Category Archives: Sixth Amendment

Appellate Principles, Fifth Amendment, Jury trial, Sixth Amendment

Case 001055

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court’s failure to ensure that all 12 jurors were present together in court when the verdict was rendered violated the defendant’s statutory and constitutional right to a unanimous 12-person verdict and resulted in the recording of an invalid verdict.

(Gary note: During deliberations, the jury reached a unanimous verdict on some counts and the foreman signed the verdicts while the jury continued to deliberate on remaining counts. At some point the foreman was allowed to go on vacation, and an alternate juror took his place.

(When the final verdicts were read in open court, the jury was polled and all 12 confirmed the verdict. The problem is that the foreman who signed the jury verdict forms had been replaced, so only 11 of the jurors who voted on those verdicts were present in open court and were polled.)

First Holding:

The right to a trial by jury is a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed to a criminal defendant by both the state and federal constitutions. An essential aspect of that right is the right to a unanimous jury verdict. In California, a defendant may not be convicted except by 12 jurors who have heard all the evidence and argument and who together have deliberated to unanimity.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 6th and 14th Amends.

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 16

People v. Collins (2001) 26 Cal.4th 297, 304

Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) 590 U.S. 83, 92-93

People v. Collins (1976) 17 Cal.3d 687, 693, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 462, fn. 19

Second Holding:

To safeguard the right to a unanimous jury verdict, the Legislature has set forth in prescriptive detail the procedures that trial courts must follow in receiving a jury verdict. Section 1147 requires all 12 jurors to be present when the trial court receives the verdict.

It provides that when the jury have agreed upon their verdict, they must be conducted into court by the officer having them in charge. Their names must then be called, and if all do not appear, the rest must be discharged without giving a verdict. In that case the action may be again tried.

Section 1149 requires that upon the jury appearing in court, the court, or clerk, must ask the jurors whether they have agreed upon their verdict, and if the foreman answers in the affirmative, they must, on being required, declare the same.

Authority:

PEN 1147

PEN 1149

People v. Carbajal (2013) 56 Cal.4th 521, 530

People v. Bailey (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 376, 382

Third Holding:

Sections 1163 and 1164 govern jury affirmation of the verdict by polling and the recording of the verdict.

Under section 1163, once the verdict has been rendered, either party may ask the court to poll the jurors individually before the verdict is recorded. Upon such a request, each juror must be asked whether it is their verdict, and if any one answer in the negative, the jury must be sent out for further deliberation.

Under section 1164, the jurors may also be polled, upon request, after the clerk has recorded the verdict. If any juror disagrees with the verdict at that point, the jury will again be sent out; but if no disagreement is expressed, the verdict is complete, and the jury shall be discharged from the case.

A verdict is complete when it has been rendered in compliance with these provisions, i.e., once it has been received and read by the clerk, acknowledged by the jury, and recorded.

Authority:

PEN 1163

PEN 1164

People v. Hendricks (1987) 43 Cal.3d 584, 597

People v. Bento (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 179, 188

People v. Garcia (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 542, 551

Fourth Holding:

Acknowledgement of the verdict in open court by all 12 members of the jury is not a mere procedural formality. It is essential to the validity of the verdict. If the jury returns a written verdict but fails to unanimously endorse the verdict in open court, the verdict cannot normally be sustained based solely on the written form. It is the oral declaration of the jurors, not the submission of the written verdict forms, that constitutes the return of the verdict. In other words, there is no verdict absent unanimity in the oral declaration.

Authority:

People v. Traugott (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 492, 500-502, 506 (conc. opn.)

People v. Thornton (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 845, 858-860

People v. Garcia (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 542, 549-550

People v. Green (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1009

People v. Bailey (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 376, 382

Fifth Holding:

It follows from these authorities that a criminal defendant has a fundamental right under the California Constitution to a trial by a 12-person jury. This right requires that all 12 jurors deliberate and reach a unanimous verdict voted upon and, upon request by any party, declared orally by each of the 12 jurors. In the absence of such a declaration, there is no verdict.

Authority:

People v. Traugott (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 492, 500

People v. Bailey (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 376, 387 [The right to a jury trial includes the right to a unanimous 12-person verdict, orally affirmed by each individual juror. In the absence of an express waiver by the defendant, an 11-person verdict violates that right—regardless of the reason it occurs.]

Sixth Holding:

When the jury rendered their verdict only 11 of the 12 jurors who deliberated together to reach the verdicts on the defendant’s charges were present in court to orally declare the verdicts. The initial foreperson who signed all of the defendant’s verdict forms had been excused due to a pre-planned vacation.

Because it is the oral declaration of the jurors, and not the submission of the written verdict forms that constitutes the return of the verdict, the defendant’s statutory and constitutional right to a unanimous verdict rendered by all 12 members of the jury was violated. Absent the express consent of the defendant, a valid verdict cannot be rendered by only 11 jurors.

Authority:

People v. Traugott (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 492, 500

People v. Garcia (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 542, 550

Seventh Holding:

Only 11 of the jurors who deliberated together to reach the verdicts on the defedant’s charges were present to render the verdict. The alternate juror who replaced the initial foreperson may have agreed with the verdicts on the defendant’s charges, but that juror did not participate in those deliberations, and his or her affirmation of the defendant’s verdicts was not sufficient to satisfy the 12-person requirement.

It is not enough that 12 jurors reach a unanimous verdict if 1 juror has not had the benefit of the deliberations of the other 11. A defendant may only be convicted by the 12 jurors who have heard all the evidence and argument and who together have deliberated to unanimity. It is those 12 jurors who must appear together in court when the verdict is rendered, and upon request, individually affirm the verdict.

Authority:

People v. Collins (1976) 17 Cal.3d 687, 693

Eighth Holding:

When the verdict has been read and recorded in the presence of all 12 jurors, minor procedural errors and technical violations of the statutory requirements for receiving the jury verdicts” are subject to harmless error analysis.

However, when only 11 members of the jury are present to render the verdict, the error is considered structural, and reversal is required.

Authority:

People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 556-558, 560

People v. Traugott (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 492, 505 [the denial of a 12-person jury rendering a unanimous verdict is clearly structural and, as such, reversible per se]

Borns v. Butts (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 208, 210 [prejudice is inherent in the entry of an invalid verdict and judgment], overruled on other grounds in Juarez v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 759, 768-769.

Ninth Holding:

Both the state and federal constitutions prohibit placing a person in jeopardy more than once for the same offense. Unless sound reason exists, California courts will not interpret the California double jeopardy clause more broadly than its federal counterpart.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 5th Amend. [no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb]

Cal. Const. art. I, sec. 15 [Persons may not twice be put in jeopardy for the same offense]

People v. Eroshevich (2014) 60 Cal.4th 583, 588

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 852

Tenth Holding:

The legal standards governing double jeopardy are well established. At its core, the double jeopardy clause protects an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense. Jeopardy attaches when a defendant is placed on trial in a court of competent jurisdiction, on a valid accusatory pleading, before a jury duly impaneled and sworn.

Authority:

People v. Eroshevich (2014) 60 Cal.4th 583, 588

Green v. United States (1957) 355 U.S. 184, 187

Curry v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 712

Eleventh Holding:

Once jeopardy has attached, the question of whether double jeopardy principles bar a second trial depends on how the first trial ended. An acquittal is accorded special weight. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy unequivocally prohibits a second trial following an acquittal. Similarly, when the jury is discharged without having issued a verdict, courts will treat that circumstance as equivalent in law to an acquittal and retrial will be barred unless the defendant consented to the discharge or legal necessity required it.

Authority:

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 852

Curry v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 712

Twelfth Holding:

The rules differ when the trial ends in a conviction. As a general rule, it is well established that if the defendant secures on appeal a reversal of his conviction based on trial errors other than insufficiency of evidence, he is subject to retrial. It has long been settled that the Double Jeopardy Clause’s general prohibition against successive prosecutions does not prevent the government from retrying a defendant who succeeds in getting his first conviction set aside, through direct appeal or collateral attack, because of some error in the proceedings leading to conviction.

We therefore apply the general rule that when the defendant secures a reversal of his conviction based on trial errors other than insufficiency of evidence, he is subject to retrial.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1, 6

United States v. DiFrancesco (1980) 449 U.S. 117, 131

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 852-853

Lockhart v. Nelson (1988) 488 U.S. 33, 38

In re Hess (1955) 45 Cal.2d 171, 176 [by failing to object to the entry of judgment on the defective verdict and by collaterally attacking the judgment petitioner has impliedly waived any objection to being retried on the charge of which he was improperly convicted]

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 001054

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by relying on an aggravating factor—namely that the defendant’s prior convictions are numerous or of increasing seriousness (rule 4.421(b)(2))—that was not found true by a jury nor did the defendant stipulate to its truth.

First Holding:

A sentencing court may not impose a determinate upper term sentence unless there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify its imposition, and the aggravating circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

Other than stipulated facts or the fact of a prior conviction, aggravating facts relied upon to justify an upper term must be resolved by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This jury trial right is not merely a state law entitlement, but is constitutionally required for all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction. A Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(1), (b)(2)

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 755, 768

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

Second Holding:

The aggravating circumstance described in rule 4.421(b)(2) of the Rules of Court (prior convictions are numerous or of increasing seriousness), though related to the facts of prior convictions, must be submitted to a jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt, in the absence of a stipulation or jury trial waiver.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1085 [a defendant is 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]

Third Holding:

While the evidence may have been sufficient to support a finding of increasing seriousness, that is not the proper inquiry when assessing prejudice under Chapman. Instead, we must ask whether any rational fact finder could have come to the opposite conclusion. A rational juror could have reached the opposite conclusion here based on the totality of the defendant’s criminal conduct and the applicable sentences for those transgressions.

Accordingly, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a properly instructed jury would have found the defendant’s criminal convictions were of increasing seriousness. The judgment is reversed, the sentence is vacated, and the matter is remanded for a full resentencing under current law. The prosecution may retry the factors in aggravation, if it wishes to.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Fines and fees, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 001052

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Gary note:  This case had a ton of issues.  The wins consisted of striking two of the four counts of being a felon in possession of ammunition; because he did not waive his presence at the court trial, reversal of the findings on his prior convictions and aggravating circumstance in aggravation made in his absence; remand for a hearing on his strikes that were based on the pre-AB 333 amendments to the criminal gang activity statute; correction of the abstract of judgment that reflected fines and fees that were not orally pronounced; and correction of his credit for time served.  In the course of deciding the case, however, the court announced several principles that I feel are important, even though in this instance they were resolved against the defendant. 

I apologize for the length of the summary.  

First Holding:

In assessing a claim of insufficient evidence, we examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We presume the evidence of each element of the offense was sufficient, and defendant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating otherwise. To meet this burden, defendant must do more than just recite his own evidence or portray the available evidence in a light favorable to him.

We do not reweigh the evidence or revisit credibility issues, but rather presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact that could reasonably be deduced from the evidence. We must accept all logical inferences that the jury may have drawn from circumstantial evidence. If the circumstances reasonably justify the findings made by the trier of fact, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.

Authority:

People v. Martinez (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1329

People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573-1574

People v. Pham (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 919, 924-925

People v. Lucero (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 370, 411

Second Holding:

It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. Stated otherwise, a litigant may not change his or her position on appeal and assert a new theory. To permit this change in strategy would be unfair to the trial court and the opposing litigant. To be sure, we have discretion to consider a new theory on appeal when it is purely a matter of applying the law to undisputed facts.

But the defendant cannot now, for the first time, claim that insufficient evidence supports his convictions based on new evidence and and a new theory. Accordingly, we decline to consider defendant’s new theory on appeal.

Authority:

Brown v. Boren (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1316

Third Holding:

A trial court must give an instruction on every theory of the case that is supported by substantial evidence. But the court must not give an instruction that is not correct or pertinent, nor is it required to give an instruction that is not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1047

People v. Larsen (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 810, 823

Fourth Holding:

We note that defendant forfeited his challenge to (a particular jury instruction) because he did not raise the same instructional error issue in the trial court as he raises on appeal. We nonetheless address the merits because defendant maintains that (the jury instruction) as given was not a correct statement of the law.

Authority:

People v. Rios (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1139 [Generally, an issue is forfeited on appeal if the defendant failed to make a timely and specific objection on the ground asserted on appeal]

People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 719 [The rule of forfeiture does not apply, however, if the instruction was an incorrect statement of the law, or if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights]

Fifth Holding:

We review claims of instructional error de novo. We must review the wording of the jury instruction and assess whether it accurately states the law. We must also consider whether a reasonable likelihood exists that the challenged instruction caused the jury to misapply the law in violation of the Constitution.

The challenged instruction is viewed in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner. There is no error in a trial court’s failing or refusing to instruct on one matter, unless the remaining instructions, considered as a whole, fail to cover the material issues raised at trial.

As long as the trial court has correctly instructed the jury on all matters pertinent to the case, there is no error. We interpret the instructions so as to support the judgment if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579

People v. Dieguez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 266, 277

People v. Vang (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1129

Sixth Holding:

On appeal, we review independently the question whether the trial court improperly failed to instruct on a lesser included offense.

Trial courts have a sua sponte duty to instruct juries on all lesser included offenses where there is substantial evidence raising a question as to whether all the elements of the charged offense are present. Under the substantial evidence standard, the trial court has no obligation to instruct on theories not supported, or only weakly supported by the evidence.

However, instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is substantial enough to merit consideration by the jury. Substantial evidence in this context is evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed.

Authority:

People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 113

People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 645

People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 155, 162

People v. Reeves (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 14, 51

Seventh Holding:

The defendant cannot be convicted of multiple counts of being a felon in possession of different types of ammunition. Multiple items of contraband that are classified within a single statutory category or subdivision will support only a single violation of a possession statute. This includes possession of different types of ammunition.

There is, however, an exception when contraband is possessed by a defendant at different times or at different locations.

Authority:

In re Carleisha P. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 912, 923

De La Cerda v. Superior Court (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 40

People v. Sample (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1253

People v. Von Latta (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 329

Eighth Holding:

Defendant was not present for the bifurcated bench trial on his prior convictions and aggravating factors allegations. The parties agree that this was error because defendant did not expressly waive his right to be present for the bench trial in writing as required by section 977(b)(1).

Authority:

PEN 977(b)(1)

Ninth Holding:

A defendant has a right to be present at critical stages of a criminal prosecution, a right protected by both the federal Constitution and the state Constitution. California has also guaranteed the right by statute, under section 977. The defendant may waive that right.

The waiver of a defendant’s right to be present may be in writing and filed with the court or, with the court’s consent, may be entered personally by the defendant or by the defendant’s counsel of record. Although the defendant submitted a writing under which he waived his right to a jury trial on prior convictions and aggravating factors allegations, the waiver extended only to his right to a jury, not to his right to be present.

Authority:

PEN 977

U.S. Const., 6th and 14th Amends.

Cal. Const., art. I, secs. 15, 16

Kentucky v. Stincer (1987) 482 U.S. 730, 745

People v. Perry (2006) 38 Cal.4th 302, 311

Tenth Holding:

Absent a valid waiver, constitutional error concerning a defendant’s right of presence is subject to harmless error review under Chapman. We must therefore assess whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not contribute to the outcome of the proceeding.

Here, defense counsel did not call any witnesses and submitted on the prosecution’s exhibits at the bifurcated trial. Had defendant been present at the trial, he could have assisted in his defense and/or exercised his constitutional right to testify on his own behalf regarding any number of the aggravating factors that were alleged against him.

Thus, we cannot say that the exclusion of defendant at the bifurcated bench trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we will remand the matter for a new bifurcated trial on the prior convictions and aggravating factors.

Authority:

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23

People v. Millsap (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 368, 384

Eleventh Holding:

The trial court found true that defendant had been convicted in 1999 of unlawful possession of a firearm committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Based upon the recent decision in Fletcher, both parties request that the true finding on the prior gang-related enhancement be vacated and that the matter be remanded for a retrial in conformance with the changes to the law on criminal street gangs after AB 333.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576

Twelfth Holding:

The Three Strikes law doubles a felony sentence if the defendant has a prior conviction for a serious felony, which includes any felony offense that would also constitute a felony violation of section 186.22. A prior felony firearm conviction constitutes a strike if committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang” pursuant to section 186.22(b)(1).

Authority:

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

PEN 667(d)(1), (e)(1)

PEN 1170.12(b)(1)(c)(1)

People v. Briceno (2004) 34 Cal.4th 451, 45

Thirteenth Holding:

AB 333, effective January 1, 2022, amended section 186.22 to narrow the definition of benefit to mean to provide a common benefit to members of a gang where the common benefit is more than reputational. Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational may include, but are not limited to, financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting a perceived or actual gang rival, or intimidation or silencing of a potential current or previous witness or informant.

This provision applies retroactively to cases that are not final on appeal to determine whether a prior violation of section 186.22 constitutes a strike. With regard to prior convictions that are premised on violations of section 186.22, current law applies in determining whether they qualify as prior serious felony convictions under section 1192.7(c)(28). The appropriate remedy is to remand to permit the prosecution the opportunity to establish that the prior conviction constitutes a strike under current law.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(g)

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 586-587, 607-608

Fourteenth Holding:

The trial court did not mention any fines or fees at the sentencing hearing and the minute order is also silent on this subject. However, the abstract of judgment reflects the following fines and fees were imposed: $300 for restitution (sec. 1202.4(b)); $400 for the court security fee (sec. 1465.8); and $300 for the criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373). The $300 parole revocation restitution fine (sec. 1202.45) was conditionally suspended.

Rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement. Entering the judgment in the minutes being a clerical function, a discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as entered in the minutes is presumably the result of clerical error. Nor is the abstract of judgment controlling. The abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction. By its very nature, definition and terms it cannot add to or modify the judgment which it purports to digest or summarize.


If there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minutes or abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.

Authority:

PEN 1207

People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471

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

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186

Fifteenth Holding:

The trial court did not orally impose restitution fines or fees, nor were any included in the Minute Order from the sentencing hearing. The People did not object to the court’s failure to orally impose the fines or fees.

Because the restitution fine and matching parole revocation fine are discretionary given the court’s ability to not impose them if it makes certain findings on the record, the People forfeited the imposition of the fines by not objecting. Accordingly, we decline the People’s request for a remand on the restitution fines and instead, direct those fines to be stricken.

Authority:

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

Sixteenth Holding:

However, the same is not true for the two mandatory ancillary costs including the court operations assessment and the court facilities assessment. Indeed, the trial court was required to impose these fees but did not do so, nor did it state any reasons for declining to do so.

Accordingly, on remand, the trial court is directed to either impose these fees or state its reasons for declining to do so

Authority:

PEN 1465.8

GOV 70373

People v. El (2021) 65 Cal.App5th 963, 967

Seventeenth Holding:

The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects the credit for time served. Although there was no oral pronouncement of credit for time served at the sentencing hearing, the probation officer’s report shows that she calculated the total credit for time served based on defendant’s presentencing time in jail. We agree with the parties that this is a miscalculation, and any miscalculation of credits results in an unauthorized sentence, which may be corrected upon discovery.

Credits for presentence custody are calculated from the day of arrest through the day of sentencing. The defendant was sentenced 11 days later than reported by the probation officer. Accordingly, the correct number of actual days of presentencing time served is (a number greater than 900 days).

Because he was convicted of violent felonies, the defendant cannot earn conduct credit in excess of 15%.

Authority:

PEN 2933.1

People v. Taylor (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 628, 647

People v. Ramos (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 810, 816 [explaining proper method of calculation for conduct credits under section 2933.1]

People v. Bravo (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 729, 735

Due process, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 001048

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in resentencing the defendant in his absence (without a valid waiver) in response to a letter from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) indicating an error in the sentencing.

First Holding:

CDCR notified the trial court of errors in sentencing. The court scheduled a resentencing hearing, but did not notify appellant in advance of this hearing. At the hearing, the court explained that the hearing to correct the errors in sentencing, that the prior abstract was incorrect, that the issue concerned improper imposition of sentence on multiple enhancements, and that it would resentence the defendant as if the court had never sentenced him before.

Defense counsel submitted without argument. The court then resentenced appellant to basically the same sentence as before, with the only change being that the indeterminate term of 15 years to life for the section 186.22 gang enhancement was stayed.

The defendant was not present at this hearing and had not properly waived his presence. A criminal defendant’s right to be personally present at trial is guaranteed under the federal Constitution by the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as by section 15 of article I of the California Constitution and by sections 977 and 1043.

Authority:

U.S. Const., Sixth Amend. and Fourteenth Amend.

Calif. Const., art. I

PEN 977

PEN 1043

People v. Concepcion (2008) 45 Cal.4th 77, 81

Second Holding:

This right to be present extends to all critical stages of the criminal prosecution and includes sentencing and resentencing. The right to be present may be waived. However, this waiver must be expressly authorized by the defendant, or the defendant’s counsel must represent to the court the defendant has so waived.

Authority:

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 347–348

Third Holding:

The trial court clearly stated at the start of the hearing that it would resentence appellant as if we never sentenced him before. In a full resentencing, the court would have the option to revisit other portions of the sentence, including the decision to strike the defendant’s other prior strike conviction or make findings in the sentencing triad based on the mitigating circumstances. As in Cutting, we find the court erred in sentencing the defendant in his absence and without a valid waiver of his right to be present.

Authority:

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 348

Fourth Holding:

On the limited record before us, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that his presence at the hearing would not have affected the outcome. The sentence is vacated, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 350 [reversing for a full resentencing under Chapman, noting that “the trial court may or may not have chosen to believe what [the defendant] might have said” regarding mitigating circumstances]

People v. Garcia (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 475, 484 [a defendant’s postconviction behavior and other possible developments are relevant to the trial court’s consideration upon resentencing], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 338, fn. 4

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 001040

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court violated Penal Code section 1170(b) by imposing the upper term on one count of shooting at an occupied vehicle based on aggravating circumstances not found true by a jury or admitted by him. We reverse and remand for resentencing.

First Holding:

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution require that a jury find beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum. Section 1170(b)(2) codified this requirement by authorizing a court to impose the upper term only when the facts underlying an aggravating circumstance, other than a prior conviction, have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(2)

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 282

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

Second Holding:

Allegations of prior convictions may be tried by the court alone. But here, the court did not exclusively rely on aggravating circumstances related to prior convictions. Additionally, one of the aggravating circumstances related to prior convictions—the defendant’s prior convictions as an adult and juvenile were numerous and of increasing seriousness—involves more than the permissible factual finding by a court that the convictions were sustained.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(3)

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1083

Third Holding:

When the sentencing court relies on an aggravating circumstance not found by a jury, the reviewing court must apply the standard of prejudice under Chapman. We must reverse the sentence unless we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute. Lack of a jury trial is not harmless under Chapman if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.

Authority:

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 742–743

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

Fourth Holding:

Whether the defendant was a danger to society is a subjective factual determination. Because the inquiry into the circumstances is comparative and qualitative, we cannot conclude with confidence that the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as the trial court.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1089-1090

Fifth Holding:

Because the omission of a jury trial was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to every aggravating fact relied upon by the trial court to impose an upper term, we must reverse the defendant’s sentence.

On remand, the proceedings must comply with the current statutory requirements and the defendant be given the opportunity for a jury trial. The trial court may rely on any properly proven aggravating facts and retains its discretion to impose an upper term sentence. If the court cannot conclude that one or more properly proved circumstances justifies an upper term sentence, it may impose no more than the middle term.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 777-778

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 001039

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court improperly imposed the upper term on the firearm enhancement based on aggravating circumstances which were not pleaded in the information nor found true by the jury. Remanded for resentencing.

First Holding:

The prosecution conceded that no aggravating circumstances were alleged against the defendant to support imposing the upper term on the enhancement. But she asserted that the evidence showed the defendant committed the crime with planning, sophistication, and professionalism, which is a factor in aggravation under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(8). Over objection by defense counsel, the court found the factors cited by the prosecution true and imposed the upper term on the firearm enhancement. This was error.

Section 1170.1(d)(2) permits a trial court to impose the upper term for a sentencing enhancement only when there are circumstances in aggravation that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant, or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1(d)(2)

Second Holding:

A Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established. The violation is prejudicial unless an appellate court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court to justify an upper term sentence, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statutory requirements. If the reviewing court cannot so determine, applying the Chapman standard of review, the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing. On this record, we cannot say the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768

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

Third Holding:

The District Attorney failed to allege any aggravating circumstances against the defendant in the information. The prosecutor merely argued that the evidence supported aggravating facts that she described for the first time at the sentencing hearing.

These aggravating circumstances—the offense was committed with planning, sophistication, and professionalism, and it was coldhearted, ruthless, and committed with disregard for human life—rest on a subjective standard, making it difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court.

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 001036

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the court misunderstood its discretion to reduce a 10-year section 12022.53(b) firearm enhancement and impose a lesser uncharged enhancement. The court violated the defendant’s constitutional rights by imposing an upper term sentence without a jury determination of aggravating factors. Accordingly, we will remand so the People may have an opportunity to retry the aggravating factors and for the court to exercise its sentencing discretion.

First Holding:

A sentencing court, in the interest of justice pursuant to section 1385, may strike or dismiss an enhancement otherwise required to be imposed under section 12022.53. This discretion includes imposing a lesser included, uncharged enhancement under statutes other than section 12022.53, such as section 12022.5(a).

Authority:

People v. Jasso (2025) 17 Cal.5th 646, 701

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1020-1021

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 692 [The statutory framework of section 12022.53 permits a court to strike the section 12022.53(d) enhancement found true by the jury and to impose a lesser uncharged statutory enhancement instead]

Second Holding:

A court unaware of its discretionary powers cannot exercise informed discretion. In this circumstance, it is almost always speculative for a reviewing court to say what the sentencing court would have done if it had known the scope of its discretionary powers at the time of sentencing.

Unless there is a clear indication from the sentencing court that it would be idle to do so, remand for resentencing is required. When the applicable law governing the defendant’s sentence has substantively changed after sentencing, it is almost always speculative for a reviewing court to say what the sentencing court would have done if it had known the scope of its discretionary powers at the time of sentencing.

Mere reliance on the length of the original sentence and attendant decisions, such as imposing consecutive sentences, imposing middle or upper term sentences, or declining to strike enhancements, is not sufficient to provide a clear indication of what a sentencing court might do on remand if it had been fully aware of the scope of its discretionary powers.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 774

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

Third Holding:

As a matter of constitutional right, absent a stipulation or waiver, any aggravating fact other than a prior conviction relied upon to support an upper term sentence must be found true by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, 739

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069 [Under the federal Constitution’s Fifth and Sixth Amendments, 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.]

Fourth Holding:

Determinations that a defendant’s prior convictions are of increasing seriousness and his or her unsatisfactory performance on probation require a jury determination of those facts before they can be used to justify an upper term sentence. Finding increasing seriousness of prior convictions requires a qualitative assessment of the offenses’ time, location, character, and purpose.

A defendant’s probation performance could involve consideration of evidence of misconduct not previously adjudicated in a criminal trial; and it would also involve proving the defendant was ordered to serve a term of probation and remained on probation at the time of the new offense. Thus, the determination involves circumstances clearly going beyond the fact of prior conviction and its elements.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082-1083

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 840

Fifth Holding:

A California trial court’s reliance on information in a probation department presentence report to impose an upper term sentence is now precluded.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1081, fn. 5

Sixth Holding:

Under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty plea). A narrow exception permits judges to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Under that exception, a judge may do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.

Authority:

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 843

Seventh Holding:

A trial court has discretion to reconsider the entire sentence on a remand for resentencing. Because we remand for resentencing here, the proper course is to permit the court to exercise its discretion as to the entire sentence and all of its sentencing choices, including whether to strike or dismiss the defendant’s enhancements under section 1385(c).

Authority:

People v. Trammel (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 415, 435 [a resentencing court is permitted to reconsider all of its discretionary sentencing choices]

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 348

People v. Hill (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 831, 834 [When a case is remanded for resentencing by an appellate court, the trial court is entitled to consider the entire sentencing scheme. Not limited to merely striking illegal portions, the trial court may reconsider all sentencing choices.]

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 001034

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court violated the defendant’s right to a jury trial on the aggravating circumstances it used to impose upper term sentences.

First Holding:

In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the existence of aggravating factors under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2) and (4). The court conducted a bench trial on these factors because, at the time, it was believed that they did not need to be tried to a jury. The trial court found that defendant’s prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings were numerous within the meaning of rule 4.421(b)(2). It also found defendant was on probation when the crimes at issue in this appeal were committed. (Rule 4.421(b)(4).

Based on Wiley, the trial court improperly determined facts beyond the mere existence of his prior conviction and its elements, and relied on its conclusions in choosing an upper term sentence.

Authority:

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

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 847 [The error here was that the defendant was entitled to, but did not receive (or waive), trial by jury on the aggravating factor of whether he had suffered numerous convictions in the past]

Second Holding:

A defendant has a statutory and constitutional right to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction, that are relied upon to justify an upper term. In Wiley, our Supreme Court overruled its prior authority construing the prior conviction exception to include other related issues concerning a defendant’s criminal history or recidivism such as unsatisfactory performance on probation and the increasing seriousness of a defendant’s prior convictions.

The court held that 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.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1076, 1078, 1084, 1086

Third Holding:

When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review.

Under that standard, a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Lack of a jury trial is not harmless under Chapman if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.

Authority:

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

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

Fourth Holding:

To the extent a potential aggravating circumstance at issue in a particular case rests on a somewhat vague or subjective standard, it may be difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court.

Authority:

People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 840

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case 001033

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to deny the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage. Remanded for the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

First Holding:

Section 189, as amended, limits liability under a felony-murder theory principally to actual killers and those who, with the intent to kill, aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, solicit, request, or assist the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree. Defendants who were neither actual killers nor acted with the intent to kill can be held liable for murder only if they were major participants in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in section 190.2(d)—that is, the statute defining the felony-murder special circumstance.

Authority:

PEN 189

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

Second Holding:

A person convicted of felony murder or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime may file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced. The petition must allege the petitioner was:

(1) charged with one of the enumerated crimes under a theory of felony murder or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime;

(2) convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter; and

(3) could not presently be convicted of murder because of changes to sections 188 or 189.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

Third Holding:

Where the petition complies with the three requirements, the superior court proceeds to section 1172.6c), to assess whether the petitioner has made a prima facie showing for relief. The prima facie inquiry is limited. The court takes 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 so, the court must issue an order to show cause. A court should not reject the petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. At the prima facie hearing, the court may consider the record of conviction. If the petition and record in the case establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief, the superior court may dismiss the petition.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 960, 971

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

Fourth Holding:

A denial at the prima facie stage is appropriate only if the record of conviction demonstrates that the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. This is a purely legal conclusion, which we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 960

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52

Fifth Holding:

To be liable for felony murder as a direct aider and abettor, a nonkiller must not only share the perpetrator’s intent to kill but must also aid or abet the actual killer in the lethal act, and not just the underlying felony.

Authority:

People v. Morris (2026) 19 Cal.5th 671, 693

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 991 [implied malice murder liability as a direct aider and abettor requires aiding the commission of the perpetrator’s life-endangering act]

Sixth Holding:

Since a nonkiller must aid or abet the actual killer in the lethal act itself, and not just the underlying felony, the jury’s true finding on the lying-in-wait special circumstance is insufficient to prevent defendant from making a prima facie showing for resentencing relief under section 1172.6.

Authority:

People v. Morris (2026) 19 Cal.5th 671, 693

People v. Bocanegra (2026) 122 Cal.App.5th 481

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 001028

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in imposing the upper term based on aggravating facts that were not stipulated to or submitted to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded for a full resentencing.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, SB 567 amended Penal Code section 1170(b)(2) to provide that, when a statute specifies three possible terms of imprisonment, the trial court cannot impose a sentence exceeding the middle term unless it finds that a longer sentence is justified by circumstances in aggravation of the crime and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury at trial.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(2)

Chavez Zepeda v. Superior Court (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 65, 70

Second Holding:

A defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements. When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review.

Under that standard, a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Lack of a jury trial is not harmless under Chapman if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1086-1087

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

Third Holding:

The determination that a defendant’s prior convictions are of increasing seriousness requires a comparison and evaluation of the relationship among a defendant’s prior convictions, and a determination as to their relative seriousness. The defendant was entitled to have a jury determine whether his prior convictions were of increasing seriousness before the court could rely on this aggravating fact to find justification for an upper term sentence.

Applying the Chapman standard of review, we conclude that failure to afford the defendant a jury trial on whether his prior convictions were of increasing seriousness was prejudicial.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1085

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 776 [Because we cannot find the omission of a jury trial harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to every aggravating fact relied upon by the trial court to impose an upper term, the defendant’s sentence must be reversed]

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

Case 001027

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in imposing the upper term on factors that were not submitted to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution concedes the court prejudicially erred, but argues that the defendant forfeited the issue by failing to raise it below. Remanded for resentencing. On remand, the prosecution may choose to prove the necessary aggravating circumstances by any appropriate vehicle.

First Holding:

In order to encourage prompt detection and correction of error, and to reduce the number of unnecessary appellate claims, reviewing courts have required parties to raise certain issues at the time of sentencing. In such cases, lack of a timely and meaningful objection forfeits or waives the claim. This includes complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351, 356

Second Holding:

Achane held that a defendant forfeited a claim that a low-term sentence was mandated under section 1170(b)(6), which requires a factual basis that triggers the low term. Presented with a similar issue, Frederickson that where there was a presumption of a particular term without any factual findings, a defendant did not forfeit the benefit of the presumption, which is not subject to forfeiture. Lopez-Tapia sided with Frederickson.

Authority:

People v. Achane (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1037, 1044

People v. Frederickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 994 fn.8.

People v. Lopez-Tapia (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 690, 697

Third Holding:

Here, unlike the cases involving a low term presumption when facts support it, the defendant needed make no argument nor offer any evidence to obtain the benefit of the middle-term presumption, nor to trigger the requirement that the trial court state the reasons for choosing a higher sentence. What he is arguing for was required by statute.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(2), (b)(5)

Fourth Holding:

In any event, neither forfeiture nor application of the forfeiture rule is automatic. An appellate court may choose to refrain from applying the forfeiture bar, under its discretion. Here, we decline to decide whether there was any forfeiture; even if there were, we would exercise our discretion to address the issue on the merits to forestall a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593

People v. Lua (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1004, 1014

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

People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 146

Fifth Holding:

Under section 1170(b)(2) the court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

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. The burden is on the prosecution 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. The court shall set forth on the record the facts and reasons for choosing the sentence imposed.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(2), (b)(5)

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

Sixth Holding:

When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review. Under that standard, a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute. As the prosecution concedes here, we cannot find the error to have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

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

Duty of counsel, Duty of the court, Immigration, Plea bargains, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000994

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea conviction under section 1473.7, because the defendant demonstrated entitlement to relief.

First Holding:

In response to the absence of a legal remedy for individuals who are no longer in custody but find themselves facing unanticipated immigration consequences resulting from a guilty or no contest plea entered years earlier, the Legislature added section 1473.7 to the Penal Code, effective January 1, 2017. The statute was subsequently amended to broaden eligibility for relief beyond the entry of a plea.

In relevant part, the statute now provides that individuals may file a motion for relief from a conviction or sentence on the basis that the conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence. Relief is not contingent upon establishing ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7(a)

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 522-523

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 12-13

Second Holding:

A defendant must satisfy three statutory requirements to be eligible to seek relief from a legally invalid conviction or sentence under section 1473.7(a)(1). The movant must show he is no longer in criminal custody, and the conviction or sentence being challenged is currently causing or has the potential to cause removal or the denial of an application for an immigration benefit, lawful status, or naturalization. The motion must also be timely.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 13

Third Holding:

To prevail under section 1473.7, a defendant must demonstrate that his conviction is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging his or her ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence.

The defendant must first show that he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea.

Next, the defendant must show that his misunderstanding constituted prejudicial error.

Prejudical error means demonstrating a reasonable probability that the defendant would have rejected the plea if the defendant had correctly understood its actual or potential immigration consequences.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529

Fourth Holding:

We evaluate prejudicial error under the totality of the circumstances.

Factors particularly relevant to this inquiry include the defendant’s ties to the United States, the importance the defendant placed on avoiding deportation, the defendant’s priorities in seeking a plea bargain, and whether the defendant had reason to believe an immigration-neutral negotiated disposition was possible.

The defendant’s probability of obtaining a more favorable outcome if he had rejected the plea and the difference between the bargained-for term and the likely term if he were convicted at trial are also relevant.

These factors are not exhaustive, and no single type of evidence is a prerequisite to relief.

A defendant must provide objective evidence to corroborate factual assertions. Objective evidence includes facts provided by declarations, contemporaneous documentation of the defendant’s immigration concerns or interactions with counsel, and evidence of the charges the defendant faced.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 320-321

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529-530

People v. Martinez (2013) 57 Cal.4th 555, 564

Lee v. United States (2017) 582 U.S. 357, 358

Fifth Holding:

On appeal, we apply independent review to evaluate whether a defendant has demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea offer had he understood its immigration consequences.

We exercise independent judgment to determine whether the facts satisfy the rule of law, and defer to the trial court’s factual determinations if they are based on the credibility of witnesses the superior court heard and observed.

However, when, as in this case, the trial court’s findings derive entirely from written declarations and other documents, the trial court and the reviewing court are in the same position, and no deference is owed.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319-320

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 527-528

Sixth Holding:

The focus of this inquiry is the defendant’s own error. Thus, the key is the mindset of the defendant and not what an objectively reasonable person would have understood under the circumstances.

The defendant is the only one with direct access to his state of mind, but a defendant’s assertion as to his or her state of mind is not accepted at face value by courts evaluating a section 1473.7 motion. Such assertions must be corroborated with objective evidence.

A party seeking relief under section 1473.7 is not required to provide the declaration of plea counsel.

Authority:

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 16-17

People v. Mejia (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 859, 871

People v. Alatorre (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 747, 769

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 325

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 962

Seventh Holding:

The standard section 1016.5 advisement—given to all criminal defendants in California who plead guilty to any offense other than an infraction—that his or her criminal conviction may have adverse immigration consequences does not bar a defendant from seeking relief from his plea on grounds of mistake or ignorance based on immigration consequences. Thus, the fact the superior court advised defendant pursuant to section 1016.5 does not resolve the matter against defendant.

Authority:

People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 889, 895

People v. Lopez (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 561, 577-578

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 320

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 962

Eighth Holding:

Prior to Padilla, there was no Sixth Amendment obligation on the part of defense counsel to affirmatively advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of a conviction. Rather, most courts had determined that no such duty existed.

As a general rule, a failure to anticipate changes in the law is not considered ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Gary note:  I think we all know what the court means by “Prior to Padilla, there was no Sixth Amendment obligation ….”  But I think a more accurate statement would be something like, “Padilla was the first pronouncement by the United States Supreme Court recognizing that the Sixth Amendment places an obligation on the part of defense counsel to ….”  The Sixth Amendment was certainly not amended to add any provision generating a new obligation.  The Sixth Amendment has been around for centuries, unchanged.  It was only its import that hadn’t been seen in the past, at least by the High Court.

(The court’s phrasing as I’ve set out in the Ninth Holding tracks what I’m saying.

(I mention this because I think sometimes it is important to argue that something is NOT new law, and that it has BEEN the law all along, notwithstanding that it had not previously been understood to be the law.  Why is that important?  It can make the difference in whether a court recognizes that your client’s rights were violated, even though it was only through a later appellate analysis that the nature of the violation was discovered.  We don’t want the court to assume that, because no court had seen it before, your client is not entitled to its benefit.

(There have been decisions, of course, that decline to revisit cases where, had the law been understood at the time, there would have been a different result.  But that is generally related to the principle of finality of judgment and the jurisdiction of the court to act on the case.  While not directly the same, think of the Estrada presumption of retroactivity of ameliorative changes in the law to those whose judgments are not final, in the absence of clear intent that the change was to be applied prospectively only.  

(Just sayin’.

(Of course, with respect to Padilla, the practical effect is that yes, the Sixth Amendment imposes the obligation on the attorney to provide the advice, but the failure to do so prior to Padilla is not tantamount to ineffective assistance of counsel as that principle has been described in the past.  As the court in this case said, relying on In re Grinder, “As a general rule, a failure to anticipate changes in the law is not considered ineffective assistance of counsel.”

(Was there a change in the law?  Or simply a change in the understanding of the Sixth Amendment?  Of course, the opposition might argue that court pronouncements dictate what is the law, and therefore they represent the law, and thererfore it wasn’t until Padilla that the Sixth Amendment created the obligation.  An interesting debate, or not, but for another time.)  

Authority:

Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356

Chaidez v. United States (2013) 568 U.S. 342, 353

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 17

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

Ninth Holding:

Here, defendant entered his plea 15 years before the United States Supreme Court held in Padilla that the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to provide affirmative and competent advice to noncitizen defendants regarding the potential immigration consequences of their criminal cases. As such, defendant’s attestation that his attorney did not advise him about the immigration consequences of his plea is consistent with the state of the law at that time.

(Gary note: The appellate court examined and analyzed extensively many facts in the record from which it concluded that, based primarily on the principles I have extracted in this summary, the defendant was entitled to relief because his plea was not entered knowingly and intelligently within the contemplation of section 1473.7. I have omitted those details, some of which included citations to other cases apparently relevant to those details. Since this was an unpublished decision and cannot be cited for comparison, and since this is supposed to be a summary and not a copy of the entire decision, I have to stop about here.)

Authority:

PEN 1016.2

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 18

People v. Rodriguez (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 301, 307–312