Category Archives: Sentencing

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000888

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage. There could be no rational tactical reason for defense counsel to concede that the defendant was ineligible.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature amended the definition of felony murder in section 189 to restrict culpability for murder to actual killers, aiders and abettors, and anyone who was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life unless the victim was a peace officer.

At the same time, the Legislature added section 1170.95, later renumbered to section 1172.6, which allows a person convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, to file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts, if, among other things, the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder because of the changes to the law wrought by SB 1437. I

f the petition makes a prima facie case for relief the court must hold an evidentiary hearing. At this hearing, the People have the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is guilty of murder under the law as it exists now, with the trial judge sitting as factfinder.

Authority:

PEN 189

PEN 1172.6

Second Holding:

When conducting a prima facie review, the court takes the petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.

If the record of conviction does not conclusively demonstrate that the defendant engaged in the requisite acts and had the requisite intent to be convicted on a theory of murder that remains valid, denying relief at the prima facie stage is improper.

A preliminary hearing transcript is part of the record of conviction for these purposes, and courts may rely on them when reviewing petitions at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

People v. Eynon (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 967, 975

People v. Barboza (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 955, 965-966

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 568 [there is no dispute that the record of conviction the parties may consult at the prima facie stage includes a preliminary hearing transcript preceding a guilty plea.]

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s decision at the prima facie stage de novo. Reviewing de novo, we therefore find that the defendant established a prima facie case for relief, and the trial court should not have denied his petition for failing to do so.

Authority:

People v. Bodely (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1193, 1200

Fourth Holding:

At the hearing, the defendant’s counsel stated that he was appointed to determine eligibility pursuant to 1172.6, and concluded the defendant was not eligible.

The defendant’s counsel cited cases involving defendants who made a prima facie showing for the proposition that a guilty plea is a judicial admission. That it’s an admission that he was, in fact, the killer, and therefore the defendant could not state a prima facie case for relief. Based on this, the court summarily denied the defndant’s petition.

Contrary to the court’s and counsel’s understanding below, a guilty plea (without more) is not an admission to any particular theory of guilt, and therefore cannot render a defendant ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

Moreover, the record of conviction, including the preliminary hearing transcript, does not contain any facts definitively foreclosing the defendant’s eligibility for relief. It is undisputed that the defendant was not the sole participant in either the burglary or murder of the victim.

Nor is there any clear evidence the defendant was the actual killer—indeed, the only evidence presented suggests that the co-defendant, not not the defendant, was the actual killer.

Authority:

People v. Eynon (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 967, 977 [By pleading guilty, the defendant admitted every element of the charged offense but the defendant did not admit facts supporting liability on any particular theory. Accordingly, the guilty plea did not constitute an admission that the defendant acted with malice.]

Fifth Holding:

The People assert the doctrine of invited error. The doctrine of invited error is an application of the estoppel principle and applies when a party invites the court or the jury to commit error.

Under the doctrine of invited error, when a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on appeal that the judgment should be reversed because of that error. It is designed to prevent an accused from gaining a reversal on appeal because of an error made by the trial court at his behest.

However, for the doctrine to apply, it must be clear that counsel acted for tactical reasons and not out of ignorance or mistake. In order to apply the doctrine, the record must show only that counsel made a conscious, deliberate tactical choice, it need not additionally show counsel correctly understood all the legal implications of the tactical choice.

In other words, the invited error doctrine applies so long as counsel made a conscious, tactical choice even if such choice was based on a misunderstanding of the law.  We conclude that on this record defense counsel’s decision to concede that the defendant is ineligible for relief was not a deliberate tactical choice.

Put simply, there was no possible tactical purpose for counsel’s decision to concede the matter. The defendant did not stand to receive any possible benefit from this concession, and therefore the decision to concede could only have been a genuine mistake.

Authority:

People v. Midell (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1060, 1072

Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 212

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 225

People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 83

People v. Duncan (1991) 53 Cal.3d 955, 970

People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 658

Sixth Holding:

Even if the invited error doctrine did apply, we would still reach the merits.

Because a deliberate tactical choice by counsel may be an incompetent one, courts have recognized that defendants barred from raising error under the invited error doctrine may instead claim they received ineffective assistance of counsel.

However, courts may also address the merits of an otherwise procedurally barred claim in order to avert any claim of inadequate assistance of counsel. T

hus, even if we concluded the defendant had invited the error he now complains of, we would exercise our discretion to reach the merits anyway to avoid the same result obtaining through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

We reverse the order denying the defendant’s section 1172.6 petition and remand. On remand, we direct the trial court to issue an order to show cause and to conduct further proceedings as required under section 1172.6.

Authority:

People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610,

People v. Yarbrough (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 303, 310

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000887

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In this appeal from denial of resentencing under section 1172.75, we find that the court erred in concluding that he was not entitled to resentencing because the prior prison term enhancement had not been imposed.

First Holding:

In Rhodius, the court held that section 1172.75(a) applies to enhancements that were imposed as part of the defendant’s original judgment, regardless of whether the enhancement was stayed or executed.

If the enhancement is no longer authorized under the current version of section 667.5(b), section 1172.75(a) renders the enhancement invalid. And the retroactive invalidation of the previously imposed enhancements in turn mandates resentencing under section 1172.75, according to the procedures set forth therein.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1068

Second Holding:

In Espino, the court expanded on Rhodius to hold that an enhancement is imposed for purposes of section 1172.75 where the sentencing court strikes the punishment for the enhancement but not the allegation itself. The court explained that imposing a sentence on a criminal defendant has legal effect, and a true finding on a prior prison term allegation is a part of the sentencing order, even when the associated punishment is stricken.

It follows that, as a matter of ordinary usage, an enhancement included in the sentence in a criminal case may be imposed even if the punishment for that enhancement is stricken.

Here, because the jury’s true finding was neither stricken nor dismissed, it remained imposed within the meaning of section 1172.75. The order denying the defendant’s motion for resentencing is reversed and the matter is remanded for a full resentencing under section 1172.75(d), as well as for proceedings on any motion for relief under section 1465.9(d), which states that restitution fines greater than 10 years old must be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

PEN 1465.9(d)

People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57

People v. Fuentes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 218, 225, [striking the punishment for an enhancement merely serves to prohibit a certain purpose for which the allegation may be used; it does not operate to defeat the factual finding of the truth of the allegation]

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000886

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

1n 1991, for a crime committed in 1989, the defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). When his case came up for resentencing under section 1172.75 in 2025, the court believed its only discretion was to impose less than the upper term on the determinate portion of his sentence. Defense counsel agreed. This was error. The court also erred in its calculation of credit for time served. And the restitution fine must be struck.

First Holding:

Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5(b) required trial courts to impose a sentence enhancement of one additional year for each of a defendant’s prior prison or jail terms. Section 1172.75(a) now provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, under section 667.5(b) is legally invalid.

Section 1172.75(b) and (c) mandate that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identify eligible individuals whose sentences include now-invalidated section 667.5 enhancements, and that the trial court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

While conducting the resentencing, section 1172.75(d)(2), provides the express instruction that 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.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1054

Second Holding:

Section 190.2(a) provides that where there has been a finding of certain enumerated special circumstances in connection with a defendant who has been found guilty of first degree murder, the penalty is death or LWOP. Section 1385 previously provided the trial court with the discretion to strike or dismiss the special circumstances.

Although the statute only authorizes such relief upon motion of the court or application of the prosecution, the defendant nevertheless has the right to invite the court to exercise its power by an application to strike a count.

Failure by a defendant to make such a request under section 1385 results in forfeiture of the issue. In the interests of justice, and in consideration of defendant’s alternative argument of ineffective assistance of counsel, we exercise our discretion to reach a question that has not been preserved for review by a party.

Authority:

PEN 190.2(a)

PEN 1385

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141, 1144

People v. Coleman (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 709, 724

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

Third Holding:

Contrary to Section 1385, however, section 1385.1 provides that a judge shall not strike or dismiss any special circumstance which is admitted by a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or is found by a jury or court as provided in Sections 190.1 to 190.5, inclusive. The section was enacted as of June 6, 1990, via voter initiative Proposition 115. The dispute here centers around whether section 1385.1 serves as a bar to the trial court’s discretion to strike section 190.2 special circumstances when the court is resentencing a defendant pursuant to section 1172.75 for a pre-June 6, 1990, crime.

Authority:

PEN 1385.1

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141

Fourth Holding:

Ordinarily, we review the trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. However, defendant argues pursuant to McDavid that the trial court necessarily abused its discretion when it failed to strike his special circumstances because it was unaware that it had any discretion to do so.

We therefore examine whether the trial court had any discretion in this regard, which is a question of statutory interpretation to be reviewed de novo.

Authority:

People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 757

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1023

Fifth Holding:

The Nguyen court noted that section 1385.1 operates only prospectively, therefore, a trial court may dismiss a special circumstance allegation attached to any murders committed before June 6, 1990, the date that section 1385.1 became effective. Nguyen specifically relied upon Tapia.

In Tapia, Proposition 115 took effect while the defendant was in the process of being prosecuted for first degree murder. The defendant challenged the trial court’s decision to conduct voir dire pursuant to the new Proposition 115 procedures.

In examining whether Proposition 115’s provisions could be applied to crimes committed prior to its effective date after consideration of ex post facto concerns, the Supreme Court separated the provisions into four separate categories depending on their impact upon defendants.

Relevant to this inquiry, the high court expressly categorized section 1385.1 as falling within the category of provisions that change the legal consequences of criminal behavior to the detriment of defendants and therefore cannot be applied to crimes committed before the measure’s effective date.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141

Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 286-287, 297

Sixth Holding:

The mandate in section 1172.75(d)(2), that the trial court apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion” evidences a legislative intent that defendants are to be treated with more leniency, not less, when being resentenced pursuant to this statute. Because the trial court clearly expressed more than once its belief that it did not have any discretion with respect to the LWOP sentence on Count 1, we deem the court to have abused its discretion and reverse.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(2)

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1023 [A court acting while unaware of the full scope of its discretion is deemed to have abused it.]

Seventh Holding:

The court court failed to award the defendant 2 days of credit for time served, and we modify the judgment accordingly.

(Gary note: The court did not cite any authority, but it seems obvious that the court has the power to modify the credit for time served to the correct number. I have cited authority the court could have relied on. The issue does not seem so much a matter of the trial court refusing to award credit; rather, it was a mathematical error. I speculate that perhaps the court did not award credit for the first day in custody. Counting days is different than determining the number of days between dates. From January 1 through January 31 is 31 days, counting. But if you subtract January 1 from January 31, you will realize only 30 days.  For credit for time served, the correct number is the counting number–31 in my example.)

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

Eighth Holding:

As part of defendant’s original 1991 sentencing, the court ordered him to pay $10,000 to the state Restitution Fund pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4 (formerly Govt. Code sec. 13967(a).) In light of section 1465.9, which compels that restitution fines older than 10 years be vacated, we vacate that fine. In Salstrom, the court determined that the reference to 10 years is from the date the restitution fine was originally ordered.

Resentencing does not reset the 10-year limitation. Applying section 1465.9 to reduce defendant’s sentence as part of a section 1172.75 resentencing hearing gives effect to both statutes.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 652-653 [detailing the history of the restitution statutes]

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 599-601, review granted on unrelated issues, March 11, 2026, S295038

Mejia v. Reed (2000) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663 [when two codes are to be construed, they must be read together and so construed as to give effect, when possible, to all the provisions thereof]

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000885

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

As a result of a successful petition for writ of habeas corpus brought in 2024 challenging an illegal sentence imposed in his 2006 judgment, the defendant was resentenced. The court erred in declining to determine whether the counts and enhancements related to gang activity met the new elements of the crime as amended by AB 333.

First Holding:

In 2021, AB 333 made the following changes to the law on gang enhancements: First, it narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons.

Second, whereas section 186.22, former subdivision (f) required only that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang, AB 333 requires that any such pattern have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, AB 333 also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Fourth, it narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational.

Authority:

AB 333

PEN 186.22

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

Second Holding:

Ordinarily, statutes are presumed to apply only prospectively, unless the Legislature expressly declares otherwise. In the absence of a contrary indication of legislative intent, legislation that ameliorates punishment applies to all cases that are not yet final as of the legislation’s effective date.

Authority:

People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, 7–8

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

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. The resentencing court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the sentence, and not just the portion subjected to a recall, and the court may consider any pertinent circumstances which have arisen since the prior sentence was imposed.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

When a substantive change occurs in the elements of an offense and the jury is not instructed as to the proper elements, the omission implicates the defendant’s right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment, and reversal is required unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same in the absence of the error.

Here, AB 333 essentially adds new elements to the substantive offense and enhancements in section 186.22—for example, by requiring proof that gang members collectively engage in a pattern of criminal gang activity, that the predicate offenses were committed by gang members, that the predicate offenses benefitted the gang, and that the predicate and underlying offenses provided more than a reputational benefit to the gang.

These changes have the effect of increasing the threshold for conviction of the section 186.22 offense and the imposition of the enhancement. When appellant was resentenced, his sentence became nonfinal and he was entitled to a full resentencing on all counts, with the sentencing court taking into consideration all pertinent circumstances that had arisen since appellant was originally sentenced.

Authority:

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

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

Fifth Holding:

Striking an enhancement’s punishment is not the same as striking the enhancement itself, and does not operate to defeat the factual finding of the truth of the allegation, instead, such act merely serves to prohibit a certain purpose for which the [allegation] may be used.

Authority:

In re Pacheco (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1439, 1445

Sixth Holding:

In certain cases, retrial is barred where a defendant successfully overturns a judgement of conviction based on insufficiency of the evidence. A finding of insufficient evidence is the functional equivalent of a judgment of acquittal, upon which retrial is prohibited.

The incentive of double jeopardy to protect a defendant against harassment and unnecessary, repeated trials serves no purpose when, as here, the prosecution did make such a case under the law as it then stood; having done so, the prosecution had little or no reason to produce other evidence of guilt. In other words, where the prosecution’s original burden of proof at trial is later altered, it is unrealistic to assume that the prosecution, with a perfect case for proof of the invalid theory, necessarily presented all available evidence relating to the valid theory.

Because we do not resolve this case on insufficiency of the evidence grounds but rather find instructional error due to the amendments to section 186.22 enacted by AB 333, double jeopardy does not bar the People from retrying the section 186.22(b)(1)(C) and section 12022.53(d) and (e)(1) enhancements.

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 454–455, 459

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case 000884

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court denied the defendant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage on the ground that the record of conviction showed the defendant is ineligible for resentencing. The trial court exceeded the limited scope of review permitted at the prima facie stage under section 1172.6 and engaged in fact finding that should have been reserved for the evidentiary stage.

First Holding:

Under section 1172.6 the prima facie inquiry is limited. While a court may consider whether the record of conviction refutes eligibility allegations at this stage, a trial court should not engage in fact finding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion. Indeed, at the prima facie stage, the strength of the evidence in the record is not material.

Instead, at the prima facie stage the question in applying section 1172.6 is not whether it is likely that the defendant was convicted of murder on a now-invalid grounds but whether the court’s jury instructions or other aspect of the record of conviction foreclose that possibility that possibility as a matter of law.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 562, 564, 567 fn. 10

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 972

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 470

Second Holding:

Although the verdict and jury instructions on the special circumstance found true by the jury showed that two of the three requirements for direct aiding and abetting liability were satisfied, the record of conviction did not show that the final requirement was satisfied and, thus, did not establish direct aiding and abetting liability as a matter of law.

In addition, while the special circumstance finding suggests that the jury found the defendant guilty of murder based on direct aiding and abetting, which remains a valid theory, it is possible that the jury found him guilty based on conspiracy and a natural and probable consequences theory, which is now invalid.

Under the strict test that the Supreme Court has interpreted section 1172.6 to impose, the record of conviction does not conclusively refute the defendant’s allegations that he was convicted of a now-invalid theory of murder, and the trial court should have proceeded beyond the prima facie stage to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether in fact he was convicted based on a now-invalid theory.

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 470

Third Holding:

We review trial court orders at the prima facie stage de novo.

Authority:

People v. Bodely (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1193, 1200

Fourth Holding:

in determining whether a prima facie case has been shown, trial courts may examine jury instructions, the verdict, and other parts of the record of conviction to determine whether that record refutes the petition’s allegations. But at the prima facia stage, hearing transcripts may not be used to prove disputed facts. If the record of conviction contains facts refuting the allegations in the petition, then the court is justified in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner. However, the record of conviction must establish conclusively such facts.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 972

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 568

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

Fifth Holding:

To establish liability for murder under the theory of direct aiding and abetting, the prosecution must show that the defendant [1] aided or encouraged the commission of the murder [2] with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator and [3] with the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating its commission. The trial court’s special circumstance finding established only two of these requirements.

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 466

Abstracts and Minutes, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000883

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We remand for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to conduct a hearing on whether to impose the ancillary costs in light of Kopp. The minute order and abstracts of judgment do not reflect the order of the court and must be corrected following that hearing.

First Holding:

At the sentencing hearing, the court did not mention, much less impose, fees under either section 1465.8 or Government Code section 70373. As for restitution fines, defense counsel requested the court consider staying any fines, and the court stated that it was striking the restitution fine and the parole revocation restitution fine, indicating that if that was found to be error on appeal, the court’s intent would be to impose the minimum $300 for both fines.

The minute order, however, reflects that the court ordered the fines in thh amount of $10,000. It then stated that the amounts were suspended. The minute order also included a court operations fee of $80 and a criminal conviction fee of $60. The abstract of judgment did not reflect the restitution fines, but did reflect the other two fees.

The judgment is controlled by the court’s oral pronouncements.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize.]

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–388 [The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order and the abstract of judgment.]

Second Holding:

Section 1465.8(a)(1) provides, in part: “To assist in funding court operations, an assessment of forty dollars ($40) shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense.” Government Code section 70373(a)(1) provides, in part: “To ensure and maintain adequate funding for court facilities, an assessment shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense. The assessment shall be imposed in the amount of thirty dollars ($30) for each misdemeanor or felony.”

The trial court was required to impose these ancillary costs unless it granted defendant fee waivers. The court took neither action at the sentencing hearing. This was error.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 25-26, 29-30

Third Holding:

Although the omission of mandatory assessments may be corrected for the first time on appeal, if we were to do that, the fees would be imposed without defendant having had the opportunity to request they be waived.

Instead, we will remand the matter for the trial court to correct the minutes from the sentencing hearing and to determine whether to impose the court operations fee and the criminal conviction fee consistent with Kopp.

Authority:

People v. Castellanos (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1524, 1530

Fourth Holding:

The People did not object when the trial court struck the restitution fine and the parole revocation restitution fine.

When a party fails to object, at the time of sentencing, to a trial court’s decision regarding the imposition of restitution fines, the waiver doctrine precludes appellate relief.

The court struck the restitution fine at the sentencing hearing. Thus, to the extent the court’s minutes reflect otherwise, the minutes should be modified to strike the restitution fines.

Authority:

People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 302–303

People v. Frederickson (2020) 8 Cal.5th 963, 1027

Due process, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000882

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though the defendant was convicted of section 243.4(a), the correct code section for the pleaded and proved crime was section 243.4(d), and we modify the judgment accordingly. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.

(Gary note: I stretch to count this as a win, because it did not really provide any relief. But it contains some important principles on what happens when the allegation describes conduct but lists the incorrect code section for it. So I decided to include it. Yep. My bar for inclusion is very low.)

First Holding:

Adequate notice to the defendant of the offense with which he is charged is not determined solely by the charging statute. A reference to an incorrect penal statute can be overcome by factual allegations adequate to inform the defendant of the crime charged.

The defendant was amply acquainted with the basis for count 3 and argues no prejudice from being charged under the wrong subdivision of section 243.4. The victim testified to the conduct underlying count 3 at the preliminary hearing and then again at trial. There is no dispute the evidence supports a conviction under subdivision (d).

Authority:

People v. Haskin (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1439

People v. Thomas (1987) 43 Cal.3d 818, 826–827, 832

People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 427–428

(Gary note: the court did not cite it, but section 1260 provides that the appellate court may modify a judgment, among several other actions. While it does not specifically say that the court can modify the judgment by having it reflect a different code section than was alleged, the above cases make it clear that specification of a code section does not necessarily control whether the defendant has been placed on adequate notice of the conduct he is accused of.)

Second Holding:

We review de novo whether the trial court’s instructions on the law were correct. When instructions are claimed to be erroneous, conflicting, or ambiguous, we ask whether jurors were reasonably likely to have construed them in a manner that violates the defendant’s rights. We look to the instructions as a whole and the entire record of trial, including the arguments of counsel.

We assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions given. Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.

Authority:

People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088

People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028

People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 873

People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 720

Third Holding:

The defendant argues the trial evidence does not support the conclusion that the victim was particularly vulnerable. We review an aggravating factor finding for substantial evidence. The court must 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 aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt. We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Mendez-Torres (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1020

People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 806

People v. Alvarado (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 178, 195 [inability to speak English can be a factor suggesting particular vulnerability]

People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 413 [noting vulnerability from victim being alone]

People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 638 [noting vulnerability from victim being told a false story to get the victim into a private space]

People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 203 [noting a vulnerable position arises from exploiting a false sense of security]

Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000879

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse the jury’s true finding on the enhancement alleged under section 12022.7(b). We vacate the sentence and remand the matter for resentencing.

First Holding:

In assessing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Reversal on insufficiency of the evidence is unwarranted unless it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conviction.

Authority:

People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 66

People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755

Second Holding:

Section 12022.7(b) provides that any person who personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice in the commission of a felony or attempted felony which causes the victim to become comatose due to brain injury or to suffer paralysis of a permanent nature shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for five years.

Authority:

PEN 12022.7(b)

Third Holding:

A victim is comatose, for purposes of the enhancement, if he is in a state resembling a coma characterized by profound unconsciousness. Here, the evidence established that the victim was rendered unresponsive as a result of the attack and died from injuries to his brain. Respondent concedes that the evidence fails to prove that the victim was ever comatose.

Authority:

People v. Cunningham (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1054

Fourth Holding:

The parties agree that appellant is entitled to resentencing, at which the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000877

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s petition under section 1172.6 by construing the jury’s verdicts on two firearm enhancements as reflecting a finding that the defendant killed the victim by personally discharging a firearm.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature enacted SB 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) and altered the substantive law of murder in two areas.

First, with certain exceptions, it narrowed the application of the felony-murder rule by adding section 189(e) to the Penal Code. Under that provision, A participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a specified felony in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven: (1) The person was the actual killer. (2) The person was not the actual killer, but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree. (3) The person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in section 190.2(d).

Second, SB 1437 imposed a new requirement that, except in cases of felony murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought to be convicted of murder. Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 189

PEN 188

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448

People v. Morris (2026) 19 Cal.5th 671, 682 [discussing narrowed scope of the felony-murder rule]

Second Holding:

SB 1437 also created a mechanism for defendants convicted under now-invalid theories of murder to seek resentencing. Upon receipt of a petition containing the required information, the trial court must appoint counsel for the defendant if requested, hold a hearing, and determine if the petition has made a prima facie case for relief.

If a petitioner demonstrates a prima facie entitlement to relief, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing at which the prosecution bears the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioning defendant is guilty of murder under a still-valid theory.

In deciding whether a petitioner has demonstrated a prima facie case, the court takes the petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.

At this stage, a court should not reject the petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 556, 558, 563

Third Holding:

If the record, including the court’s own documents, contains facts refuting the allegations made in the petition, then the court is justified in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner.

Where facts from the record of conviction are undisputed, accepting them over contrary legal allegations that are merely conclusory is not factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.

At this preliminary stage, denial of a section 1172.6 petition is proper only if the petition and record in the case establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief.

Whether the record of conviction shows the petitioner is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law is a legal question that we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 563, 565-566

People v. Lopez (2026) 19 Cal.5th 639, 658

People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, 14

Fourth Holding:

The People concede that the trial court erred in relying on the true findings on the firearm enhancements as a basis to deny relief at the prima facie stage.

We accept this concession because, contrary to the trial court’s reasoning, the verdicts on the firearm enhancements do not establish that the jury found the defendant guilty as the actual killer. The trial court instructed the jury that it could find the enhancements true if the defendant intentionally displayed a firearm in a menacing manner, intentionally fired it or intentionally struck or hit a human being with it.

Nothing in this instruction thus required the jury to find that the defendant himself shot and killed the victim.

The People contend that the trial court’s error was harmless in light of a record of conviction that shows the defendant was prosecuted and found guilty as the actual killer. They nevertheless concede that the defendant is entitled to an opportunity to amend his petition. We agree that remand is appropriate.

Patton held that a petitioner who offers only conclusory allegations of entitlement to relief under section 1172.6, in response to a record of conviction that demonstrates the petitioner’s conviction was under a still-valid theory, has not, thereby, made a prima facie showing. The Patton court remanded the matter to allow that defendant to plead additional facts in support of a prima facie case for relief.

We remand to give the defendant an opportunity to plead facts he believes will demonstrate a prima facie case for relief.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 563, 569-570

Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000876

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We modify the order of probation to eliminate the provision that the defendant pay the costs of mental health treatment as a condition of probation and otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

We review such constitutional challenges to conditions of probation de novo.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902

Second Holding:

A court may impose reasonable conditions that deprive the offender of some freedoms enjoyed by law-abiding citizens. In imposing such conditions, a court may require a defendant to complete a residential treatment program. A probation officer, however, may only oversee and enforce the trial court’s orders. A probation officer may not create conditions not expressly authorized by the court.

Authority:

People v. Pirali (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1350

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 903

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358

Third Holding:

The defendant raises an argument for the first time in the reply brief. The issue is forfeited for not raising it earlier.

Authority:

People v. Hart (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1099, 1106

Fourth Holding:

A trial court may order a defendant who is granted probation to pay the reasonable associated costs. To do so, the court must make an inquiry and determination regarding the defendant’s ability to pay, and issue a separate order for the payment of such costs.

But the payment of such costs cannot be made a condition of probation. The record before us does not show the court inquired into the defendant’s ability to pay before including the provision that she pay these costs, or that it issued a separate order for payment of these costs. Accordingly, condition 7 must be modified to eliminate the requirement that the defenrant pay the costs of treatment associated with this condition.

Authority:

People v. Hall (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 889, 892

Brown v. Superior Court (2002) 101Cal.App.4th 313, 321-322

People v. Hart (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 902, 907

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Juveniles, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000875

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse four of the five counts of evading the police under Vehicle Code section 2800.3 and remand for a new disposition order.

The minor’s constitutional challenges to the dispositional order are forfeited on appeal, and we will not consider them.

First Holding:

Dispositional orders in juvenile matters are entrusted to the discretion of the juvenile court. Failure to object to a discretionary dispositional choice forfeits the claim on appeal.

But the forfeiture rule does not apply if the disposition is unauthorized; that is, if it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. In those situations, the unauthorized disposition presents a pure question of law.

The unauthorized sentence concept is a narrow exception to the general requirement that only preserved claims are reviewable on appeal. And while reviewing courts have the discretion to consider forfeited claims on appeal, they should do so rarely, keeping in mind that the forfeiture rule exists to encourage prompt detection and correction of error and to promote the state’s interest in finality of judgments.

Authority:

In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 411

In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1130-1131

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351, 354

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 885

People v. Fisher (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 745, 751-752

In re H.D. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 814, 817-818

People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 962 [the unauthorized sentence exception is designed to provide relief from forfeiture for obvious legal errors at sentencing such as a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum]

Second Holding:

Further, we disagree with the minor’s contention that his constitutional challenges to the disposition present pure legal questions. His challenges ask us to consider his self-evident lesser culpability relative to an older juvenile. But culpability determinations are for the trier of fact, not an appellate court.

Authority:

People v. Vang (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 912, 915-916

Third Holding:

Finally, the minor contends we should consider his forfeited claims because his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise them. But trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise novel claims like the ones here.

Authority:

People v. Torres (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 88, 92 [to forestall a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, reviewing courts can exercise their discretion to reach the merits of the claim].

In re Grinder (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 845, 871-872

People v. Foster (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 379, 385.

Fourth Holding:

We decline to exercise any discretion we might have to consider these forfeited claims because doing so (1) would be unfair to the People and the juvenile court, which had no opportunity to address the claims below, and (2) would undermine both the state’s interest in finality of judgments and litigants’ incentive to seek correction of error in the first instance.

Further, we should not reach constitutional questions unless absolutely required to do so to dispose of the matter before us. Accordingly, the minor’s constitutional challenges to the dispositional order are forfeited on appeal, and we will not consider them.

Authority:

In re M.H. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 699, 713-714

In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1130-1131

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

Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hunter) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1245, 1275, fn. 31

Fifth Holding:

Penal Code section 26 provides, in relevant part, that all persons are capable of committing crimes except those belonging to the following classes: One—Children under the age of 14, in the absence of clear proof that at the time of committing the act charged against them, they knew its wrongfulness. ….

Authority:

PEN 26

Sixth Holding:

Clear proof means clear and convincing evidence. The test on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the trier of fact.

We review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment and affirm the juvenile court’s findings that the minor understood the wrongfulness of his conduct if they are supported by substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the requisite finding under the governing standard of proof. In determining capacity the juvenile court must consider the child’s age, experience, and understanding.

A minor’s knowledge of his act’s wrongfulness may be inferred from the circumstances, such as the method of its commission or its concealment.

Authority:

In re Joseph H. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 517, 538-539

Seventh Holding:

While the language of the statute refers to knowledge of wrongfulness, the question is whether a minor appreciates the wrongfulness of their conduct. As minors approach the age of 14, they are increasingly likely to appreciate the wrongfulness of their acts.

Authority:

In re Manuel L. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 229, 232

People v. Cottone (2013) 57 Cal.4th 269, 281

In re J.E. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 309, 314

Eighth Holding:

Cases are not authority for propositions not considered.

Authority:

B.B. v. County of Los Angeles (2020) 10 Cal.5th 1, 11

Ninth Holding:

Four of the five Vehicle Code section 2800.3 true findings must be stricken. A charge of multiple counts of violating a statute is appropriate only where the actus reus prohibited by the statute—the gravamen of the offense—has been committed more than once. A defendant may properly be convicted of multiple counts for multiple victims of a single criminal act only where the act prohibited by the statute is centrally an act of violence against the person.

Authority:

Wilkoff v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 345, 349

People v. Garcia (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1159

Tenth Holding:

Vehicle Code section 2800.3 provides that whenever willful flight or attempt to elude a pursuing peace officer in violation of section 2800.1 proximately causes serious bodily injury or death, the person driving the pursued vehicle shall be punished. Felony evading, as defined by the Legislature, in Vehicle Code section 2800.3, is not a crime of violence.

Under Wilkoff and Garcia there can be only one Vehicle Code section 2800.3 true finding here. Thus, four of the five Vehicle Code section 2800.3 true findings must be stricken.

Authority:

VEH 2800.3

Wilkoff v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 345, 349

People v. Garcia (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1163

People v. Sanchez (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 970, 973-974 [Because dispositive elements of Vehicle Code section 2800.3 can be satisfied by conduct that does not necessarily pose a high probability of death, it is not a felony inherently dangerous to human life.]

Eleventh Holding:

It is improper to raise new contentions in a reply brief. Further, appellate arguments may be deemed forfeited when they do not contain meaningful analysis and citation to supporting authority.

Authority:

People v. Taylor (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 628, 642-643

People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793

Twelfth Holding:

In criminal court, 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. The same principle applies in juvenile court. Since we strike four of the juvenile court’s Vehicle Code section 2800.3 true findings, a new disposition is required.

Authority:

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

In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1140 [every time a ward appears for disposition, the court may consider the minor’s entire history and the order must be all encompassing]

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000873

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The evidence was insufficient to sustain the section 190.2 gang special circumstance.

First Holding:

Section 190.2(a)(22) provides that the penalty for a defendant who is found guilty of murder in the first degree is death or imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole if the defendant intentionally killed the victim while the defendant was an active participant in a criminal street gang, as defined in section 186.22(f), and the murder was carried out to further the activities of the criminal street gang.

Proof of the existence of a criminal street gang as defined in section 186.22(f) is a prerequisite to proving the gang-murder special circumstance.

Authority:

People v. Rojas (2023) 15 Cal.5th 561, 565

People v. Rodriguez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 816, 823

Second Holding:

Prior to the defendant’s trial, the Legislature enacted AB 333, which made multiple changes to section 186.22. The changes, as incorporated into the gang-murder special circumstance, retroactively apply to cases that are not yet final.

Following AB 333, section 186.22(f) defines a criminal street gang as an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons having as one of its primary activities the commission of one or more of the criminal acts enumerated in subdivision (e), having a common name or common identifying sign or symbol, and whose members collectively engage in, or have engaged in, a pattern of criminal gang activity.

Section 186.22(e) defines pattern of criminal gang activity as committing offenses that benefit a gang in a way that is more than reputational.

Authority:

People v. Rojas (2023) 15 Cal.5th 561, 566-567

In re A.M. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 557, 569

Third Holding:

The prosecution’s gang expert did not testify the murders the defendant committed benefited his gang in any way that was more than reputational. The evidence was thus insufficient under the law as amended after trial by AB 333 to sustain the special circumstance finding under section 190.2. Accordingly, we reverse the gang special circumstance findings and remand for retrial of the allegations at the option of the prosecution.

(Gary note: It is unclear to me whether the trial was held before AB 333 or after. In what I have shown as Second Holding, the court states, “Prior to [defendant’s] trial, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 333 ….” And in a portion that I did not set out in this summary, the opinion says, “At sentencing, the trial court dismissed the section 186.22 gang enhancement because the People did not prove the gang allegation under the new statutory requirements of AB 333, in which they have to show that the benefit to the gang is more than reputational.   The court declined the defense’s request to dismiss the section 190.2 gang special circumstance.” So clearly the superior court was aware of AB 333 as of the time of sentencing, though that doesn’t say anything about when the trial was.

(And in what I have set out as the Third Holding, the court states, “The evidence was thus insufficient under the law as amended after trial by Assembly Bill 333 to sustain the special circumstance finding under section 190.2.” If the trial was held before AB 333 was enacted, then the appellate decision makes sense in relying on Hin to permit retrial. The notice of appeal was filed in the middle of 2023. AB 333 went into effect 1/2/2022, nearly a year and a half before the notice of appeal was filed. So I am a little puzzled on whether AB 333 was in place at the time of trial. If so, then I wonder whether Hin is the best authority, as it seems to find significant that the change in the law came after the trial in Hin. Life’s little mysteries, eh? Maybe (likely, in fact) I’m missing something in the opinion that would clarify the timing for me.)

Authority:

People v. Rojas (2023) 15 Cal.5th 561, 580

In re A.M. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 557, 570

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 464 [retrial is permitted where the appellate court finds only that the evidence was insufficient under the law as amended posttrial by Assembly Bill 333]