Category Archives: Sentencing

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

Case 000900

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in failing to award pretrial credit for time served on several of the counts for which a determinate sentence was imposed. The abstract of judgment must be corrected as it incorrectly describes findings by the jury as enhancements.

First Holding:

We review de novo the application of section 2900.5 to the defendant’s sentence. We first examine the statutory language, giving it a plain and commonsense meaning. If the language is clear, courts must generally follow its plain meaning unless a literal interpretation would result in absurd consequences the Legislature did not intend.

Authority:

People v. Cofer (2026) 20 Cal.5th 1, 12

Second Holding:

Under section 2900.5, defendants who serve time in custody prior to their sentencing “receive credit against their prison terms for all of those days spent in custody prior to sentencing, so long as the presentence custody is attributable to the conduct that led to the conviction.

Section 2900.5(b) states in relevant part, that for the purposes of this section credit shall be given only once for a single period of custody attributable to multiple offenses for which a consecutive sentence is imposed.

That language does no more than clarify that when consecutive terms are imposed for multiple offenses in a single proceeding, only one of the terms shall receive credit for presentence custody. Thus, if sentences are imposed consecutively in a single proceeding, dual credits are expressly prohibited by statute.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 793

People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178, 1192, fn. 9

Third Holding:

Section 669(a) provides that whenever a person is committed to prison on a life sentence that is ordered to run consecutive to any determinate term of imprisonment, the determinate term of imprisonment shall be served first.

Authority:

PEN 669(a)

Fourth Holding:

Three separate sentencing schemes governed the defendant’s sentencing. For his conviction for murder (count 1), his indeterminate sentence was dictated by sections 190 and 190.2(a).

For his convictions for rape in concert (count 3) and oral copulation in concert (count 4), his indeterminate sentences were supplied by the One Strike law.

His determinate sentences for counts 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 were governed by sections 1170 and 1170.1. As the determinate sentences must be served first, the credit for time served should have been applied against the total term imposed for all seven of the determinate components of the sentence, and the court erred in failing to award credits against that part of the determinate sentence that applied to three of the counts.

He is entitled to no presentence custody against the remaining indeterminate sentences, as they were imposed consecutively.

Authority:

PEN 190

PEN 190.2

PEN 667.61(c)

PEN 669(a)

PEN 1170.1

PEN 2900.5

In re Vaquera (2024) 15 Cal.5th 706, 724 [The trial court must impose a One Strike sentence when a One Strike allegation is properly pled and proved.]

Fifth Holding:

The abstract of judgment is in error in describing the jury’s true findings under sections 190.2(d) and 667.61 as sentencing “enhancements.” The jury’s true findings pursuant to sections 190.2(d) and 667.61 are penalty provisions that exposed the defendant to greater punishment than would be authorized by a verdict on the underlying offense alone; they were not sentencing enhancements. They should not be so described in the abstract of judgment.

We will direct the trial court to delete the entries under “enhancements” in part 2 of the defendant’s indeterminate abstract of judgment.

(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for its directive that the abstract of judgment be corrected. I have listed several below (beginning with Mitchell) on which the court could have relied.)

Authority:

People v. Boswell (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 55, 60


People v. Acosta (2002) 29 Cal.4th 105, 117
.

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

Discretion, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000899

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The electronic-data conditions are unreasonable under People v. Lent. We therefore strike them and remand for the juvenile court to consider whether to impose revised conditions. We also agree with the parties that the association condition should be modified to include a knowledge requirement.

First Holding:

When a ward of the juvenile court is placed on probation, the court may make any and all reasonable orders for the conduct of the ward, including conditions of probation that (1) are individually tailored, developmentally appropriate, and reasonable; (2) impose a burden that is proportional to the legitimate interests served by the conditions; and (3) are determined by the court to be fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced. A condition of probation that is impermissible for an adult criminal defendant is not necessarily unreasonable for a juvenile receiving guidance and supervision from the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 730(b)

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118

Second Holding:

We review conditions of probation for an abuse of discretion, which occurs only if the condition is arbitrary or capricious or otherwise exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances. To determine whether a probation condition is reasonable, we apply a three-part test under Lent.

A condition cannot be held invalid under Lent unless it meets all three of the following prongs: it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not related to future criminality.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118-1119

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486

Third Holding:

In addition to being reasonable, a probation condition must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated, or else it is void for vagueness. And when a probation condition imposes limitations on a probationer’s constitutional rights, it must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition—the person’s reformation and rehabilitation—to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

Whether a term of probation is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad presents a question of law, which we review de novo.

Authority:

In re David C. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 657, 661

Fifth Holding:

We conclude that the conditions are invalid under Lent. As to the first prong of Lent, there is no question that restricting the use of electronics The minor’s conduct involved asking the victim for her phone number, and asked the victim to put his number in her phone contacts list–which she did, but later deleted it. These acts do not establish the requisite relationship between the challenged probation conditions and the minor’s offense (sexual battery by restraint). Generally, decisions finding a sufficient connection between electronics search conditions and an offense rely on the probationer’s use of electronic devices to facilitate the offense.

In Appleton, the defendant met the minor victim online and later sexually assaulted him. The Court of Appeal held that the nexus between the offense and the probation condition at issue was sufficient even though it was somewhat attenuated. In Flores, the Court held that there was a reasonable relationship between the condition at issue and the defendant’s drug offense because the defendant used a website and an online program to arrange drug sales through a disguised phone number. Here, in contrast, there is no evidence that electronic devices played any role in facilitating the offense.

Here, in contrast, there is no indication that the minor ever actually contacted the victim through an electronic device. Indeed, he did not even have the ability to do so, as he never obtained her contact information. Nor is there any evidence that the victim attempted to communicate with the minor after the offense. The first two prongs of Lent have been met–the condition has no relation to the criminal conduct, and it restrains otherwise lawful conduct.

Authority:

People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717, 719-720

People v. Flores (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 563, 565-566, 573

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486

Sixth Holding:

The third prong contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition. Thus, the mere fact that monitoring a probationer’s electronic devices and social media might deter or prevent future criminal conduct is insufficient to justify a broad electronics search condition. The electronic-data conditions burden the minor’s privacy in a manner substantially disproportionate to the claimed purposes of ensuring compliance with two of his other probation conditions (a no-contact order and prohibition from possessing sexual materials).

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1122

In re David C. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 657, 665 and fn 4

In re Amber K. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 559, 567-568

Seventh Holding:

The court ordered the following probation condition: “The Minor shall not associate with minors under the age of 14, unless it is his own child, unless in the presence of a responsible adult, or associated person is approved by the Probation Department.”

A probation condition is unconstitutionally overbroad if it (1) impinges on constitutional rights, and (2) is not tailored carefully and reasonably related to the compelling state interest in reformation and rehabilitation. The essential question in an overbreadth challenge is the closeness of the fit between the legitimate purpose of the restriction and the burden it imposes on the probationer’s constitutional rights—bearing in mind, of course, that perfection in such matters is impossible, and that practical necessity will justify some infringement.

The restriction is not unreasonable, but it must be tailored to require the minor’s express knowledge that the minor is under the age of 14. Generally speaking, if a probation condition prohibits a probationer from associating with a certain group of people, the condition is unconstitutionally vague unless it also requires that the probationer know a given person is in that group. Here, the minor may not reasonably know that an individual is under 14 years of age.

Thus, we modify the association condition to read: “The Minor shall not associate with minors whom he knows or reasonably should know are under the age of 14, unless it is his own child, unless he is in the presence of a responsible adult, or unless the associated person is approved by the Probation Department.”

Authority:

People v. Gonsalves (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1, 8–9

People v. Bray (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 494, 503

People v. Turner (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1436 [modifying condition prohibiting association with people under age 18].

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000898

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

AB 333 amendments apply retroactively because the defendant’s judgment was not final following recall of his sentence, reverse his gang conviction and gang enhancements, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

First Holding:

In 2022, AB 333 went into effect and made the following changes to the law on gang offenses and 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. Additionally, to prove collective engagement under amended section 186.22(f), the prosecution must show a nexus between the individual predicate offenses and the gang as an organized, collective enterprise.

Authority:

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

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 749

Second Holding:

AB 333’s amendments apply retroactively to appellant’s case, as the judgment became nonfinal when he returned to the trial court under section 1172.75 for recall and resentencing. When any aspect of a case is on appeal from sentencing, the case or prosecution has not been reduced to final judgment for Estrada purposes

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 394

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

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

Third Holding:

Here, section 1172.75 required the trial court to recall the sentence and resentence appellant. The court was to 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. As such, appellant’s judgment became nonfinal for Estrada purposes, and the court should have addressed amendments made by AB 333.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 400

People v. Salgado (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 376, 380–381 [defendant entitled to benefit of AB 333 because his judgment was no longer final following recall and resentencing under sec. 1170(d)]

Fourth Holding:

The jury’s findings on the gang allegations in 2015 were made prior to the amendments to section 186.22 and without the benefit of jury instructions on the elements added by AB 333. Respondent concedes the record does not disclose the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and that remand is required.

Authority:

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 742

Fifth Holding:

Upon remand the prosecution must be given an opportunity to establish the elements of the substantive gang offense charged in count 5 and the gang enhancements on counts 1 through 3 and 8 pursuant to amended section 186.22. Following any proceeding to establish those elements or if the prosecution chooses to forego its opportunity to comply with AB 33, the trial court must conduct a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 669–670

 

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000897

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On remand following the defendant’s earlier appeal, the trial court imposed an upper term based on impermissible aggravating recidivism factors.

Holding:

Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.

Here, the court imposed the upper term based on the aggravating facts that the defendant’s prior convictions were numerous and of increasing seriousness and his performance on probation was unsatisfactory.

Because the defendant did not stipulate to these facts, which go beyond the bare fact of his prior convictions and their elements, he was entitled to a jury trial on them. That he did not receive one renders the sentence unauthorized.

Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand the matter to give the People an opportunity to retry the aggravating facts.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1086, 1091

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 776 [proper remedy where aggravating facts were not tried to a jury is to remand and give the People an opportunity to retry the aggravating facts]

 

Second Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Sentencing

Case 000896

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant’s 10-year prison terms constitute ex post facto punishment. We reverse the judgment and remand for a new sentencing hearing.

First Holding:

The trial court instructed the jurors that the offenses charged in counts 1 through 4 allegedly occurred sometime between a specific date in 2007 and a specific date in 2015.

The jurors made no specific finding about the dates of the acts on which they convicted the defendant for counts 1 through 4. The jury made no finding that the offenses in counts 1 through 4 occurred before the Legislature increased the sentencing triad from 3-6-8 years to 5-8-10 yearson September 9, 2010. In addition, the record does not establish that the jury must have based its verdicts on acts occurring after that date.

Thus, we conclude the trial court violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws by imposing 10-year terms for the defendant’s convictions on counts 1 through 4.

Authority:

People v. Hiscox (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 253, 257–262

Second Holding:

As to the remedy for the ex post facto violation, we exercise our discretion to vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand the matter for full resentencing. On remand, the trial court should impose prison terms on counts 1 through 4 in accordance with the triad in effect prior to September 9, 2010.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Hiscox (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 253, 262

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Sentencing

Case 000895

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We remand solely as to the fines and ancillary costs ordered in this case on appeal.

First Holding:

Kopp allows challenges based on the excessive fines and equal protection clauses of the federal or state Constitutions.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

Kopp addresses the proper means by which a criminal defendant may challenge the various court ordered payments imposed at criminal sentencings. Those payments fall into three broad categories: fines, ancillary costs, and victim restitution. As to fines, such as restitution and parole revocation payments under Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45, there is no due process requirement to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine. Instead, excessive fines analysis, which includes consideration of ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines under either the federal or state Constitutions.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 17, 23

Third Holding:

As to ancillary costs, under Penal Code section 1465.8 and Government Code section 70373, Kopp explains an equal protection analysis is appropriate and holds that equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment.

(Gary note: This stems from the recognition that in civil cases, the same fees are due, but the superior court may waive them for civil litigants. Kopp concludes that criminal defendants must be given the same consideration, as there is no legitimate reason to discriminate between civil cases and criminal cases for administrative assessments that go toward support of the court system and are not punitive in nature.)

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 30

Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000894

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The record discloses that the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence by imposing a fine without specifying the basis of the penalty assessments.

(Gary note: This was not a victory in the purest sense, as it changed nothing for the defendant, whom the trial court found had the ability to pay. I have included this summary for its authority that the court must specify the breakdown of the fine with its various penalty assessments. In the case, the appellate court reversed the imposition of the fine and directed the trial court to reimpose it but specifying the authority for the various assessments that turned the $300 fine into $1170.)

First Holding:

Section 290.3 provides in pertinent part, that every person who is convicted of any offense specified in section 290(c) shall, in addition to any imprisonment or fine, or both, imposed for violation of the underlying offense, be punished by a fine of $300 upon the first conviction or a fine of $500 upon the second and each subsequent conviction, unless the court determines that the defendant does not have the ability to pay the fine.

Authority:

PEN 290.3(a)

Second Holding:

The imposition of a section 290.3 fine in the total amount of $1,170 or the imposition of a $300 base fine plus $870 in penalty assessments without citing the statutory basis for the penalty assessments are both unauthorized sentences. An unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time even if there was no objection in the trial court. Such an unauthorized sentence may be corrected even when raised for the first time on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Valenzuela, (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1248-1249 [The fine imposed in this case constituted an unauthorized sentence]

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 886,

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 854

Third Holding:

The trial court imposed the sex offender fine in the amount of $1,170 as set forth in the probation report. We construe the court’s statement to mean that it intended to impose the section 290.3 fine and the corresponding penalty assessments, which are listed in the probation report, but erroneously failed to list each penalty assessment and their respective corresponding amounts at sentencing.

We shall therefore modify the judgment to include a $300 section 290.3 fine and penalty assessments in the following amounts: a $60.00 Court Surcharge (sec. 1465.7), a $150.00 State Court Facilities Construction Fund Fee (Gov. Code, sec. 70372(a)), a $300.00 State Penalty Assessment (sec. 1464), a $210.00 County Penalty Assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 76000), a $30.00 DNA Identification Fund Fee (Gov. Code, sec. 76104.6), and a $120.00 DNA Identification Fund fee (Gov. Code, sec. 76104.7).

Authority:

PEN 290.3

PEN 1465.7

GOV 70372(a)

PEN 1464

GOV 76000

GOV 76104.6

GOV 76104.7

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000893

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the judge to stay the section 12022.1 enhancement under section 1385(b)(1). An enhancement may be stricken or imposed, unless there is some other legal reason it must be stayed rather than imposed.

First Holding:

Ordinarily, an enhancement must be either imposed or stricken in furtherance of justice under section 1385. Section 1385(b)(1) adds that, if the court has the authority pursuant to subdivision (a) to strike or dismiss an enhancement, the court may instead strike the additional punishment for that enhancement in the furtherance of justice in compliance with subdivision (a).

The trial court has no authority to stay an enhancement, rather than strike it—not, at least, when the only basis for doing either is its own discretionary sense of justice.

There are exceptions to this rule that permit courts to stay the punishment imposed for an enhancement, for example section 654 and rule 4.447 of the California Rules of Court. These exceptions are not discretionary; they are limited to the situation in which an enhancement that otherwise would have to be either imposed or stricken is barred by an overriding statutory prohibition. In that situation—and that situation only—the trial court can and should stay the enhancement.

Authority:

PEN 1385(b)(1)

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

Second Holding:

According to the transcript of the sentencing hearing, the trial court here relied on section 1385(b)(1) when it purported to stay the section 12022.1 enhancement. It does not appear that any overriding statute prohibits imposition of the enhancement in this case.

As a result, the court lacked the authority to stay the enhancement. In general, we presume a trial court knew and followed the law. Based on the statutory provision cited by the court, we conclude the court intended to strike the punishment for the enhancement rather than imposing an unauthorized stayed sentence.

The minute order from the sentencing hearing supports this conclusion by indicating that the court struck the enhancement, though it suggests the court did so at a prior hearing, which is not supported by the transcript. We will modify the judgment accordingly.

Authority:

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000892

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant a full resentencing at the hearing held under section 1172.75. At the initial hearing, the defendant agreed that the court could proceed with striking the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement with the judge’s assurance that the defendant could seek a full resentencing at a later date.

First Holding:

When the defendant did request the full resentencing, the trial court denied it based on the Tang decision, which held that a defendant was not eligible for resentencing because his prior conviction had previously been stricken and he was not serving a sentence under which that prior conviction was a component.

But Tang was not applicable. In Tang, the prior conviction enhancement was stricken on direct appeal a full decade before Tang sought resentencing under section 1172.75.

Here, the enhancement was stricken as part of a single proceeding under section 1172.5 held on two dates. Moreover, the defendant only consented to bifurcating that one proceeding based on the court’s assurance it would later conduct a full resentencing hearing, and it was improper for the court to later render that promise meaningless.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Tang (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1003

(Gary note: the court did not expressly cite any authority for the recognition that a defendant eligible for relief under section 1172.75 is entitled to a full resentencing. The courts have interpreted section 1172.75 as, by its plain terms, requiring a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements. I have set forth two cases as a convenience for the reader that support that principle, though Buycks was addressing a different statute.)

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

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [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]

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000891

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing on the petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6, the court should have stricken the restitution fine, as it was more than 10 years old.

Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9 was amended to state that upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated. Here, the trial court imposed the $200 restitution fine more than 10 years before denying the defendant’s resentencing petition. As the People concede, that fine must therefore be vacated

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000890

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in imposing the upper term based on aggravating factors that were not presented to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

Section 1170(b)(1) provides that when a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the statute specifies three possible terms, the court shall, in its sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2).

Section 1170(b)(2) provides that the trial court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when circumstances in aggravation of the crime justify imposition of an upper term sentence, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury or court trial.

Rule 4.421 of the California Rules of Court provides a list of aggravating circumstances that must be stipulated to by the defendant or determined beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

Notwithstanding section 1170(b)(1) and (2), the court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(2) and (3)

Rules of Court, rule 4.421

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 748, 759-760

Second Holding:

These provisions are subject to constitutional limitations under the Sixth Amendment. Specifically, a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.

For example, the Wiley court held that the defendant was 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.

Under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the federal Constitution, a judge may do no more than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.

The burden is on the People to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the facts relied on to justify an upper term sentence. If those facts are properly proven, the court may take them into account and exercise its discretion under section 1170(b) to determine what sentence to impose

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1076, 1085-1086

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

Third Holding:

A defendant may waive his right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors, provided he does so personally and expressly. To be valid, the record must show the defendant’s waivers of the right to a jury are knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. In making such a determination, we examine the totality of the circumstances unique to each case.

In this case, we determine that the colloquy between the court and the defendant did not adequately inform him of what the aggravating factors were. Without a clear explanation that defendant was entitled to have a jury decide the truth of the specific aggravating factors that the court intended to use against him, or even notice of those aggravating factors, it cannot be said that he knowingly or intelligently waived his right to have a jury decide the truth of those specific aggravating factors, of which he was never made aware.

Authority:

People v. Collins (2001) 26 Cal.4th 297, 308

People v. Morelos (2022) 13 Cal.5th 722, 753

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166

People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 990, 991 [a reviewing court satisfies itself of a legitimate waiver only when the record affirmatively demonstrates it was knowing and intelligent]

Fourth Holding:

Because defendant was deprived of a jury trial on the aggravating facts used to justify imposition of the upper term sentence, and there was no knowing or intelligent waiver, we must determine whether he was prejudiced by that error under the Chapman standard.

(Gary note: the court then reviewed the specific facts of the defendant’s criminal record and performance on probation or parole, details of which are case specific and would not add to this summary of an unpublished opinion that cannot be cited.)

Since we cannot conclude the lack of a jury trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to every aggravating fact the trial court used to justify the upper term sentence, defendant is entitled to a reversal and remand for resentencing.

Authority:

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

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

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

Sentencing

Case 000889

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

Holding:

A defendant is entitled to actual custody credit for ‘all days of custody’ in county jail and residential treatment facilities, including partial days. He is also entitled to conduct credits at a rate of 50 percent of actual time served.

But, if the defendant’s offense is statutorily defined as violent, section 2933.1(c) limits the presentence conduct credit to 15 percent of actual time served before sentencing.

The defendant was convicted of rape, a violent felony under section 667.5(c)(3). He is therefore entitled to a 15 percent presentence conduct credit. The trial court correctly awarded him 101 days of actual custody credit but only awarded him 14 days, rather than 15 days, of presentence conduct credit Accordingly, the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect one additional day of conduct credit.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

PEN 4019

PEN 2933.1

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

People v. Nunez (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 761, 764