Category Archives: Sentencing

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000507

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was entitled to full resentencing under section 1172.75, even though the now-invalid prior prison enhancement was stayed at the original sentencing.

First Holding:

When a prior conviction pursuant to section 667.5(b) is stricken pursuant to the procedures in section 1172.75, a defendant is entitled to full resentencing under section 1172.75(d).

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

The failure of the People to raise the issue in the trial court forfeits the issue on appeal. The reason for the forfeitur] rule is that it is both unfair and inefficient to permit a claim of error on appeal that, if timely brought to the attention of the trial court, could have been easily corrected or avoided. The forfeiture rule ensures that the opposing party is given an opportunity to address the objection, and it prevents a party from engaging in gamesmanship by choosing not to object, awaiting the outcome, and then claiming error.

Authority:

People v. Sperling (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1101

People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 433-434

Third Holding:

If the appellate court’s order upon remand requires correction as to one part of a sentence but the remand order limits the scope of resentencing, the trial court must adhere to the limits set forth in the remand order. At the hearing upon remand, the trial court addressed only the section 667(a), prior convictions as directed by disposition in the Opinion. While the trial court could have addressed the section 667.5(b) priors and the stayed sentences at that time of remand based on a change of the law, it did not do so and was never asked to consider resentencing on the prior prison terms.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 198, 205

People v. Hargis (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 199, 205-207 [where a change in the law becomes effective after the appellate court’s opinion but before the hearing on the limited remand, the trial court could consider the new law despite the limited remand]

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000505

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the defendant’s sentence, and we remand for the trial court to hold a new sentencing hearing, at which it shall consider whether to exercise its discretion under section 1385 to dismiss the one-year enhancement it imposed under section 12022(b)(1).

First Holding:

During the sentencing of the defendant for second degree murder in which it was found true that he used a knife, the court stated it had no discretion to dismiss the enhancement allegation. Section 1385 governs a trial court’s discretion to dismiss an enhancement. Specifically section 1385(c)(1) states that the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute. In exercising its discretion, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present. Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.

Under section 1385(a), if the court does not find that dismissal would endanger public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.) One enumerated mitigating circumstance is that the current offense is connected to mental illness. The defendant identifies that circumstance as potentially applicable here in light of information developed during the mental competency proceedings in this matter.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1029

Second Holding:

The record establishes the trial court was not aware of its discretion under section 1385 to dismiss the weapon enhancement. Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court. A court that is not aware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no more exercise that informed discretion than one whose sentence is or may have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant’s record. Where the trial court was not aware of its discretion to dismiss a sentencing allegation under section 1385, it abuses its discretion. We accordingly conclude the trial court abused its discretion because it was not aware of its discretion to dismiss the weapon enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391

Nazir v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 478, 490

Third Holding:

When a court has not exercised its informed discretion, remand is the default unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion. Here, we find no indication in the record as to how the trial court would have exercised its discretion had it known it had the discretion to dismiss the enhancement. We will therefore remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion under section 1385 regarding the weapon enhancement imposed under section 12022(b)(1).

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 431

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000504

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

When a person serving a three strikes sentence is resentenced under section 1172.75, it must apply the ameliorative provisions of the Reform Act of 2012, if applicable, subject to a finding that it would post an unreasonable risk of danger to the public as that has been interpreted in the context of the Reform Act.

First Holding:

SB 483, effective on January 1, 2022, added section 1171.1 to the Penal Code, subsequently renumbered as section 1172.75. This section declares that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to ssection 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense is legally invalid. Section 1172.75 establishes a mechanism to provide affected defendants an avenue for relief from now invalid prison prior enhancements.

After the court receives notice from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and county correctional administrator that the defendant qualifies for resentencing under section 1172.75, the court shall review the judgment and verify that the current judgment includes a sentencing enhancement described in subdivision (a), and if so, recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

When resentencing a defendant under section 1172.75, the court must 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

Second Holding:

The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 modified the original Three Strikes law of 1994. Under Three Strikes, a third felony of any nature would draw a term of a minimum of 25 years to life if the defendant had previously suffered convictions for two serious felonies (as defined). Under the Reform Act, with certain exceptions, if the current felony is NOT one of the specified serious felony, the sentence would be treated as a two-strike case, in which the sentence would be a doubled determinate sentence rather than a life term.

When a defendant serving a Three Strikes term is resentenced under section 1172.75, the court must modify the Three Strikes term if the triggering third strike was not a serious or violent felony as defined, unless the resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the public as that term has been construed in the context of the Reform Act.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838

Sentencing, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000503

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to impose concurrent terms on two counts, because section 654 prohibited multiple punishment. The sentence for count 1 is modified from concurrent to stayed.

First Holding:

Section 654(a) provides, in part, that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. Section 654 has been applied not only where there was but one act in the ordinary sense but also where a course of conduct violated more than one statute and the problem was whether it comprised a divisible transaction which could be punished under more than one statute within the meaning of section 654. Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 637

Second Holding:

We apply the substantial evidence standard of review. Substantial evidence does not support a finding of separate intents and objectives. The evidence that defendant pointed the gun at the victim when threatening her supports a finding that defendant used the gun to emphasize his threat and cause the victim mental anguish. Accordingly, defendant held a single intent and objective during the course of conduct—to cause the victim to fear for her life. We will modify defendant’s suspended prison sentence.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Leonard (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 465, 499

Abstracts and Minutes, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000500

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The condition that the defendant participate in and complete, at his expense, any counseling, rehabilitation, or treatment program deemed appropriate by his probation officer is unconstitutional. The sentencing memorandum must be amended to reflect the court’s waiver of all fines and fees.

First Holding:

By leaving key determinations to be decided ad hoc, a vague probation condition may result in an impermissible delegation of authority to the probation officer. Under the separation of powers doctrine (Cal. Const., art. III, sec. 3), judicial powers may not be delegated to nonjudicial officers. While the probation officer may properly specify the details necessary to effectuate the court’s probation conditions, it is the court’s duty to determine the nature of the requirements imposed on the probationer.

The court may leave to the discretion of the probation officer the specification of the many details that invariably are necessary to implement the terms of probation. However, the court’s order cannot be entirely open-ended. Here, defendant’s condition does not specify the kind of program defendant might be required to complete; rather, it allows defendant’s probation officer to determine whether and in what type of program defendant could be ordered to participate. Thus, the probation condition improperly delegates judicial authority to the probation officer.

Authority:

Cal. Const. art. III sec. 3

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

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358-1359

Second Holding:

Where the condition includes the possibility of participation in a residential treatment program, as directed by the probation officer, it is an improper delegation of judicial authority.

Authority:

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

People v. Cruz (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1310 [Invalidating probation condition that gave the probation officer sole discretion to decide whether the defendant should be subject to global positioning system monitoring]

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1355, 1359 [Invalidating condition that provided that the defendant shall not associate socially, nor be present at any time, at any place, public or private, with any person, as designated by your probation officer] [CONTRA] People v. Kwizera (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1240-1241 [Upholding probation condition which directed defendant to follow such course of conduct as the probation officer may prescribe] [CONTRA:] People v. Penoli (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 298, 307 [Upholding condition that probation officer may unilaterally select a residential drug rehabilitation program and determine whether defendant successfully completed that program]

Third Holding:

The sentencing memorandum should be modified to accurately reflect the court’s oral pronouncement that all applicable fines and fees be waived. We shall direct the court to correct the sentencing memorandum.

Authority:

People v. Serrano (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1324, 1340 [The oral pronouncement of judgment ordinarily controls when there is a discrepancy between it and the clerical recording of the judgment]

People v. Contreras (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1300, fn. 3 [The reviewing court has the authority to correct clerical errors]