Category Archives: Sentencing

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000623

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in concluding that the defendant was not eligible for recall of sentence under section 1172.75 because he is serving a term of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). The prohibition applies only to those who are service an LWOP sentence as a result of conviction of specified sex offenses. It does not apply to those serving an LWOP sentence for other offenses. The language of the exclusion is conjunctive, not disjunctive. [Gary note: REVIEW HAS BEEN GRANTED IN THIS CASE AND HELD PENDING DIXON.]

First Holding:

As of January 1, 2025, 1172.75(f) provides that an individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code and sentenced to death or a life term without the possibility of parole, who, as of January 1, 2025, has not had their judgment reviewed and verified by the sentencing court as provided in subdivision (c), is not eligible for recall and resentencing under this section.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(f)

Second Holding:

This is a question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo.

Authority:

Brown v. City of Inglewood (2025) 18 Cal.5th 33, 40

Third Holding:

When interpreting any statute, our goal is to determine the Legislature’s intent and give effect to the statute’s purpose. We begin by examining the statute’s words, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning. We do not, however, consider the statutory language in isolation. We construe the words in question in context, keeping in mind the nature and obvious purpose of the statute. We also construe every statute with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part, so that all may be harmonized and anomalies avoided. The statute’s plain meaning controls the court’s interpretation unless its words are ambiguous. If the statutory language is unclear, we may look to legislative history and public policy as aids in determining how best to give effect to Legislative intent.

Authority:

Iloff v. LaPaille (2025) 18 Cal.5th 551, 560-561

Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310, 330

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1057

Fourth Holding:

Subsequent to defendant’s original sentencing, SB 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) amended section 667.5(b) to allow for the imposition of one-year prior prison term enhancements only for specified sexually violent offenses. Thereafter, the Legislature added section 1172.75, which provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense, is legally invalid. It also provided a process for recall of sentences rendered invalid and resentencing of affected defendants.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Fifth Holding:

Resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75 entitles a defendant to a full resentencing, including application of the rules of the Judicial Council and application of 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. Resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75 must “result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety. In no circumstance can resentencing result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067, fn. 3 [where section 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing, not simply striking the now-invalidated priors]

Sixth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, SB 285 amended section 1172.75 to add subdivision (f). Subdivision (f) provides: “Commencing on January 1, 2025, an individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and sentenced to death or a life term without the possibility of parole, who, as of January 1, 2025, has not had their judgment reviewed and verified by the sentencing court as provided in subdivision (c) [of section 1172.75], is not eligible for recall and resentencing under this section. This subdivision does not apply retroactively.”

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(f)

Seventh Holding:

The ordinary and usual usage of “and” is as a conjunctive, meaning “an additional thing, “also” or “plus.” By contrast, use of the word “or” in a statute indicates an intention to use it disjunctively so as to designate alternative or separate categories. But the word “and” is not always to be taken conjunctively. It is sometimes, in a fair and rational construction of a statute, to be read as if it were “or,” and taken disjunctively.

Thus, courts will sometimes substitute “or” for “and,” and vice versa, when necessary to accomplish the evident intent of the statute, but doing so is an exceptional rule of construction. Thus, for example, a court may substitute “or” for “and” to correct a drafting error where it appears clear that a word has been erroneously used, and a judicial correction will best carry out the intent of the adopting body. Additionally, a court may substitute “or” for “and” to avoid a construction of the statute that would make some words surplusage.

Authority:

People v. Reynoza (2024) 15 Cal.5th 982, 990–991

In re C.H. (2011) 53 Cal.4th 94, 102–103, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in In re Edward C. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 813, 824

(GARY NOTE: AS CAN BE READ IN THE SIMILAR CASE THAT WAS PUBLISHED THIS DATE, the court engaged in examining how the Legislature used “or” in other parts of the section where “or” was clearly intended, and “and” similarly. It was clear to this court that the Legislature was aware of the difference and that it intended to mean exactly what it said–the exclusion applies to a person who was sentenced to LWOP because of specified sexual offenses. The legislative history revealed that the amendment was in response to the impact of section 1172.75 on the sentence of a notorious defendant convicted of murder and sexual offenses for which he received death sentence several decades earlier. It also noted Dixon (in which review has been granted), which concluded that nothing in section 1172.75 excluded individuals under a judgment of death.

(People v. Dixon (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 236, 247, review granted Oct. 22, 2025, S292223 The issues on review in the Supreme Court in Dixon are described as: (1) May a superior court modify a death judgment under the recall and resentencing procedure in Penal Code section 1172.75? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the exclusivity provision of Penal Code section 1509 precludes modification of a death judgment under Penal Code section 1172.75? (3) Did the superior court have jurisdiction to resentence defendant pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75 when his appeal was pending before this court?

(People v. Robinson (2026) 120 Cal.App. 5th 516 (F089332, filed 5/8/2026) but review was granted in the published decision on 7/16/26, granted and held pending Dixon S292223)

Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000621

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The credit for time served was miscalculated and is corrected.

Holding:

The juvenile court must subtract days that a juvenile spends in custody before disposition from their maximum period of physical confinement. The court subtracts the full period of precommitment custody starting with the day of arrest and including the day of the dispositional hearing. When, as in this case, there is no dispute about a calculation error, we need not remand the matter for recalculation. Instead, we may modify the dispositional order.

Authority:

WIC 875

PEN 2900.5

In re Antwon R. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 348, 352, 353 [minors are entitled to same reduction that adults receive under Penal Code section 2900.5]

People v. Bravo (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 729, 735 [custody credit includes days of arrest and sentencing]

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000620

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At a full resentencing conducted while vacating the defendant’s one-year prior prison sentence enhancements pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75, the trial court declined to consider whether two of defendant’s prior “strike” convictions were still valid under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, denied his request to dismiss those strikes under section 1385, imposed a new 10-year criminal protective order, and re-imposed a $5,000 restitution fine.

The matter is reversed for the court to hold a full resentencing hearing and exercise its discretion on whether or not to strike the prior convictions. Further, the court had no jurisdiction to reimpose a restitution fine because it had been ordered more than 10 years earlier and was rendered expired.

First Holding:

Under section 1172.75, a defendant who is eligible to have a prior prison sentence enhancement stricken is entitled to a full resentencing, at which time the trial court is to apply 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

People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 193, 195, review granted* Oct. 23, 2024, S286987

[*Gary note: The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Espino on July 2, 2026, and affirmed the result in the Court of Appeal Espino decision–that a person is entitled to relief under section 1172.75 even if the punishment for the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement was stricken–resolving a question that was left unanswered in People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050)]

People v. Green (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 365, 373

Second Holding:

In Guevara, our Supreme Court held that a trial court engaged in a full resentencing under section 1172.75 of a person serving a life sentence under the Three Strikes Law must apply the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, including its provision according trial courts a discretionary override—as to defendants who would otherwise be eligible for relief—not to grant relief if the court determines that resentencing the defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 849-850

Third Holding:

Reversal and remand are necessary so that the trial court may consider whether the Reform Act would apply to the third-strike sentences imposed in this case and, if so, whether exercise of the court’s discretionary override is warranted. On remand, the court may also entertain any further requests to dismiss the prior strike convictions under section 1385(a)—but not under section 1385(c).

Authority:

People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 243-244

Fourth Holding:

However, the court may not impose a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4(b) because the 2025 amendment to section 1465.9 provides that a restitution fine expires 10 years after the date of imposition. Because the restitution fine in this case was imposed over 25 years ago, it expired and may not be reimposed.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 601, review granted Mar. 11, 2026, S295038, on another point)

Duty of counsel, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing

Case 000616

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The judgment is affirmed as to all verdicts and findings made at trial, but the sentence is vacated and the cause is remanded for a new sentencing hearing. The defendant’s attorney’s assistance was ineffective by counsel’s failure to argue a statutory mitigatory factor at the sentencing hearing.

First Holding:

When an enhancement is pleaded and proven, the sentencing court is ordinarily presented with a binary choice: impose the additional punishment or strike/dismiss the enhancement.

Section 1385(c) provides, in pertinent part, 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 that discretion, section 1385 lays out nine factors in mitigation for the court to consider and afford great weight to. Proof of one or more of the listed circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, in the absence of a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety.

One of the listed circumstances (1385(c)(2)(B)) is “Multiple enhancements are alleged in a single case. In this instance, all enhancements beyond a single enhancement shall be dismissed.” Rules of Court, rule 4.423(b)(1) mirrors that mitigation factor.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)

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

Second Holding:

If the sentencing court does not conclude that dismissal would endanger public safety, then mitigating circumstances strongly favor dismissing the enhancement. This means that, absent a danger to public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

A defense attorney who fails to adequately understand the available sentencing alternatives, promote their proper application, or pursue the most advantageous disposition for his client may be found incompetent.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 350

Fourth Holding:

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and (2) counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial.

Reviewing courts must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance because it is all too easy to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable in the harsh light of hindsight.

Because the presumption of counsel’s competence can typically be rebutted only with evidence outside the record, ineffective assistance claims are normally raised in habeas corpus proceedings where such evidence can be presented. Defendants who present IAC claims on direct appeal bear a heavy burden. If the record on appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, the claim must be rejected unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or there simply could be no satisfactory explanation.

Put differently, where counsel’s trial tactics or strategic reasons for challenged decisions do not appear on the record, we will not find ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal unless there could be no conceivable reason for counsel’s acts or omissions.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1188, 1211

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687–688, 691–692

In re Scott (2003) 29 Cal.4th 783, 811–812

People v. Arce (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 924, 930

People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 900

People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1189

People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 926

Fifth Holding:

Defendant’s trial counsel did not file any sentencing memoranda. Assuming counsel was aware of the relevant sentencing laws concerning multiple enhancements, counsel nevertheless failed to promote their proper application and pursue the most advantageous disposition for his client. Counsel also failed to object to the erroneous contention in the probation report, and in the prosecutor’s argument at sentencing, that there were no mitigating circumstances. There is no conceivable strategic or tactical explanation for counsel’s omissions.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351

Sixth Holding:

When a stay of punishment is required under section 654, a trial court has discretion to choose which count will serve as the principal term without regard to the longest potential term of imprisonment. Here, the court stated its intention to use count 1 as the principal term before defense counsel presented his arguments at the sentencing hearing. The attorney was thus aware defendant’s prison term would be based on the offense that included two enhancement findings.

We are unable to conceive of a rational, tactical reason for counsel’s failure to request the dismissal of at least one enhancement pursuant to section 1385(c)(2)(B).

Authority:

People v. Caparaz (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 669, 688, citing sec. 654(a), as amended by AB 518 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.)

Seventh Holding:

Counsel alluded to the defendant’s childhood trauma, but only in a passing reference to the diagnosis mentioned in the probation report. He made no effort to link that potential mitigating circumstance to the offense. As made plain by the statutory text, the mere fact a defendant has suffered past trauma is insufficient—such trauma must be a contributing factor in the commission of the offense for the low term presumption to apply.

Authority:

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

Eighth Holding:

In the context of appellate representation, where appellate counsel fails to raise a significant and obvious issue, the failure will generally be considered deficient performance under Strickland if the missed issue is clearly stronger than those presented. Similar reasoning can be applied to the performance of defendant’s trial counsel at sentencing. Advocating for dismissal of an enhancement under section 1385(c)(2)(B) would have been an objectively stronger argument, by a wide margin, than the generalized request for leniency based on defendant’s educational achievements.

Authority:

In re Hampton (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 463, 477

Ninth Holding:

Objections can be made during and even after the formal pronouncement of judgment. Once it became clear the court was imposing the middle term, defense counsel had nothing to lose by pointing out the applicability of section 1385(c)(2)(B). At the very least, doing so would have preserved the issue for appellate review.

Failure to present any objections or argument regarding section 1385 fell below the minimum standards of performance required of a defense attorney.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 745, 755

People v. Steele (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 212, 226 [finding forfeiture where defendant did not object either before or after pronouncement of sentence, despite the opportunity to do so]

Tenth Holding:

Prejudice flowing from ineffective assistance is established by showing there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. The burden requires more than speculation as to the effect of the errors or omissions of counsel. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

Authority:

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694

People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 937

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000615

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals an order partially denying her request for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75. We reverse the order because she was entitled to have the court consider her eligibility for ameliorative relief under changes to the former version of section 186.22 (under which she had been convicted) made by AB 333.

First Holding:

The defendant’s judgment became nonfinal when she returned to the trial court under section 1172.75 for recall and resentencing. Section 1172.75 provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense, is legally invalid.

Once the trial court verifies the current judgment includes the enhancement, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. When resentencing the defendant, the court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply 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.

By the plain language of the statute, the defendant was entitled to be considered for any legislative enactments that might provide for a reduction of sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Saldana (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1270, 1276

Second Holding:

In the criminal law context, when ameliorative legislation goes into effect, we generally presume the Legislature intends the benefits of the new enactment to apply as broadly as constitutionally permissible to all nonfinal cases. For purposes of Estrada, the test for finality is whether the criminal prosecution or proceeding as a whole is complete.

The meaning of finality in the Estrada context is distinct from the issue of whether a judgment is final for purposes of appealability. In the context of recall and resentencing, a granting of a petition for resentencing renders a conviction nonfinal for purposes of retroactive application of ameliorative legislation.

Authority:

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

People v. Esquivel (2021) 11 Cal.5th 671, 679

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 392-393

People v. Trent (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 251 [defendant entitled to retroactive application of Assembly Bill No. 333 upon resentencing under section 1172.6 based on changes to felony murder rule]

People v. Keel (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 546, 551 [defendant entitled to retroactive application for Proposition 57 and Senate Bill No. 1391 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) upon resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6]

Third Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature passed AB 333, enacting the STEP Forward Act of 2021. AB 333 made several changes to the law on gang enhancements.

First, it substantively narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang.

Second, it also changed former subdivision (f)’s requirement that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang to now require that any such pattern be collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, it also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (l) 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 oppose 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, it narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational. The defendant was entitled to the benefit of AB 333 because her judgment was not final when the court engaged in resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75

Authority:

PEN 186.22

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