Category Archives: Standard of review

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case 001069

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred by engaging in factfinding at the prima facie stage of the proceedings on the defendant motion to vacate his manslaughter conviction under section 1172.6.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

SB 1437 also created a procedural mechanism in section 1172.6 for those convicted under the former law to seek retroactive relief under the law as amended.

SB 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) later expanded the statute to apply to attempted murder under the natural and probable consequence doctrine and manslaughter.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 959

Second Holding:

Section 1172.6(a) applies to those convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime or a person convicted of attempted murder based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. To be eligible for relief, the petitioner must make a prima facie showing that he could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder under changes to these theories of murder liability made effective on January 1, 2019, by SB 1437.

If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing, the trial court must issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing where the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant could still be convicted of murder under current law.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

Third Holding:

At the prima facie stage, the court may deny a resentencing petition only if the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. That is, the petition and the record of conviction must establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief. This is a pure question of law we review de novo.

Authority:

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

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

Fourth Holding:

While the trial court may look to the record of conviction after appointing defense counsel, the prima facie inquiry is limited. The court takes the petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if those factual allegations were proved. If so, the court must issue an order to show cause.

At that early stage, the trial court should not reject the petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds or engage in factfinding that involves the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion. But if the record contains facts refuting the allegations in the petition, then the court is justified in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner.

(Gary note: For the most part, the balance of the opinion discusses facts specific to this case to show that the preliminary examination, the defendant’s admission that he personally used a firearm, and that he admitted that manslaughter is a serious felony did not establish that the defendant was the actual killer. For the trial court to have reached a conclusion that the defendant was the actual killer, it would have had to engage in factfinding that is not permitted at the prima facie stage. The court should have issued an order to show cause and held and evidentiary hearing, which is what the appellate court remanded the matter for.)

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 971-972

People v. Jones (2005) 30 Cal. 4th 1084, 1120 [the finding of personal use does not in itself prove defendant was the actual killer]

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001067

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief:

There is not sufficient nexus with the current offense or with future criminality to justify the imposition of the gang conditions of probation. In addition, payment for counseling cannot be ordered as a condition of probation. We direct the trial court to strike the gang conditions and to modify the counseling provision to clarify that payment of costs is not a condition of probation.

First Holding:

When a trial court grants probation, section 1203.1(j) states that the court may impose and require any or all of the terms of imprisonment, fine, and conditions specified in that section, and other reasonable conditions, as it may determine are fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done, that amends may be made to society for the breach of the law, for any injury done to any person resulting from that breach, and generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer.

Accordingly, courts have broad discretion to impose conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1(j)

People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120

Second Holding:

There are limits to the conditions a court may impose. Under Lent, a condition of probation will be invalid if it:

(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted,

(2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and

(3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality.

This test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term.

Authority:

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

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s decision to impose a given probation condition for an abuse of discretion, considering the facts of the underlying offense and the defendant’s background. (Olguin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 379; People v. Patillo (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1576, 1579.) We review constitutional challenges to specific conditions of probation—including assertions that a condition improperly delegates the trial court’s authority—de novo.

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

People v. Patillo (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1576, 1579

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

Fourth Holding:

The defendant complains that the court should not have reviewed his juvenile record, as juvenile proceedings are confidential.

In general, juvenile court records are confidential. Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 governs the release of juvenile court records. It enumerates a list of persons who may inspect a juvenile case file without a court order, which includes, among others, court personnel, the district attorney, a city attorney, or city prosecutor authorized to prosecute criminal or juvenile cases under state law, attorneys for the parties, judges, referees, other hearing officers, probation officers, and law enforcement officers who are actively participating in criminal or juvenile proceedings involving the minor, and any other person who may be designated by court order of the judge or the juvenile court upon filing a petition.

Authority:

WIC 827

City of Eureka v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 755, 761

Fifth Holding:

Welfare and Institutions Code section 828(a)(2) states that a court shall consider any information relating to the taking of a minor into custody, if the information is not contained in a record that has been sealed, for purposes of determining whether adjudications of commission of crimes as a juvenile warrant a finding that there are circumstances in aggravation pursuant to Section 1170 of the Penal Code or to deny probation.

The defendant’s juvenile record has not been sealed. Thus, court personnel, the prosecutor, and the probation department were permitted to inspect the records without court order. Moreover, the court was permitted to consider information related to the taking of Reeves into custody for the purpose of determining whether to grant or deny probation.

Authority:

WIC(a)(2)

Sixth Holding:

Probation conditions need not relate directly to the underlying conviction, and may, instead, be reasonably related to future criminality. But here we cannot conclude that the gang conditions are reasonably related to future criminality. As discussed, even if appropriately considered, the defendant’s juvenile record is 10 years old, and in the intervening 10 years, there is no indication that the defendant has engaged in any criminal activity related to gangs.

Authority:

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

Seventh Holding:

Courts may properly base probation conditions upon information in a probation report that raises concerns about future criminality unrelated to a prior offense. Yet Lent’s requirement that a probation condition must be reasonably related to future criminality contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition. Thus, not every probation condition bearing a remote, attenuated, tangential, or diaphanous connection to future criminal conduct can be considered reasonable.

Courts are not authorized to impose “conditions to shield probationers from exposure to people and circumstances that are less than ideal but are nonetheless unrelated to defendant’s current or prior offenses or any factor suggesting a risk of future criminal conduct. Accordingly, we conclude that the gang conditions are not reasonable under Lent and must be stricken.

Authority:

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

People v. Brandão (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 568, 574, 577

Eighth Holding:

The trial court may order a defendant to pay for reasonable costs of probation; however, such costs are collateral and their payment cannot be made a condition of probation.

Accordingly, we will direct the trial court to modify the condition with this clarification.

Authority:

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

Ninth Holding:

The defendant’s remaining arguments about the propriety of the order directing that all costs are to be borne by the defendant are forfeited for lack of objection at the time they were ordered.

Authority:

People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 858–859 [defendant waived arguments regarding ability to pay probation costs by failing to raise them in the trial court]

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

Discretion, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001053

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the defendant’s request for mental health diversion because the court failed to explain its reasons for denying the motion and, in doing so, may have applied the law incorrectly.

First Holding:

Mental health diversion allows the trial court to suspend criminal proceedings and potentially dismiss the charges if the defendant successfully completes mental health treatment. To grant diversion, the trial court must find that the defendant is both eligible for diversion and suitable for a mental health program.

Defendants are eligible if they have been diagnosed with a recognized mental disorder that was a significant factor in the commission of the criminal offense with which they are charged. The trial court shall find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.

Authority:

People v. Flareau (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 681, 689

Second Holding:

A defendant is suitable for diversion if:

(1) in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s mental disorder would respond to treatment;

(2) the defendant agrees to waive their speedy trial rights;

(3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment requirements; and

(4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as defined.

Authority:

People v. Flareau (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 681, 689

Third Holding:

But even if the trial court finds that a defendant is eligible and suitable for diversion, the court retains discretion to deny diversion. This has been deemed residual discretion.

Authority:

People v. Flareau (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 681, 689

Fourth Holding:

When a trial court considers public safety concerns in its suitability analysis, it is limited to assessing whether the defendant is likely to commit a “super strike” offense if released on mental health diversion. The trial court did not consider that likelihood.

(Gary note: section 1001.36 was amended by AB 46, signed into law June 29, 2026, effective January 1, 2027. Among other changes, the “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” will no longer use the standard set forth as “super strikes” in section 1170.18.

(Until January 1, 2027, the relevant portion of section 1001.36(c)(4) reads, in part, “The defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in section 1170.18, if treated in the community.”

(But as of January 1, 2027, that aspect of the new section (1001.36(c)(1)(D)) reads, in part, “The defendant will not pose a substantial and undue risk to the physical safety of another person, if treated in the community.”

(If you have a client who seems ripe for mental health diversion, I suggest you hasten while the disqualifying factor remains at its high bar. Section 1170.18 defines specifically what a judge must consider the defendant is likely to do–commit a super strike as defined. Once AB 46 goes into effect, the standard gives far less precision on what constitutes undue risk to the physical safety of another person.)

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896

Fifth Holding:

The trial court’s comments about a lack of accountability and oversight if defendant were granted mental health diversion reflects a misunderstanding of the mental health diversion process. A person granted mental health diversion will be undergoing inpatient or outpatient treatment, and the statute requires the provider of the mental health treatment program in which the defendant is placed to provide regular reports to the court, the defense, and the prosecutor on the defendant’s progress in treatment

In addition, if the person is performing unsatisfactorily in the assigned program, or is charged with an additional offense or is engaging in criminal conduct during diversion, the court must hold a hearing to determine whether to, inter alia, modify treatment or reinstate criminal proceedings.

Authority:

People v. Calabar (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 41, 58

Sixth Holding:

We must reverse unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court still would have denied defendant’s motion for mental health diversion even if the court had applied the law correctly.

Authority:

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

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 891-892

Seventh Holding:

When, as here, we conditionally vacate a defendant’s plea agreement and remand for further mental health diversion proceedings, we necessarily must conditionally reverse the defendant’s sentence. Our reversal of the defendant’s sentence thus moots his other challenges to his sentence.

Authority:

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 892

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 452

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 640-641

People v. Rojas (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1301-1302 [appellant’s argument that trial court made sentencing errors held moot given remand for resentencing]

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

Immigration, Plea bargains, Standard of review

Case 001051

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This is an appeal from a denial of a motion under section 1473.7 to vacate the defendant’s conviction because he did not adequately understand the immigration consequences of his plea more than 15 years ago. As neither the court nor the defendant had the benefit of Hernandez when the court ruled on the motion, we remand for the court to hold a proper hearing.

First Holding:

The defendant pleaded no contest to petty theft with prior convictions in violation of section 666. A conviction under section 666 is a crime involving moral turpitude, which is a ground of deportability and inadmissibility. The conviction also renders a noncitizen ineligible to apply for permanent residency, despite his strong ties to U.S. citizens. A crime involving moral turpitude is also a ground of mandatory immigration detention.

Authority:

8 U.S.C. sec. 1227(a)(2)(i)(I)

8 U.S.C. sec. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)

8 U.S.C. sec. 1255(a)

8 U.S.C. sec. 1226(c)(l)(A)

Second Holding:

Section 1473.7 allows a person who is no longer in criminal custody to file a motion to vacate a conviction or sentence. To establish eligibility to withdraw a guilty plea under section 1473.7(a)(1), a defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) error damaging the defendant’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence and (2) that the damage resulted in prejudice.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2026) 20 Cal.5th 598, 613

Third Holding:

On appeal from a denial of a motion under section 1473.7, we independently review the evidence in the record. When the trial court’s findings are based on written materials rather than the court’s observations of the defendant, we do not defer to those findings because we are similarly situated to the trial court when interpreting a cold record.

We may reach a different conclusion from the trial court on an independent examination of the evidence even where the evidence is conflicting and the trial court’s conclusions are based in part on its assessment of the credibility of witnesses it heard and observed.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2026) 20 Cal.5th 598, 613

Fourth Holding:

Hernandez has clarified the analysis courts must apply when evaluating whether there was error damaging the defendant’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence. In determining whether a defendant has established error for purposes of section 1473.7(a)(1), we focus on the defendant’s subjective understanding at the time they entered their guilty plea. The key is the mindset of the defendant and not what an objectively reasonable person would have understood under the circumstances.

Because the error inquiry focuses on the defendant’s subjective understanding, courts evaluating section 1473.7(a)(1) motions must look beyond the record of the plea and consider the totality of the circumstances bearing on the inquiry. Courts must engage in a case-specific examination that involves assessing credibility and weighing circumstantial evidence.

The most direct evidence of a defendant’s subjective understanding consists of the defendant’s own statements to the court when entering the plea and in declarations or testimony given in support of their section 1473.7(a)(1) motion. However, while the focus of the error inquiry is on the defendant’s subjective understanding, a defendant’s bare assertion that they did not understand the immigration consequences or the options available to them to defend against those consequences is insufficient to establish error; the assertion must be corroborated by objective evidence.

(Gary note: The opinion goes on to cite several examples contained in the Hernandez opinion that may corroborate the defendant’s assertions. If you have such a case, Hernandez is a must-read.)

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2026) 20 Cal.5th 598, 614-617

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

Case 001050

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court improperly imposed fines and ancillary costs without considering the defendant’s ability to pay. The ancillary fees imposed on the defendant are vacated, and this matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to consider whether the defendant has the ability to pay the court operations assessment and the court facilities assessment imposed in his sentence.

First Holding:

We review the imposition of fines and assessments for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1043

Second Holding:

The respondent argues that the defendant forfeited the issue regarding his ability to pay because defense counsel did not object to the fines or assessments imposed. The defendant states that he personally objected that he was unable to pay, preserving the issue for appeal, or his counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object.

In light of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits of the defendant’s challenge.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

Kopp divided court-ordered payments into three categories: fines, ancillary costs, and victim restitution.

Addressing fines, Kopp held that fines (including restitution fines under section 1202.4) are punitive in nature, that fines should be analyzed under the excessive fines clauses in the United States and California Constitutions, and that courts need not hold a hearing on a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing all fines.

By contrast, Kopp continued, ancillary costs (including court facilities fees under Government Code section 70373 and court operations fees under section 1465.8) are not punitive in nature, and equal protection principles require a rational basis for treating ancillary fees for indigent criminal defendants differently than indigent civil litigants. Finding no such basis, Kopp concluded that, when requested, trial courts must consider a defendant’s ability to pay ancillary costs.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 18-24, 25, 28, 30

Fourth Holding:

Points perfunctorily asserted in briefing on appeal without argument in support are not properly raised.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 206

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

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001047

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially applied the wrong standard when it denied the defendant’s motion for recall of his sentence under section 1172.6. We accordingly reverse the order denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing and remand for a new evidentiary hearing.

First Holding:

To the end of ensuring a person’s sentence is commensurate with the person’s individual criminal culpability, SB 1437 (effective January 1, 2019) limited accomplice liability under the felony-murder rule, eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder, and eliminated convictions for murder based on a theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime.

SB 1437 added section 189(e) (limiting application of the felony-murder rule) and section 188(a)(3) (to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought, and malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime). Under SB 775, effective January 1, 2022, these ameliorative changes to the law expressly apply to attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 986

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 959

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842–843

Second Holding:

SB 1437 also created a procedure, under section 1172.6, for a person convicted of murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter under the former law to be resentenced if the person could no longer be convicted of those crimes under the current law.

A defendant commences that procedure by filing a petition containing a declaration that, among other things, the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of the changes to section 188 or 189 made by SB 1437.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(a)(3)

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 959

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 847

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

Third Holding:

At the prima facie stage, the trial court takes as true the petitioner’s factual allegations and assesses whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if those allegations were proved. In determining whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief, the trial court may look at the record of conviction, including jury instructions, verdicts and closing argument, to determine readily ascertainable facts such as the crime of conviction.

At the prima facie stage, the trial court does not engage in factfinding that involves the weighing of evidence or exercise of discretion. If a petition establishes a prima facie case for relief, the trial court must appoint counsel if requested, issue an order to show cause, and hold an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(b)(3), (c), and (d)(1)

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 971-972

People v. Duchine (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 798, 815

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 56

Fourth Holding:

A defendant is liable as a direct aider and abettor of express malice murder if the defendant aided or encouraged the murder with knowledge of the perpetrator’s unlawful purpose and with the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the murder’s commission.

Authority:

In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562, 579

People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1122 [direct aiding and abetting is based on participants’ combined actus reus and aider and abettor’s own mens rea]

Fifth Holding:

In contrast, a defendant is liable as a direct aider and abettor of implied malice murder if the defendant, by words or conduct, aids the commission of a life-endangering act, not the act’s result. The direct aider and abettor must know that the perpetrator intended to commit the act, intend to aid the perpetrator in committing the act, know that the act is dangerous to human life, and act in conscious disregard to human life.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 991

Sixth Holding:

Section 1172.6(d)(3) required the trial court to act as an independent factfinder––resolving the disputed facts and determining for itself, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the defendant was guilty of murder under current law—not to ask whether a jury could or would convict him if the matter were retried. The trial court’s statements show it did not perform that role here.

(Gary note: The appellate court then recited comments by the trial court that reflected the trial court’s apparent belief that its role was to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding. The crux of section 1172.6(d)(3) is that the judge reviewing the section 1172.6 petition must determine whether he or she is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence shows that the defendant IS guilty (not “could be found guilty”) of murder under the current elements.)

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(d)(3)

Seventh Holding:

The trial court’s failure to perform the factfinding section 1172.6(d)(3) requires is subject to harmless error review. Reversal is required if it is reasonably probable Lopez would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of the error. We cannot conclude that the error was not prejudicial. The trial court’s order denying the defendant’s section 1172.6 petition is reversed and the matter is remanded for a new evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6(d)

(Gary note: In the course of its discussion on whether the error was prejudicial, the appellate court discussed the various theories potentially arguable as a theory under which the defendant could be guilty of murder as currently defined. It concluded that it is impossible to determine from the trial court’s comments the findings of fact that would support either theory. It stressed that, for the trial court to deny the defendant’s petition for recall, the trial court was required to find facts that led it to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of murder under current law. And it did not do that factfinding.)

Authority:

People v. Vance (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 706, 715–716

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

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case 001041

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals from the denial of his motion for recall of sentence under section 1172.6. The evidence is insufficient to support he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. The order denying the defendant’s section 1172.6 petition is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to vacate his voluntary manslaughter conviction and resentence him on the remaining charges.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature enacted SB 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who was not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

To accomplish these goals, SB 1437 redefined malice in section 188, and narrowed the classes of persons liable for felony murder under section 189. It also added what is now section 1172.6 to the Penal Code, which permitted those convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory to petition to have their murder convictions vacated and be resentenced on any remaining counts. SB 775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) subsequently extended this relief to persons convicted of manslaughter.

If a trial court determines that a petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief, it shall issue an order to show cause” and hold an evidentiary hearing.

At the evidentiary hearing, the prosecution bears the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder under California law as amended by SB 1437. The parties may offer evidence from a prior trial or hearing or offer new or additional evidence.

If the prosecution fails to carry its burden of proof, the prior conviction, and any allegations and enhancements attached to the conviction, shall be vacated and the petitioner shall be resentenced on the remaining charges.

Authority:

PEN 188

PEN 189

PEN 1172.6

Second Holding:

We review the denial of a section 1172.6 petition following an evidentiary hearing 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 the defendant was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Our job on review is different from the trial judge’s job in deciding the petition. While the trial judge must review all the relevant evidence, evaluate and resolve contradictions, and make determinations as to credibility, all under the reasonable doubt standard, our job is to determine whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support a rational fact finder’s findings beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 298

Third Holding:

A person who did not kill or act with the intent to kill may be liable for murder under the felony-murder doctrine only if they were a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. The major participant and reckless indifference standards did not originate with SB. 1437, but rather the Legislature imported those standards from section 190.2(d), which governs the felony-murder special circumstance that renders a criminal act eligible for the death penalty or life without parole.

In Banks and Clark, our high court interpreted section 190.2(d) and provided guidelines for the major participant and reckless indifference standards. When SB 1437 amended section 189 to incorporate major participation and reckless indifference requirements, it codified the understanding of those requirements elucidated in Banks and Clark.

Authority:

PEN 189(e)(3)

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 881

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 710

Fourth Holding:

Banks identified factors relevant to determining whether a defendant was a major participant in the underlying felony:

(1) the defendant’s role in planning the crime that led to the death;

(2) the defendant’s role in supplying or using deadly weapons;

(3) the defendant’s awareness of the particular dangers posed by the nature of the crime, weapons used, or past experience or conduct of other participants;

(4) whether the defendant was present at the scene of the killing, in a position to facilitate or prevent it, and whether the defendant’s own actions or inactions played a particular role in the death; and

(5) the defendant’s actions after lethal force was used.

Authority:

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 803

Fifth Holding:

Clark identified factors relevant to whether a defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life:

(1) the defendant’s knowledge of weapons, and the use and number of weapons;

(2) the defendant’s physical presence at the scene of the crime and opportunity to restrain the crime and/or aid the victim;

(3) the duration of the interaction between the perpetrator and the victim;

(4) the defendant’s knowledge of their cohort’s propensity for violence or likelihood of killing; and

(5) the defendant’s attempts to minimize violence during the crime.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 618-622

Sixth Holding:

A defendant’s youth can also be a relevant factor in the reckless indifference analysis.

Authority:

People v. Keel (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 546, 558–559

Seventh Holding:

No one of the Banks or Clark factors is necessary, nor is any one of them necessarily sufficient to establish a defendant was a major participant or acted recklessly indifferent to human life. Moreover, there is often a significant overlap between being a major participant and acting with reckless indifference to human life, for the greater the defendant’s participation in the felony murder, the more likely that he acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 803

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 615, 618

Eighth Holding:

In cases where a major participant finding was substantiated, there was evidence that the defendant played a substantial role or was a mastermind who planned and organized the underlying offense and orchestrated the events at the scene.

(Gary note: A portion of this part of opinion compares the defendant’s participation to cases in which there was a finding of substantial participation. I have listed those cases below–after the Clark reference, which pertains to the first paragraph of this “Eighth Holding”–because they do hold that the conduct as described does represent sufficient substantial evidence in support of a finding that the accused was a major participant in the underlying felony.)

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 615, 612

Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137, 158 (Tison) [petitioners were actively involved in every element of the kidnaping-robbery and were physically present during the entire sequence of criminal activity culminating in the murder and the subsequent flight]

People v. Mitchell (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 575, 584 [defendant agreed to rob someone with his brother, helped pick out the victim, and after the victim was injured, held the firearm while his brother rifled through the victim’s pockets]

People v. Richardson (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1085, 1088, 1091-1092 [The defendant yelled, “Shoot him. Shoot him,” directing his armed coparticipants to shoot a citizen who was following the defendant’s car during the commission of the crime. Richardson was a major participant in the underlying robbery, as his orders to shoot showed he took on—or already had—a role in directing the robbery and the conduct of his coparticipants.]

Ninth Holding:

But even if we assume the defendant was a major participant, the evidence is insufficient to support that he exhibited reckless indifference to human life. Reckless indifference to human life is implicit in knowingly engaging in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death.

It encompasses a willingness to kill (or to assist another in killing) to achieve a distinct aim, even if the defendant does not specifically desire that death as the outcome of his actions. Examples of reckless indifference include the person who tortures another not caring whether the victim lives or dies, or the robber who shoots someone in the course of the robbery, utterly indifferent to the fact that the desire to rob may have the unintended consequence of killing the victim as well as taking the victim’s property.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 616-617

In re Scoggins (2020) 9 Cal.5th 667, 676

Tenth Holding:

The reckless indifference standard has both a subjective and an objective component. Subjectively, the defendant must be aware of and willingly involved in the violent manner in which the particular offense is committed, and he or she must consciously disregard the significant risk of death his or her actions create.

Objectively, the risk of death must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him or her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation. Awareness of no more than the foreseeable risk of death inherent in any violent felony is insufficient to establish reckless indifference to human life; only knowingly creating a grave risk of death satisfies the statutory requirement.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 617

In re Scoggins (2020) 9 Cal.5th 667, 677

Eleventh Holding:

Participation in a “garden-variety armed robbery,” i.e., one in which the only factor supporting a reckless indifference finding is that a participant was armed with a gun, is insufficient without more to establish reckless indifference.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 884

In re Scoggins (2020) 9 Cal.5th 667, 677 [the fact a participant or planner of an armed robbery could anticipate lethal force might be used is not sufficient to establish reckless indifference to human life]

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 805 [participation in an armed robbery, without more, does not involve engaging in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death]

(Gary note:

(At this point and throughout the opinion, the appellate court compares and contrasts the defendant’s conduct in this case with other cases in which the question of major participant and reckless indifference to human life was resolved by finding either the presence or the absence of same.

(The analysis is fact-specific and would be of no value in your cases because you cannot cite an unpublished case, so you would have no way to get the facts of this summarized case before your court. But you should be able to learn what you need from the published cases this appellate court discussed in reaching its conclusion that this defendant was not a major participant in the underlying felony, and that his conviction for voluntary manslaughter (obtained by plea agreement) must be vacated.)

 

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