffered a conviction under the prior version of Penal Code section 186.22, the changes made in AB 333 apply 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.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

By treating the defendant’s 2012 conviction as a prior strike conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence that is unauthorized by law under Fletcher. The defendant’s argument is therefore not forfeited.

Authority:

People v. Mancebo (2002) 27 Cal.4th 735, 749, fn. 7 [forfeiture principles do not apply to legal error resulting in an unauthorized sentence]

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 751 [The unauthorized sentence rule is an exception to the forfeiture doctrine. It permits a challenge to an unauthorized sentence on appeal even if the defendant failed to object below.]

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000125

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It appears the trial court, in finding that the defendant is guilty of murder under current law, misunderstood that its role as independent fact finder entailed weighing witness credibility. We therefore remand the matter for a new evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6(d). At that evidentiary hearing, the defendant may again raise any contention regarding witness credibility, which the trial court must then rule on in deciding whether the defendant is guilty of murder under current law.

First Holding:

The trial court’s role at the evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6 is to act as an independent fact finder and determine, in the first instance, whether the petitioner committed murder under the law as amended by SB 1437.

Authority:

People v. Guiffreda (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 112, 123

Second Holding:

The statute’s plain language shows the People are required to establish the defendant is guilty under current law as a matter of fact and beyond a reasonable doubt. A fact finder tasked with holding the People to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard must impartially compare and consider all the evidence that was received throughout the entire trial and determine whether that proof leaves it with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. Unlike the prima facie stage where the trial court should not decide unresolved factual issues that involve credibility determinations or weighing of evidence, the court should decide such issues after issuing an order to show cause and holding an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 294-296

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 51

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

Case: 000123

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A jury convicted the defendant of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and found true that he personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of those counts. We conclude the injury to the victim in count 2, which the emergency room doctor described as a “superficial laceration,” is not sufficient to support the enhancement under section 12022.7(a). Consequently, we reverse the true finding, strike the one year imposed under section 12022.7(a), associated with count 2, and remand for resentencing to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion anew with the changed circumstance.

First Holding:

Great bodily injury is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.

Authority:

People v. Wyatt (2012) 55 Cal.4th 694, 702

People v. Sandoval (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 357, 361 [noting that great bodily injury is significant or substantial physical injury that is more than minor or moderate]

People v. Martinez (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 727, 735–736 [evidence of superficial lacerations held not sufficient to prove great bodily injury]

Second Holding:

We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury’s true finding on a section 12022.7(a) enhancement under the same standard that applies to a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence is evidence that reasonably inspires confidence and is of solid value.

Authority:

People v. Escobar (1992) 3 Cal.4th 740, 750

People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 307

Third Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

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

People v. Burbine (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1259 [upon remand for resentencing after the reversal of one or more subordinate counts of a felony conviction, the trial court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the defendant’s sentence on the counts that were affirmed, including the term imposed as the principal term]