Category Archives: Sentencing

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000485

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court abused its discretion in ordering interest on the restitution award to accrue from the date of the offense.

First Holding:

In every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims” in an amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)

Second Holding:

We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion. A victim’s restitution right is to be broadly and liberally construed. Once the victim makes a prima facie showing of economic losses incurred as a result of the defendant’s criminal acts, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the amount of losses claimed by the victim. Sentencing judges are given virtually unlimited discretion as to the kind of information they can consider in determining victim restitution. When there is a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered, no abuse of discretion will be found.

Authority:

People v. Phu (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 280, 283, 284

People v. Pittman (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1252, 1258

Third Holding:

Section 1202.4(f)(3)(G) provides that a restitution order shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct, including interest, at the rate of 10 percent per annum, that accrues as of the date of sentencing or loss, as determined by the court. Here, there was no evidence that the victim incurred losses as early as ordered by the court. For this reason, we reverse the portion of the trial court’s restitution order concerning interest accrual and remand for the court to select an appropriate date from which interest on the restitution award accrues.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)(3)(G)

Abstracts and Minutes, Elements of crime, Pleading, Sentencing

Case 000484

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court failed to award presentence conduct credits, and the abstract of judgment must be corrected (a) to show the correct section and description of the crime the jury convicted the defendant of in count 7, and (b) to delete the $10,000 restitution fine and the $10,000 parole revocation restitution fine that were waived by the court.

First Holding:

When the defendant is sentenced under section 667.61, the one strike law, the court need not grant such presentence conduct credit. But here it was error to deny the defendant credit for his presentence conduct under PC 667.61, because the People never invoked section 667.61 by alleging the strikable circumstances in the accusatory pleading. The lack of such notice precluded the trial court from sentencing the defendant subject to section 667.61. Further, such a sentencing scheme would have required the court to impose an indeterminate term, and it did not. The defendant was therefore entitled to an award of conduct credits at the rate of 15%, based on his conviction of violent felony.

Authority:

PEN 667.61

PEN 2933.1

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1036–1037

People v. Jimenez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 373, 393–397

Second Holding:

Though the information charged the defendant in count 7 with section 245 as assault with a deadly weapon (defendant’s hands and feet), the jury was instructed only as to section 245 as assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury. The verdict form showed simply as charged under count 7 of the information. The jury could not have convicted the defendant of anything other than assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury because it was never instructed on any other crime for the purposes of count 7.

Thus, the verdict form’s reference to the erroneous charge is a clerical error rather than a reflection of the true verdict. We may correct a clerical error on a verdict form when the error does not reflect the jury’s actual verdict. The abstract lists the offense as section 245 assault with a deadly weapon. In light of the jury instruction and the verdict form, it must be corrected to reflect that the conviction was for section 245 as assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury.

Authority:

People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1055, 1065 [Hands and feet are not deadly weapons as a matter of law]

People v. Frederickson (2020) 8 Cal.5th 963, 1026 [we presume the jury understood and followed instructions]

People v. Trotter (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 363, 370-371 [clerical correction to verdict forms after jury is discharged is not modification of verdict itself]

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [a reviewing court has the authority to correct clerical errors at any time]

Third Holding:

The trial court ordered direct restitution to the victim but waived the separate mandatory fines and fees. The abstract of judgment erroneously lists two fines: a $10,000 restitution fine and a $10,000 parole revocation restitution fine per section 1202.45. When the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment are inconsistent with one another, the oral pronouncement controls over the abstract of judgment. The abstract of judgment may be corrected at any time for accuracy.

On appeal, the Attorney General argues the abstract of judgment need not be amended because the fines have a mandatory minimum that can only be waived by a finding of compelling and extraordinary reasons, and the court’s reasoning here was insufficient. We need not reach this question. Any such argument was waived when the prosecutor did not object in the trial court.

Authority:

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

People v. Zachery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–188

Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000483

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We find insufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction for sexual penetration and remand for resentencing on the remaining counts.

First Holding:

Even considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, we find no evidence to support the defendant’s unlawful sexual penetration conviction. During the victim’s police interview, she made general statements describing the defendant’s conduct, but they constituted vague, euphemistic language requiring followup questions to prove the required penetration. But the officers did not ask any. The officer’s trial testimony regarding what the victim meant, based on the officer’s experience and training, did not clarify the statements. Nothing indicates that the victim ascribed the same meaning and the officer’s testimony asserted. Nor did the victim clarify the acts in her testimony. Taken together, this evidence does not constitute precise and specific testimony to prove the required penetration beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Haynes (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1291

People v. Paz (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1038

People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 316 [though a child sexual crime victim need not specify precise dates, times and circumstances, she must describe the kind of act or acts committed with sufficient specificity, both to assure that unlawful conduct indeed has occurred and to differentiate between the various types of proscribed conduct]

People v. Quintana (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1362, 1371

Second Holding:

On this record, we must reverse the sexual penetration conviction. We strike his sentence for that count and remand for a full resentencing as to all counts so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [trial courts have jurisdiction to modify every aspect of sentence on the counts that were affirmed, including the term imposed as the principal term]

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000481

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Denial of the petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 is reversed, and the matter is remanded for the court to redetermine whether petitioner acted with reckless indifference to human life, taking into consideration his youth at the time of the offense. We also conclude substantial evidence does not support the court’s finding that petitioner aided and abetted the murder with intent to kill and the denial of the petition therefore cannot be upheld on this alternative ground.

First Holding:

Although petitioner briefly argued in the superior court that his youth should be considered in the court’s analysis of whether he was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, the superior court did not address this argument. Indeed, the superior court may have felt compelled to conclude, based on the state of the law at the time, that petitioner’s youth was not a relevant factor, given that petitioner was a young adult at the time he committed the offense and not a juvenile.

We continue to find there was substantial evidence for the trial court to conclude that the defendant acted with indifference of human life, but pending this appeal, there have been cases that squarely hold that the court should consider youth of a nonjuvenile in that determination.

If we do not address this issue, petitioner may be able to file a second petition for resentencing in the superior court to have the court consider his youth as part of the totality of circumstances bearing on whether he acted with reckless indifference to human life. In the interests of justice and for the sake of judicial economy, we address this argument on the merits. We conclude that petitioner is entitled to a new evidentiary hearing to apply new law relating to the effect, if any, of his youth on the court’s reckless indifference finding.

Authority:

People v. Jimenez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 994, 1008

Second Holding:

We review the court’s findings for substantial evidence. Under this standard, we review the 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 beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner acted with reckless indifference.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 988

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 885

Third Holding:

In the first stage of this appeal–before review was granted and the matter was transferred back to this court–petitioner raised the argument (that the court should take into consideration the defendant’s youth) in his reply brief for the first time. Ordinarily, we do not consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief. As such, this argument was not addressed in our prior opinion.

Authority:

In re Luke H. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1090

Fourth Holding:

During the pendency of this appeal, the appellate court in Jones addressed the relevance of youth to the reckless indifference finding in a case involving a young adult who was 20 years old at the time of the offense.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1076, 1091–1093

Fifth Holding:

In Oliver, the appellate court assumed, without deciding, that the trial court was required to consider the petitioner’s youth (23 years of age) in reference to the petitioner’s mental state, but held that its failure to do so was harmless under the standard of Watson

Authority:

People v. Oliver (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 466, 488–489 and fn. 8

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836

Sixth Holding:

In Pittman, the court applied the Watson standard and concluded there was a reasonable possibility the failure to consider the petitioner’s youth impacted the trial court’s decision. The court noted inferences of immaturity could be drawn from the fact that the petitioner was 21 years old when he participated in the attack with two peers who were 16 and 17 years old. Additionally, the crime suggested the participants acted impulsively, under the influence of rashness, and while intoxicated. Thus, the court determined the interests of justice were best served by remanding for the court to consider whether youth impacted the petitioner’s ability to form the requisite mental state for second degree murder.

Authority:

People v. Pittman (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 400, 417-418

Seventh Holding:

In Jiminez, the appellate court agreed that there had been a significant change in the law governing young adult offenders since the ruling on the first petition, and therefore the doctrines of collateral estoppel and law of the case did not apply. In this regard, the court noted that early cases addressing this issue of a petitioner’s youth applied only to juvenile offenders under the age of 18, and only to the major participant and reckless indifference findings.

Thereafter, however, the law was expanded to hold that youth was a consideration for other mental state requirements, including implied malice, and additionally expanded to include young adults who were in their late teens and early 20’s when they committed the crimes. Additionally, the Legislature had enacted similar changes to a variety of statutes to expand youth-related considerations to persons 25 years of age and younger. The court also determined that the error in failing to consider the petitioner’s age was not harmless under the Watson standard.

Authority:

People v. Jimenez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 994, 1001-1004

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000480

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by failing to apply Penal Code section 1170(h)(5)(A) and (B), regarding mandatory supervision, after sentencing the defendant to county jail.

First Holding:

Punishment for a conviction of possession for sale of methamphetamine is governed by section 1170(h), which provides that punishment shall be by imprisonment in county jail. Although the section 12022(c) firearm enhancement directed imprisonment in state prison, section 1170(h)(9) required the sentence to be punishable as directed by the underlying offense. Under section 1170(h)(5)(A) and (B), a court imposing a sentence under subdivision (h)(1) must suspend execution of a concluding portion of the term for a period selected at the court’s discretion, known as mandatory supervision, unless it finds, in the interest of justice, that it is not appropriate in a particular case.

This section creates a statutory presumption in favor of the imposition of a period of mandatory supervision in all applicable cases, and, if the court denies mandatory supervision, it must state its reasons on the record. Given that the court ordered a term of imprisonment in county jail under section 1170(h), it is appropriate to remand for resentencing for consideration of mandatory supervision.

Authority:

PEN 1170(h)

Second Holding:

After the date of offense in this matter, section 12022(c)(2) was amended and now provides for imprisonment in state prison as punishment for a violation with a firearm enhancement under that section, not under section 1170(h). Applying this statute retroactively would likely violate the ex post facto clause.

Authority:

PEN 12022(c)

U.S. Const., art. I, secs. 9, 10

People v. White (2017) 2 Cal.5th 349, 360 [A statute violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws if it increases the punishment for a crime after it is committed]