Category Archives: Standard of review

Immigration, Standard of review

Case: 000474

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an order granting the defendant’s application under section 1473.7 because he did not understand the immigration consequences of his pleas.

First Holding:

Section 1473.7 allows noncitizens who have served their sentences to vacate their convictions if they can establish that their convictions are invalid due to prejudicial error impairing their ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential immigration consequences of their conviction. To show prejudicial error, the noncitizen must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the noncitizen would have rejected the plea if the noncitizen had correctly understood the immigration consequences. In making this determination, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Any assertions by the noncitizen must be corroborated with objective evidence. Objective evidence can include facts in declarations, contemporaneous documentation of the noncitizen’s immigration concerns, and the charges the noncitizen faced.

Authority:

PEN 1437.7(a)(1)

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316, 320-321

Second Holding:

We review independently whether noncitizens have demonstrated a reasonable probability they would have rejected a plea offer had they understood its immigration consequences. Where the trial court has based its rulings on a cold record, or, in other words, only documentary evidence, we need not defer to trial court fact finding.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

The noncitizen’s subjective misunderstanding qualifies as sufficient error under the statute.

Authority:

People v. Manzanilla (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 891, 909–910 [focus is on noncitizen’s own error in not understanding the plea would subject him to mandatory deportation and permanent exclusion]

Fourth Holding:

There is a critical difference between (1) being notified the plea may have immigration consequences and (2) being told the plea will make one immediately deportable. When counsel provides only the first advisement in a situation calling for the second, the advisement is insufficient.

Authority:

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 523, 533 [failure to advise of certain immigration consequences of plea rendered representation constitutionally deficient; advisement that plea might have adverse immigration effects insufficient where deportation would be mandatory]

Fifth Holding:

At the time of the plea in 1996, the defendant’s counsel did not have a duty to discuss mandatory immigration consequences as they would now. That duty arose only with the decision in Padilla. When counsel had no professional obligation, we cannot infer that counsel in 1996 told the defendant of the mandatory immigration consequences. The lack of any proper advisement in the record corroborates the defendant’s claim.

Authority:

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

People v. Manzanilla (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 891, 905-906 [where immigration consequences clear and virtually certain, after 2010 counsel now must advise client of those consequences]

People v. Bravo (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 1063, 1073-1074 [advisement given in 1997 insufficient to satisfy section 1473.7]

Sixth Holding:

The defendant’s ties to the United States are sufficient evidence that the defendant would have focused on mandatory immigration consequences.

Authority:

People v. Alatorre (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 747, 771 [deep ties to the United States constitute contemporaneous evidence that avoiding deportation would have been a primary concern]

Seventh Holding:

Where a noncitizen is no longer in custody and triggering events in the statute have not occurred, the motion is timely.

Authority:

People v. Perez (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 1008, 1016

Discretion, Elements of crime, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000468

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on the defendant’s petition for mental health diversion, and substantial evidence does not support its ineligibility finding. The court also erred by accepting a guilty to plea to conduct that is not criminal. We reverse defendant’s possession of marijuana conviction, conditionally vacate the remainder of defendant’s guilty pleas, conditionally reverse the judgment, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with section 1001.36 and this opinion.

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 authorizes pretrial diversion for criminal defendants suffering from certain recognized mental disorders. To qualify, criminal defendants must show they are both eligible and suitable for the program. A defendant accused of a qualifying offense is eligible for mental health diversion if, within the last five years, a qualified mental health expert has diagnosed the defendant with a qualifying mental health disorder that was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

A qualifying diagnosis creates a rebuttable presumption that the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense, which may only be overcome if there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating factor, casual factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. For purposes of the diversion statute, a qualified mental health expert includes, but is not limited to, a psychiatrist, psychologist, or a person whose knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education qualifies them as an expert. The statute’s plain language does not limit a qualified mental health expert to a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other medical doctor.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b), (f)

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891

People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1138, 1141 [appellate court interprets a statute to effectuate the law’s purpose, applying a plain and commonsense meaning to the statute’s text]

Second Holding:

A substance use disorder registered counselor must complete hundreds of hours of classroom education and supervised training regarding addiction counseling, at least over 2,000 hours of work providing counseling services in an alcohol or drug program, and must pass an examination confirming their skill and ability. Under these circumstances, a substance abuse disorder registered counselor possesses the knowledge, skill, experience, training and education to make a substance use disorder diagnosis under the statute.

Authority:

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 9, sec. 13040(a)-(d)

Third Holding:

Where there has been a qualifying diagnosis, it is the People’s burden to overcome by clear and convincing evidence the statutory presumption that the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense. Here, the People did not present any evidence to support a finding that defendant’s substance use disorders were not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to his commission of the charged drug and firearm possession offenses. Argument by counsel is not evidence in the case and cannot be relied upon to support the trial court’s order.

Despite the lack of evidence, the trial court ruled, based on “common sense,” that possession for sale offenses like defendant’s could not be causally connected to a substance use disorder and that the Legislature could not have intended section 1001.36 to apply to possession of narcotics for sale cases because a vast majority of the felony cases before the court involved drugs. In essence, the trial court carved out a wholesale exception to mental health diversion for possession for sale offenses that does not appear in the plain text of the statute. This was error. It is a corollary to fundamental principles of separation of powers that courts must apply the statutes as written unless doing so would yield absurd results.

Authority:

People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485, 491

Fourth Holding:

The absence of evidence showing defendant’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses cannot satisfy the People’s burden to rebut the statutory presumption by clear and convincing evidence.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391,404 [the absence of evidence proving that a petitioner’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses is not substantial evidence supporting a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner’s mental disorder was not a factor in the commission of the offenses]

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 687-689 [By finding the statutory presumption had been overcome by the lack of indication in the police reports that the defendant was suffering from the mental disorder at the time of a robbery, the trial court improperly shifted the burden to the defendant to affirmatively prove that her mental disorder contributed to the offense.]

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s order denying mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard, or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. We presume a trial court’s order is correct and indulge all intendments and reasonable inferences to support it. Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume a trial court knew and applied the law.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448-449

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042

Sixth Holding:

It was error for the court to accept the defendant’s guilty plea to an act that was not criminal. The information alleged that he was in possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. Possession of marijuana is not criminal unless it is of more than 28.5 grams. By accepting defendant’s guilty plea to conduct that is not criminal, and sentencing him for that offense, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction. Accordingly, we shall modify the judgment to vacate defendant’s conviction and sentence on that count.

Authority:

People v. Mutch (1971) 4 Cal.3d 389, 395-396, 399 [conviction for conduct not prohibited by statute is void]

People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781, 784-785 [the defendant could not have been guilty of violating Penal Code section 115 by attempting to file a forged instrument because, as a matter of law, the writing he was charged with and admitted forging, a death certificate, is not an instrument within the meaning of section 115]

Effective assistance of counsel, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000464

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude the prosecutor prejudicially misstated the law in closing arguments and defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object. We therefore reverse the judgment as to the murder conviction and accompanying sentence. The prosecutor prejudicially misstated the law during closing arguments, andt defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s misstatements constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. However, because we additionally conclude that substantial evidence supported the conviction, the defendant may be retried.

First Holding:

The defendant forfeited any objection to the jury instructions by failing to object in the trial court. Generally, failure to object to a jury instruction forfeits a claim of error on appeal. Generally, a defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial misconduct unless in a timely fashion, and on the same ground, the defendant objected to the action and also requested that the jury be admonished to disregard the perceived impropriety. The defendant’s failure to object will be excused if an objection would have been futile or if an admonition would not have cured the harm caused by the misconduct. The defendant’s claims are forfeited.

Authority:

People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 471

People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 674

Second Holding:

The defendant also asserts that his trial attorney’s failure to object to the instruction or the prosecutor’s argument constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. We therefore address the underlying claims of error in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 15 of the California Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The ultimate purpose of this right is to protect the defendant’s fundamental right to a trial that is both fair in its conduct and reliable in its result.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2008) 42 Cal.4th 960, 966 [a defendant is entitled to the reasonably competent assistance of an attorney acting as his diligent and conscientious advocate]

In re Lucas (2004) 33 Cal.4th 682, 721

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687

People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 215

In re Long (2020) 10 Cal.5th 764, 773

Third Holding:

To prevail on his claim, the defendant must show that defense counsel’s omission fell below an objective standard of reasonableness in light of the professional norms prevailing when the representation took place. The defendant must also show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. The defendant need not show that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case. It is enough to show a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

The standard for judging counsel’s representation is a most deferential one. We must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance because it is all too easy to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable in the harsh light of hindsight. Unlike a later reviewing court, the attorney observed the relevant proceedings, knew of materials outside the record, and interacted with the client, with opposing counsel, and with the judge. Accordingly, we must reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.

Authority:

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688, 689, 693-694

In re Long (2020) 10 Cal.5th 764, 773-774

Fourth Holding:

Where the prosecutor is alleged to have misstated the law to the jury, this constitutes error only if (1) the prosecutor misstated the law, and (2) there is a reasonable likelihood the jury understood or applied the prosecutor’s remarks in an improper or erroneous manner. We objectively examine how a reasonable juror would likely interpret the prosecutor’s remarks, bearing in mind that we do not lightly infer that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor’s statements.

Authority:

People v. Collins (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 333, 340

Fifth Holding:

Where the prosecutor is alleged to have misstated the law to the jury, this constitutes error only if (1) the prosecutor misstated the law, and (2) there is a reasonable likelihood the jury understood or applied the prosecutor’s remarks in an improper or erroneous manner. We objectively examine how a reasonable juror would likely interpret the prosecutor’s remarks, bearing in mind that we do not lightly infer that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor’s statements.

Authority:

People v. Collins (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 333, 340

Sixth Holding:

Defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s repeated misstatements of the law. In general, if the record on appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation, the claim on appeal must be rejected.

Moreover, because, in general, it is inappropriate for an appellate court to speculate as to the existence or nonexistence of a tactical basis for a defense attorney’s course of conduct when the record on appeal does not illuminate the basis for the attorney’s challenged acts or omissions, a claim of ineffective assistance is more appropriately made in a habeas corpus proceeding, in which the attorney has the opportunity to explain the reasons for his or her conduct. Additionally, the decision facing counsel in the midst of trial over whether to object to comments made by the prosecutor in closing argument is a highly tactical one and a mere failure to object to evidence or argument seldom establishes counsel’s incompetence.

Here, however, we are constrained to conclude that there could be no satisfactory explanation for defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s repeated misstatements of the law during closing arguments. The defendant has established that defense counsel’s failure to object fell short of prevailing professional standards of reasonableness. We also conclude that he has demonstrated a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Authority:

People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936

People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 675

People v. Stratton (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 87, 93

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000462

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially violated the Confrontation Clause (U.S. const., amend. VI) by overly restricting defendant’s cross-examination of two sheriff’s deputies, whose testimony was the only prosecution evidence presented on counts 2 and 4. And although our reversal on counts 2 and 4 likewise moots defendant’s Pitchess request, we exercise our discretion to address the issue and find that the trial court should have ordered the production of two civilian complaints.

Given this disposition, we need not address defendant’s claim that the abstract of judgment is incorrect, since the trial court must enter a new judgment on remand. Defendant’s sentence is therefore vacated. On remand, if the People do not timely retry defendant on counts 2 and 4, the trial court shall resentence him on counts 1, 3, and 5 accordingly. If the People timely retry defendant on counts 2 and 4, the trial court is directed to disclose the Pitchess records consistent with this opinion and afford defendant a reasonable opportunity to investigate the disclosed material before retrial.

First Holding:

Defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine witnesses. But they have a right only to reasonable cross-examination. Trial courts therefore have wide discretion in determining the appropriate scope of cross-examination.

Authority:

People v. Royal (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 121, 149

Olden v. Kentucky (1988) 488 U.S. 227, 231

People v. Gonzalez (2021) 12 Cal.5th 367, 406

Second Holding:

Although trial courts may reasonably limit a defendant’s cross-examination of a witness’s bias, the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause restricts the court’s discretion. A criminal defendant states a violation of the Confrontation Clause by showing that he was prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness, and thereby to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.

The trial court’s restrictions on a defendant’s cross-examination of a witness for bias does not violate the Sixth Amendment unless the defendant shows that a reasonable jury might have received a significantly different impression of the witness had the defendant been permitted to pursue his proposed line of cross-examination. However, excluding evidence of marginal impeachment value generally does not violate the Confrontation Clause.

Authority:

People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 455-456

Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 680

People v. Quartermain (1997) 16 Cal.4th 600, 623

People v. Castaneda-Prado (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1260, 1282

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s order restricting defendant’s cross-examination of the deputies for an abuse of discretion. We likewise review the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718, 765

People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 957

Fourth Holding:

The tactical decision (which was defendant’s to make) has no bearing on whether the trial court properly limited defendant’s cross-examination of the deputies. The issue is whether defendant had a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the deputies’ potential bias, not whether that cross-examination might benefit the prosecution.

Authority:

Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 678-679

Fifth Holding:

That defendant could have asked other witnesses about the 2015 incident to attack the deputies’ credibility is beside the point. Defendant had a Sixth Amendment right to reasonably probe the deputies’ credibility by cross-examining the deputies. The issue here is, again, whether the trial court’s limitation on defendant’s cross-examination of the deputies violated the Confrontation Clause, not whether defendant had other available means to explore the deputies’ bias beyond cross-examining them.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 513 [Confrontation Clause allows appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness]

People v. Quartermain (1997) 16 Cal.4th 600, 623 [The right of confrontation includes the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses on matters reflecting on their credibility]

Sixth Holding:

The testimony of the deputies was effectively the only evidence presented on the assault on an officer and felony evading charges, since they were the only witnesses to those offenses. Evidence about the deputies’ knowledge of the earlier incident was thus not of marginal impeachment value, nor was it not relevant, as the trial court incorrectly concluded. This was the only evidence that showed the deputies might have been biased against defendant, despite their denials, and could have influenced the jury’s view of their testimony.

Given that defendant’s guilt on the two counts hinged on the deputies’ testimony, their credibility was a critical issue on those counts. The trial court’s ruling allowed defendant to ask the deputies only whether they knew defendant and whether they were biased against him. When both deputies said they were not biased against him, defendant could not then probe any potential bias stemming from the 2015 incident, even though the jury might have reasonably found that the incident gave the deputies a motive for favoring the prosecution. In our view, the trial court’s ruling made defendant’s cross-examination of the deputies an exercise in futility.

Authority:

United States v. Abel (1984) 469 U.S. 45, 52 [Proof of bias is almost always relevant because the jury, as finder of fact and weigher of credibility, has historically been entitled to assess all evidence which might bear on the accuracy and truth of a witness’ testimony]

People v. Castaneda-Prado (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1260, 1280-1282[Bias has traditionally been viewed as especially powerful.]

Abatti v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 39, 52 [Impeachment of a witness can make the difference between acquittal and conviction, especially where credibility is the major issue in a case and evidence at trial will consist of opposing stories presented by the defense and the prosecution witnesses.]

Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 679 [“blanket” ruling prohibiting all inquiry into a witness’s potential bias violated Confrontation Clause]

Seventh Holding:

The second step of the analysis asks whether a reasonable jury might have received a significantly different impression of the challenged witness’s credibility if the proposed line of cross-examination had been permitted. This requires us to focus on the witness’s cross-examination rather than the outcome of the trial as a whole, examining whether the defense had other means of impeachment of the witness during cross-examination. We review the issue de novo.

Authority:

People v. Castaneda-Prado (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1260, 1282

Eighth Holding:

In Davis, the United States Supreme Court reasoned: “While counsel was permitted to ask [the witness] whether he was biased, counsel was unable to make a record from which to argue why the witness might have been biased or otherwise lacked that degree of impartiality expected of a witness at trial. On the basis of the limited cross-examination that was permitted, the jury might well have thought that defense counsel was engaged in a speculative and baseless line of attack on the credibility of an apparently blameless witness.”

So too here. Because we conclude the trial court’s ruling violated defendant’s Confrontation Clause right to cross-examine the deputies, we must reverse the convictions on counts 2 and 4 unless the People show the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The People have not done so.

Authority:

Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 U.S. 308, 317-318

Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 684

Ninth Holding:

A review of the Pitchess materials reveals that complaints had previously been filed against the deputies. Those materials should have been released to the defendant. The fact that the complaints were found by the internal police investigation to be unfounded is immaterial because unsustained complaints are discoverable. This is because “the burden for preparing a criminal defendant’s case rests with his counsel, not with the police department. That burden cannot be properly discharged unless counsel has direct access to potential witnesses, for it is counsel who must decide if they can aid his client, not the police department’s internal affairs division, however sincere and well motivated the latter may be.

Authority:

Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531

People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 182

People v. Zamora (1980) 28 Cal.3d 88, 93 fn. 1, 101

Kelvin L. v. Superior Court (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 823, 829

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000461

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We direct the trial court to modify the judgment to correct a sentencing error on the defendant’s sentence for attempted kidnapping.

First Holding:

We review unauthorized sentences de novo. A computational error that leads to an unauthorized sentence can be corrected at any time.

Authority:

People v. Tua (2018) 18 Cal.App.5th 1136, 1140

People v. Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1205

Second Holding:

Kidnapping is punishable by three, five, or eight years in state prison. The sentence for an attempted offense is one-half of the sentence for the completed offense. Thus, attempted kidnapping would be punishable by 18 months, 30 months, or four years. However, any subordinate counts to be served consecutively are only given one-third of the middle term. Here, the trial court used count 2 (assault with a deadly weapon) as the principal count for the determinate term.

This made count 3, the attempted kidnapping, a subordinate term. Since the court imposed a consecutive sentence for this count, the court was only authorized to impose one-third of the middle term, which is 10 months. However, the court stated one-third the middle term was two years and six months. The court clearly intended to pronounce the correct sentence but miscalculated or misspoke as to the actual length of the term. The abstract of judgment reflects the incorrect calculation and should be amended to reflect 10 months for count 3.

Authority:

PEN 208

PEN 664

PEN 1170.1(a)

People v. Felix (2000) 22 Cal.4th 651, 655

People v. Wilson (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 500, 518 [reviewing court has authority to correct unauthorized sentence]

Third Holding:

As to his convictions and punishment for murder and robbery, section 654 prohibits punishment for both murder and the target offense when the prosecution relies only on a theory of first degree felony murder. However, if the prosecution offers an alternate theory such as premeditation, and there is evidence to support the alternate theory, then the court may properly impose separate sentences for the murder and the underlying felony.

Authority:

People v. Carter (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 831, 841

Fourth Holding:

We use the substantial-evidence standard to assess the trial court’s factual findings, implicit or explicit, of whether there was a course of conduct with a single criminal objective. We review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo. We look at the entire record in the light most favorable to the verdict.

Authority:

People v. Moseley (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1598, 1603

People v. Perry (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1521, 1524

Fifth Holding:

Section 654(a) prohibits multiple punishments for actions that fall within the same course of conduct in which the perpetrator had a single intent and objective. A defendant may be punished only once if all the crimes were merely incidental to or were the means of accomplishing a single objective. If a defendant had multiple, independent criminal objectives, he or she may be punished for each crime, even if the crimes had common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct. The applicability of section 654 turns on whether the defendant had multiple criminal objectives, not whether an act occurred during the commission of a crime.

Authority:

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311

People v. Perry (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1521, 1525

People v. Rodriguez (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1007

Sixth Holding:

We review instructional error de novo. We view the challenged instruction 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 impermissibly. We assume jurors are intelligent and capable of understanding and correlating instructions.

Authority:

People v. Ocegueda (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 548, 557

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000458

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The evidence showed the defendant possessed the firearm on each of the dates alleged in the information, but there was no evidence his possession of the firearm was anything but continuous over this period of time. One of the two counts must be stayed.

First Holding:

Section 654 precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one. Intent and objective are factual questions for the trial court, which must find evidence to support the existence of a separate intent and objective for each sentenced offense.

Authority:

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 290, 294

People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 354

Second Holding:

A trial court’s express or implied determination that two crimes were separate, involving separate objectives, must be upheld on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. The trial court has broad latitude in determining whether section 654(a) applies in a given case. Under this standard, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding and presume the existence of every fact the court could reasonably deduce from the record.

Authority:

People v. Brents (2012) 53 Cal.4th 599, 618

People v. Vasquez (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 732, 737

People v. DeVaughn (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1113

Third Holding:

Though the trial court did not provide specific reasoning for its decision not to stay the sentence for felon in possession of a firearm, we review the record to determine whether there exists substantial evidence in support of the court’s finding of multiple criminal intents.

Authority:

People v. Hutchins (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1312–1313

Fourth Holding:

We conclude the sentence for one of the counts for being a felon in possession of a firearm should be stayed pursuant to section 654. That is, we find no substantial evidence to support a conclusion defendant harbored multiple criminal intents in possessing the firearm on the two charged dates. To the contrary, the evidence only supported a conclusion that the gun possessed on July 11 was the same gun used in the charged shooting on July 7. However, there was no evidence defendant’s firearm possession was anything but continuous and pursuant to a single criminal objective. The prosecution did not present evidence, for example, showing defendant relinquished possession of the gun for a period between the specified dates.

Authority:

People v. Spirlin (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 119, 129–131 [Where no evidence was presented that the defendant did not maintain constructive possession of the gun the entire time, it could be inferred he had continuous constructive possession of the gun with a singular intent to possess the weapon as a felon, and thus was a single act with a single objective]

People v. Mason (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 355, 366

Fifth Holding:

One of the sentences on the two counts should be stayed pursuant to section 654. Remand is necessary for the trial court to exercise its discretion in modifying defendant’s sentence.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances]

Fourth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000455

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The motion to suppress evidence under should have been granted. The juvenile court’s denial of the minor’s motion to suppress is reversed. His admission to the offense is vacated. The juvenile court is directed to enter an order granting the minor’s motion to suppress the evidence found inside the vehicle, and we remand the matter for further proceedings.

[GARY NOTE: This was a very fact-intensive ruling on who knew what what and why. Essentially, an officer followed the minor’s vehicle after noticing the registration tag had expired. Through a series of events, the minor left his vehicle legally parked on the street, walked a few blocks away, was found by the officer, was asked questions that he answered truthfully, and in response to a request for the detaining officer, other officers searched the locked car that was a few blocks away (ostensibly to look for registration and identification–after identification had been already been confirmed), revealing contraband.]

First Holding:

In ruling upon a motion to suppress, the trial court judges the credibility of the witnesses, resolves any conflicts in the testimony, weighs the evidence, and draws factual inferences. The appellate court will uphold the court’s express and/or implied findings on such matters if they are supported by substantial evidence, but it independently review the application of the relevant law to the facts.

Authority:

People v. Williams (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 756, 761

Second Holding:

Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, an officer may search a vehicle if the officer has probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be found inside. Probable cause means that, under the known facts and circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that evidence of a crime will be found inside the vehicle.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2019) 8 Cal.5th 353, 359, 372

Ornelas v. U.S. (1996) 517 U.S. 690, 696

Third Holding:

The accepted practice of modern law enforcement is that an officer often conducts searches at the direction of another law enforcement officer even though the searching officer himself lacks actual, personal knowledge of the facts supporting probable cause. When that occurs, the collective knowledge doctrine applies and the knowledge of one is presumed shared by all. The rule exists because, in light of the complexity of modern police work, the searching officer cannot always be aware of every aspect of an investigation; sometimes his authority to search is based on facts known only to his superior or associates. The focus is on knowledge of the person who was the source of the information the searching officers relied on.

Authority:

U.S. v. Jensen (2005 9th Cir.) 425 F.3d 698, 704

Fourth Holding:

Once the officer confirmed the identity of the minor, there was no cause to believe the minor was lying and therefore no probably cause to search. Because officers should not have been inside the vehicle to see the firearm magazine, they could not rely on the magazine to supply probable cause for continuing to search the vehicle.

Authority:

United States v. Ngumezi (2020 9th Cir.) 980 F.3d 1285, 1290 [Because the opening of the car door and leaning into the car constituted an unlawful search, we must consider what remedy is appropriate. The exclusionary rule generally applied in Fourth Amendment cases requires courts to suppress any evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure, as well as evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality, the so-called fruit of the poisonous tree]

Fifth Holding:

Unquestionably, when a person is lawfully arrested, the police have the right, without a search warrant, to make a contemporaneous search of the person of the accused for weapons or for the fruits of or implements used to commit the crime. This right to search and seize without a search warrant extends to things under the accused’s immediate control, and, to an extent depending on the circumstances of the case, to the place where he is arrested. The rule allowing contemporaneous searches is justified, for example, by the need to seize weapons and other things that might be used to assault an officer or effect an escape, as well as by the need to prevent the destruction of evidence of the crime—things which might easily happen where the weapon or evidence is on the accused’s person or under his immediate control.

But these justifications are absent where a search is remote in time or place from the arrest. Once an accused is under arrest and in custody, then a search made at another place, without a warrant, is simply not incident to the arrest. When the officer searched the vehicle, the minor was over a block away from the vehicle, in handcuffs. Additionally, the minor had locked the vehicle, and one officer had taken the key away from the minor. Given the foregoing facts, the vehicle was not under the minor’s control at the time of his arrest. Therefore, there was no basis to search the vehicle incident to minor’s arrest.

Authority:

Preston v. U.S. (1964) 376 U.S. 364, 367

Sixth Holding:

When examining the propriety of an inventory search, we focus on the purpose of the impound rather than the purpose of the inventory. An inventory search conducted pursuant to an unreasonable impound is itself unreasonable. Under the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement, police officers may impound vehicles that jeopardize public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic. Once a vehicle has been legally impounded, the police may conduct an inventory search, as long as it conforms to the standard procedures of the local police department. However, an inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence.

Authority:

People v. Torres (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 775, 786-787

U.S. v. Cervantes (2012 9th Cir.) 703 F.3d 1135, 1141

Seventh Holding:

The reasonableness of the impoundment depended on whether the impoundment fits within the authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience. In other words, a valid caretaking purpose is required. The minor left the vehicle locked and parallel parked on a quiet residential street where other vehicles were parked. The vehicle was not blocking a driveway or impeding traffic. The People failed to introduce evidence as to why the vehicle could not remain parked on the street until retrieved by Mother.

A vehicle with a registration that has been expired for less than six months can remain parked on a public street. The People failed to introduce evidence of when the vehicle’s registration expired. Thus, the People did not demonstrate that the vehicle could be seized due to the registration being expired for more than six months. Given the evidence, there was no reason the police could not have locked the vehicle and left it parked on the street. There is no evidence of a community caretaking function to impounding the vehicle.

Authority:

VEH 22651(o)(1)(A)(i)

U.S. v. Cervantes (2012 9th Cir.) 703 F.3d 1135, 1141

Eighth Holding:

We are not examining whether the seizure of the vehicle was authorized by state law. Rather, we are examining whether the seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The statutory authorization to impound a vehicle does not, in and of itself, determine the constitutional reasonableness of the seizure. It is evidence of a community caretaking need to impound the vehicle that causes the seizure of a vehicle to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, i.e., where the impound process is aimed at securing or protecting the car and its contents.

Thus, we are not persuaded by the People’s assertion that the seizure of the vehicle was constitutionally reasonable because it was authorized by the Vehicle Code.

Authority:

Miranda v. City of Cornelius (2005 9th Cir.) 429 F.3d 858, 864-865

South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) 428 U.S. 364, 373

People v. Shafrir (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1246

People v. Williams (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 756, 762

People v. Lee (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 853, 869

U.S. v. Cervantes (2012 9th Cir.) 703 F.3d 1135, 1142

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000454

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though we find that a condition of probation that requires the defendant participate and complete any counseling, rehabilitation, or treatment program deemed appropriate by the probation officer was not an improper delegation of the court’s authority under the separation of powers doctrine, it was improper to impose as a condition of probation that the defendant participate at his own expense.

The challenged probation condition should be modified to delete the portion of the condition requiring defendant to be responsible for the payment of the costs/fees of any counseling or rehabilitation/treatment program. The court is directed to issue a separate order for the payment of such costs and fees. Before the court may order defendant to pay any or all costs associated with his probation, it must make an inquiry and determination as to his ability to pay and determine the amount of payment.

First Holding:

A 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. Instead, the court must issue a separate order for the payment of such costs. Moreover, before ordering a defendant to pay costs of probation, the court must make an inquiry and determination of the defendant’s ability to pay and the amount of payment.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1b(a)

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

Second Holding:

Though we find there was no improper delegation, the defendant’s claim that the condition of probation is an improper delegation of the court’s authority under the separation of powers doctrine has not been forfeited for lack of objection, because it raises a pure question of law.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888

People v. Mendez (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1172

Third Holding:

A trial court has broad discretion to impose probation conditions to foster rehabilitation of the defendant and to protect the public. Further, the court has authority to empower the probation department with authority to supervise the probation conditions. We review a constitutional challenge to a probation condition de novo.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1(j)

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

People v. Kwizera (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1240

In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143

Fourth Holding:

A trial court is governed by the separation of powers doctrine. The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution. Although the separation of powers doctrine does not prohibit one branch from taking action that might affect another, the doctrine is violated when the actions of one branch defeat or materially impair the inherent functions of another. Separation of powers does not mean an entire or complete separation of powers or functions, which would be impracticable, if not impossible.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. III, sec. 3

In re D.N. (2022) 14 Cal.5th 202, 212

Fifth Holding:

By leaving key determinations to be decided ad hoc, a vague probation condition may result in an impermissible delegation of authority to the probation officer. Under the separation of powers doctrine, judicial powers may not be delegated to nonjudicial officers. While the probation officer may properly specify the details necessary to effectuate the court’s probation conditions, it is the court’s duty to determine the nature of the requirements imposed on the probationer. The court may leave to the discretion of the probation officer the specification of the many details that invariably are necessary to implement the terms of probation. However, the court’s order cannot be entirely open-ended.

Authority:

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

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

Sixth Holding:

A probation condition directing that a defendant participate in any treatment program when considering another condition requiring a defendant complete a drug and alcohol assessment and follow through with treatment as prescribed by the probation officer, passes constitutional muster. This is particularly true where the court’s oral comments reflect that the defendant needs treatment for a substance abuse problem. However, where the condition includes the possibility of participation in a residential treatment program, as directed by the probation officer, it is an improper delegation of judicial authority.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902-903

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

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1355, 1359 [Invalidating condition that provided, “You shall not associate socially, nor be present at any time, at any place, public or private, with any person, as designated by your probation officer.”]

People v. Kwizera (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1238,-1241 [Upholding probation condition that directed defendant to “follow such course of conduct as the probation officer may prescribe”]

People v. Penoli (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 298, 307 [Upholding condition that probation officer may unilaterally select a residential drug rehabilitation program and determine whether defendant successfully completed that program.]

Seventh Holding:

A probation condition should be given the meaning that would appear to a reasonable, objective reader. Following that precept, we read the challenged provision here not as delegating adjudicatory powers to the probation officer but as indicating the court’s advance approval of an agreement that the probation officer might reach with defendant. If a probation officer does interpret the condition in an arbitrary manner, defendant may then file a petition for modification of his probation condition. Thus, the probation condition did not improperly delegate judicial authority to the probation officer.

Authority:

PEN 1203.2(b)(1)

PEN 1203.3

In re D.N. (2022) 14 Cal.5th 202, 211

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 382

People v. Keele (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 701, 708 [trial court retains jurisdiction to review probation officer’s actions]

People v. Arevalo (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 652, 658 [If probation officer interprets probation condition in an arbitrary way, the defendant can file a petition for modification of his probation condition.]

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

Case 000448

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant contends that it was error to proceed to sentencing in the absence of the attorney she retained after counsel was appointed, and that the court abused its discretion when it found that her youth was not a contributing fact. Retained counsel did file a document titled “Limited Scope Substitution of Counsel.” Thereafter, appointed counsel filed a resentencing brief on the defendant’s behalf. The retained attorney did not. At the resentencing hearing, appointed counsel appeared with the defendant. The retained attorney did not appear. We affirm, but the trial court must recalculate the credit for time served.

First Holding:

The trial court did not recalculate the defendant’s custody credits and ordered the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to do the calculation. A trial court must calculate a defendant’s custody credits when resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37 [when a trial court resentences a defendant on remand, it must credit him with all actual days he spent in custody, whether in jail or prison, up to that time]

Second Holding:

We review the defendants’s contentions regarding counsel of choice and selection of sentence term under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. A defendant who desires to retain his own counsel is required to act with diligence and may not demand a continuance if he is unjustifiably dilatory or if he arbitrarily desires to substitute counsel at the time of trial.

Authority:

People v. O’Malley (2016) 62 Cal.4th 944, 1004 [trial court has discretion to deny substitution of counsel where it would prejudice the defendant or disrupt the orderly processes of justice]

People v. Blake (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 619, 623-624

People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 435 [appellate review of asserted evidentiary error forfeited where defendant failed to make a timely, specific objection]

Third Holding:

Section 1170(b)(6) does not mandate a presumption in favor of the lower term in every case in which the defendant was under age 26 at the time the crime was committed. Instead, the presumption applies only if the defendant’s youth was a contributing factor in his or her commission of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(6)

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 991-992

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376-377 [trial court’s sentencing choices reviewed for abuse of discretion]

Fourth Holding:

At oral argument, the defendant contended that the trial court erred in conducting the resentencing hearing without her physical presence. But the defendant failed to raise this contention in her opening brief. Thus, it is forfeited. Forfeiture aside, any error would have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt based on the record before us.

Authority:

People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 [Every brief should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made. If none is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration]

People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 550, fn. 9 [claims not raised in the opening brief are waived]

People v. Velasco (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 663, 674

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

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000443

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in ordering restitution in the amount of the full retail price of sunglasses that were returned to the victim, a retail store, by the police soon after the theft.

First Holding:

In every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court.

Restitution shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct, including, but not limited to, full or partial payment for the value of stolen or damaged property. The value of stolen or damaged property shall be the replacement cost of like property, or the actual cost of repairing the property when repair is possible. A victim may also seek lost profits.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)

Second Holding:

A prima facie case for restitution can be made based on a victim’s testimony or other claim or statement of the amount of economic loss. Once a prima facie showing of loss has been made, the burden shifts to defendant to demonstrate that the amount of the loss is other than that claimed by the victim.

Authority:

People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26

Third Holding:

We review restitution orders for abuse of discretion. Where the specific issue is whether the court’s factual findings support restitution, we review those findings for substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26

People v. Hume (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 990, 995

People v. Trout-Lacy (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 369, 373

Fourth Holding:

Ordering a defendant to pay retail value is justified when a retailer shows it lost the opportunity to sell the stolen goods to customers at that price — in other words, that it lost profits because of the thefts.

Authority:

People v. Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1178 [retail value of recovered stolen property was not an appropriate measure of restitution when the prosecutor presented no evidence that the victim retailer lost any profits as a result of the theft]

Fifth Holding:

Had the victim been a person who purchased the sunglasses at a store for the retail price, the retail price may have been the accurate measure of damages.

But the victim retailer did not seek lost profits on its restitution request form or introduce evidence at the hearing supporting such a claim. The trial court, in fact, ordered defense counsel to refrain from examining the store manager about the store’s sales volume after the prosecutor objected on relevancy grounds. The restitution award was therefore limited to the replacement cost of like property.

Using retail value as the sole basis to calculate restitution, based on this record, resulted in a windfall to the victim retailer.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)(3)(A)

People v. Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1172 [A restitution order is intended to compensate the victim for its actual loss and is not intended to provide the victim with a windfall]

People v. Valle (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1329, 1333 [awarding purchase price of stolen cell phone that was returned to victim was error when defendant elicited testimony the victim hoped to use or sell the phone]

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000434

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing on resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant a continuance to obtain documents from the California Department of Corrections (CDCR). We conclude that the error prejudiced defendant because the trial court lacked potential information relevant to exercising its discretion. Additionally, the record does not show that when it denied the requested continuance, the court understood the full scope of its discretion. We reverse the judgment and remand for a new resentencing hearing.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75(a) provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, under section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600(b)is legally invalid.

Section 1172.75(d)(3) provides that the court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the defendant’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice. Where defendant’s original sentence included a now-invalid sentencing enhancement the resentencing court must provide a full resentencing hearing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. In reviewing the decision to deny a continuance, one factor to consider is whether a continuance would be useful. Here, a continuance was merited because it would have allowed defense counsel to obtain potential evidence relevant to resentencing from the CDCR. The People did not oppose the requested continuance. The burden of a continuance was minimal because there would have been no need to reschedule witnesses or consider juror inconvenience.

We do not agree that the denial of a continuance was harmless. The record does not indicate the court understood the extent of its discretion when it denied the continuance. The court incorrectly stated that its only discretion was whether to strike the additional 25-to-life gun allegation, when in fact the court had discretion to reduce the 25-year-term to impose a lesser included enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1118

People v. Grajeda (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 829, 839–840

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1020–1021, 1030 [trial court has discretion to strike enhancement and impose lesser included sec. 12022.53 enhancement or other lesser included enhancement]

Third Holding:

Section 1050(b) generally requires a written motion to request a continuance, but section 1050(c) states that, notwithstanding subdivision (b), a party may make a motion for a continuance without complying with the requirements of that subdivision, albeit absent a showing good cause, sanctions may be imposed.

Authority:

PEN 1050

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000433

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to deny defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6, because substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s findings that he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) overhauled the state’s murder statutes to more equitably sentence offenders according to their involvement in homicide offenses. It amended section 188 to require that a principal act with express or implied malice and amended section 189 to state that a person can be liable for felony murder only if: (1) the person was the actual killer; (2) the person, with an intent to kill, was an aider or abettor in the commission of murder in the first degree; or (3) the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.

These ameliorative changes eliminated murder based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other imputed malice theories based solely on a person’s participation in a crime and narrowed the first degree felony murder rule. The Legislature has since expanded eligibility for relief to those convicted of manslaughter. Individuals convicted under the former law may seek retroactive relief under the law as amended pursuant to section 1172.6 Where the trial court issues an order to show cause and holds an 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 the changes to section 188 or 189.

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 1172.6

PEN 188(a)(3) [Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime]

People v. Strong (2002) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707 [SB 1437 significantly limited the scope of the felony-murder rule]

Second Holding:

We review the denial of a section 1172.6 petition following an evidentiary hearing for substantial evidence. 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.

We examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value that would support a rational trier of fact in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 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. Where the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, a reviewing court’s conclusion the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant the judgment’s reversal.

Authority:

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

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

People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 657-658

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

People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 358

Third Holding:

When SB 1437 amended Penal Code section 189 to incorporate major participation and reckless indifference requirements, it codified the understanding of those requirements elucidated in Banks and Clark. Banks and Clark, in turn, utilized Tison and Enmund as guideposts to delineate the contours of the major participant and reckless indifference standards for felony murder.

Banks and Clark laid out nonexclusive lists of factors that a court may consider when determining whether a defendant is a major participant in felony murder, or acted with reckless indifference to human life. 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 a grave risk of death during an offense.

Authority:

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

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 616, 618

Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137

Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782

People v. Strong (2002) 13 Cal.5th 698, 710

Fourth Holding:

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.

Recklessness has both a subjective and an objective component. Subjectively, the defendant must consciously disregard risks known to him. Objectively, recklessness is determined by what a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation, that is, whether defendant’s conduct involved a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person in the actor’s situation would observe. 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. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 616-617

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]