Category Archives: Standard of review

Discretion, Standard of review

Case: 000371

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court improperly denied the defendant’s request for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36 by applying the wrong standard in determining that he did not satisfy the statute’s public safety requirement. Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the judgment and remand to the trial court.

First Holding:

A trial court may grant a defendant pretrial mental health diversion if the defendant has a qualifying mental health disorder. The court has discretion to grant pretrial diversion if the defendant satisfies the eligibility requirements for pretrial diversion set forth in the statute and the court finds that the defendant is suitable for that diversion under the factors set forth in the statute. A defendant is eligible for pretrial diversion if (1) the defendant has been diagnosed with a qualifying mental disorder; and (2) the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 626–627

Second Holding:

For any defendant who satisfies the eligibility requirements, the court must then find the defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion if all the following criteria are met: (1) In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder causing, contributing to, or motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment; (2) The defendant consents to diversion and waives the defendant’s right to a speedy trial; (3) The defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; (4) The defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in section 1170.18, if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Third Holding:

Section 1170.18, in turn, defines “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” as an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv). Thus, a trial court must determine whether the defendant is likely to commit an offense known colloquially as a “super strike.” Qualifying super strikes include murder, attempted murder, solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a police officer, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, and any serious or violent felony punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Authority:

PEN 1170.18(c)

PEN 667(e)(2)(C)(iv)

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1149, 1150-1151

People v. Bunas (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 840, 851, fn. 11

Fourth Holding:

Mental health diversion is discretionary, not mandatory, even if all the requirements are met. But this residual discretion must be exercised consistently with the principles and purpose of the law, which includes a strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders because of the benefits of such treatment to both the offending individual and the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(a)

PEN 1001.35

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1080

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892–893

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on a petition for pretrial mental health diversion for abuse of discretion. 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.

Authority:

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

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

Sixth Holding:

The trial court’s comments, coupled with the fact the court did not expressly find a likelihood that the defendant would commit a super strike, suggest the court was expanding the meaning of “public safety” in section 1001.36 beyond the likelihood that the defendant will commit a limited subset of violent felonies. This was improper.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 450

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896–897 [trial courts cannot create an alternative meaning of ‘public safety’ inconsistent with sec. 1001.36(c)(4)]

Seventh Holding:

We do not find the Watson standard of prejudice applicable here. Under the Watson test, an error is harmless unless it is reasonably probable the outcome would have been different in the absence of the error. The Watson standard is appropriate in circumstances where the trial court understood the nature of its discretion but, for example, relied on an improper factor in exercising that discretion or failed to state its reasoning. It does not apply where the court was unaware of the extent of its lawful authority in a particular context, because determining what choice the trial court is likely to make in the first instance is far more speculative.

Because the record suggests the trial court did not understand that its discretion in deciding the defendant’s motion was constrained by section 1001.36’s narrow definition of public safety, we cannot be confident that the court was aware of the scope of its discretion under section 1001.36. Defendants are entitled to decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion” of the court. A court that is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers cannot exercise that informed discretion. The appropriate remedy in such circumstances is to remand unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion. The Watson standard is thus inapplicable.

Authority:

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

People v. McDaniels (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 420, 426

In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 716

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

People v. Doron (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1, 9–10 [concluding remand was required under Gutierrez where trial court did not apply correct standard in denying defendant’s motion for mental health diversion]

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 774 [Gutierrez standard applied where trial court was unaware that its discretion to select a prison sentence was constrained by a presumption against the upper term]

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000365

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We affirm the conviction. The defendant is entitled to remand for resentencing under AB 518 because of the amendment to section 654, which formerly required the trial court to select as the principal term the offense with the longest potential sentence; and under SB 567 because the trial court imposed an upper term for the attempted murder of the victim based on unpleaded and unproven aggravating factors.

First Holding:

In addressing a claim of insufficient evidence to support a conviction, this court reviews the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, from which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We presume every fact in support of the judgment the trier of fact could have reasonably deduced from the evidence. If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.

Although it is the jury’s duty to acquit a defendant if it finds the circumstantial evidence susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court that must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Reversal for insufficiency of the evidence is unwarranted unless it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conviction. We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a firearm enhancement using the same standard we apply to a conviction.

Authority:

People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 345

People v. Campbell (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 463, 484

People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 577

People v. Bryant (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1472

Second Holding:

The ameliorative changes effected by AB 518 and SB 567 apply retroactively to defendant’s nonfinal judgment on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Fugit (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 981, 995-996

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379

Third Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 518 amended section 654 to authorize trial courts to punish an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law under either of such provisions. Before the enactment of Assembly Bill No. 518, and when the trial court sentenced defendant, section 654 required the court to punish an act that was punishable in different ways by different laws only under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment.

Thus, section 654 now provides the trial court with discretion to impose and execute the sentence of either term, which could result in the trial court imposing and executing the shorter sentence rather than the longer sentence. Because the court imposed the sentence on count three on the basis that it had a longer maximum exposure than that of count four, as was required by section 654 at the time of sentencing, we will vacate the sentence and remand for a full resentencing hearing based on current law.

Authority:

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379

Fourth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, section 1170(b) was amended by SB 567. The amended statute created a presumption in favor of a low prison term when a defendant is under 26 years of age at the time of the offense. Section 1170(b)(6) provides that unless the court finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice, the court shall order imposition of the lower term if any of specified factors was a contributing factor in the commission of the offense, including that the person is a youth, or was a youth as defined under section 1016.7(b) at the time of the commission of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(6)

PEN 1016.7

People v. Flores (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1038-1039

Fifth Holding:

Additionally, SB 567 amended section 1170(b)(2) to provide that a trial court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime 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. With the exception of prior conviction allegations, under the Sixth Amendment, any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by a jury’ and ‘established beyond a reasonable doubt. Under section 1170(b), 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:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 747

Sixth Holding:

A court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury, but the prior conviction exception to the Sixth Amendment permits a trial court to do no more than determine of what crime, with what elements, defendant was convicted

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(3)

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 837-838

Seventh Holding:

Because the court did not apply the presumption in favor of a low term due to defendant’s youth, and imposed the upper term based on aggravating factors that had not been pleaded or found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury, the court’s imposition of the upper term was improper. As we are already remanding for a full resentencing, we need not and do not consider whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. But reliance on aggravating circumstances not found in accordance with section 1170(b) 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.

Authority:

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

Eighth Holding:

At resentencing, the trial court must revisit all its sentencing choices in light of all applicable legislation. That includes, but is not limited to, AB 518, SB 567, and SB 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which became effective January 1, 2022, and amended section 1385 to specify factors that the trial court must consider when deciding whether to strike enhancements from a defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice.

Authority:

PEN 654

PEN 1170

PEN 1385

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424-425

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 674

Fourth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000364

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The police violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by announcing an intent to frisk him without reasonable suspicion. The defendant revealed the presence of the weapon he was carrying only when the officer threatened to frisk him. The threatened frisk was unwarranted and required suppressing certain evidence.

First Holding:

On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we defer to the trial court’s factual findings if supported by substantial evidence but independently apply constitutional principles to those findings.

Authority:

People v. Session (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 723, 730

Second Holding:

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. An officer may briefly detain a person for investigation based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. If the officer further reasonably suspects that the person is armed and presently dangerous, the officer may also frisk him for weapons. A frisk is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly.

Authority:

Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 17, 21, 30

Third Holding:

When the suspected offense is violent or otherwise serious enough, this alone may support a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. But for lesser offenses, like unlawful possession of marijuana, more is needed. Some unusual circumstances—like a suspect’s admission that he is armed, visible signs of a concealed weapon, or suspicious movements—will typically be sufficient even on their own. Knowledge of a suspect’s recent, violent criminal history may also be enough.

Authority:

State v. Valentine (N.J. 1994) 636 A.2d 505, 509

4 LaFave, Search and Seizure (6th ed. 2025) sec. 9.6(a), fns. 57–64 [collecting cases]

People v. Bush (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1052

Fourth Holding:

Penal Code section 1538.5(m), allows a defendant who pleaded guilty to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress the evidence obtained through an allegedly unlawful search or seizure. This includes defendant’s attempt to exclude a statement, in addition to other kinds of evidence.

Authority:

People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896, fn. 6

Fifth Holding:

More mundane circumstances—like the time or location of the stop—may be insufficient on their own, or even in combination with other weak indications. For example, a frisk was not justified where the suspect (1) had no identification, (2) did not consent to a search, (3) was nervous and sweating, and (4) possessed baking powder (which could be used to dilute drugs) in a film canister. Nor was it justified during a late-night detention of robbery suspects, where the officers had no information that the robbery involved weapons and the suspects fully cooperated and made no furtive or unusual movements. Nor following a 1:30 a.m. traffic stop where the suspect had an old arrest for weapons possession.

Authority:

People v. Dickey (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 952, 956

In re Jeremiah S. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 299, 306–307

People v. Pantoja (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 483, 490–491

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

Case: 000358

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is remanded for the trial court to properly consider its discretion on whether to strike the prior serious felony conviction in light of the presence of one or more mitigating circumstances enumerated in section 1385(e), in the absence of a finding of danger to public safety.

First Holding:

Senate Bill No. 81, effective January 1, 2022, added subdivision (c) to section 1385. Section 1385(c) provides, “(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute. (2) In exercising its discretion under [subdivision (c)], the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in [the subparagraphs to subdivision (c)(2)] are present.

Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. Endanger public safety means there is a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others.

The mitigating circumstances identified in the subparagraphs include, among others, that multiple enhancements are alleged in a single case. In this instance, all enhancements beyond a single enhancement shall be dismissed. And they include that the application of an enhancement could result in a sentence of over 20 years. In this instance, the enhancement shall be dismissed.

Authority:

PEN 1385

Second Holding:

Absent a danger to public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice. This furtherance of justice inquiry requires a trial court’s ongoing exercise of discretion. Thus, notwithstanding the presence of a mitigating circumstance, trial courts retain their discretion to impose an enhancement based on circumstances long deemed essential to the furtherance of justice inquiry

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1033–1036

Third Holding:

In determining whether dismissing an enhancement would endanger public safety, the plain words of the statute do not support a trial court’s singular focus on whether the defendant currently poses a danger. Although the current dangerousness of the defendant is an appropriate factor to consider, as it will have some bearing on whether dismissing the enhancement would endanger the public, a crucial part of the inquiry is how the dismissal will impact the length of the defendant’s sentence. Thus, a currently dangerous defendant who will be released from prison within a short timeframe might be found by the trial court to pose a greater danger to the public than a defendant who is currently dangerous but who has no prospect of release from prison until he is elderly.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 225, 228

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision not to strike a sentence enhancement under section 1385 for abuse of discretion. The abuse of discretion standard is highly deferential. When a discretionary power is statutorily vested in the trial court, its exercise of that discretion must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.

We presume that the trial court acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives. The burden is on the party challenging the sentencing decision to show that the court abused its discretion. We may not presume error from a silent record. Unless the record affirmatively demonstrates otherwise, the trial court is deemed to have considered all the relevant sentencing factors set forth in the rules. In addition as a general rule a trial court is presumed to have been aware of and followed the applicable law. Thus, where a statement of reasons is not required and the record is silent, a reviewing court will presume the trial court had a proper basis for a particular finding or order. A trial court abuses its discretion by rendering a sentencing decision based on impermissible factors or on an incorrect legal standard. Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion.

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 371

People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 298

People v. Knowles (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 757, 765

People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 156

People v. Nakano (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 623, 635 [an abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court applies the wrong legal standard]

People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371, 431

Fifth Holding:

When the trial court does not conclude that dismissal would result in a danger to public safety, the court must assign great weight to any mitigating factors, if present, and exercise its discretion in determining whether dismissal would be in the furtherance of justice. The term “great weight” did not create a presumption in favor of dismissal, but should be interpreted to mean that absent a danger to public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.

Without credible evidence to support findings on aggravating circumstances, judges could disregard mitigating factors without a proper basis for doing so. This would be incompatible with the great weight the Legislature has attached to the enumerated mitigating circumstances. Section 1385(c)(2)’s mandate to give great weight to enumerated mitigating circumstances requires a sentencing court to engage in a holistic balancing with special emphasis on the enumerated mitigating factors.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1033–1036

People v. Ortiz (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1087, 1094

Sixth Holding:

On appeal, we presume that a judgment or order of the trial court is correct, all intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.

Authority:

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

Seventh Holding:

The court did not explicitly conclude that dismissal of the enhancements would result in a danger to public safety. Indeed, the trial court did not discuss public safety in its findings, nor did it make any statements related to the possibility of the defendant committing further crimes if his sentence were to be reduced, and he were to be released early, following dismissal of the enhancements. when the trial court does not conclude that dismissal would result in a danger to public safety, the court must assign “great weight” to any mitigating factors, if present, and exercise its discretion in determining whether dismissal would be in the furtherance of justice.

Walker and Gonzalez had not been decided at the time of the trial court’s ruling, and that in making its findings, the trial court did not use the word “mitigating factors,” or specifically discuss the mitigating factors listed under section 1385(c). While we acknowledge that a silent record does not, on its own, reflect an abuse of discretion , we find it is not evident from the instant record and findings that the trial court would have still exercised its discretion not to dismiss the enhancement if it had the guidance provided in those cases. The trial court did not make any indication that the defendant would pose a danger to public safety if he were to be released early as a result of a reduced sentence.

Further, while the trial court’s final order cited the serious nature of the defendant’s offenses, as well as his criminal history. it is unclear if such findings reflected the trial court engaging in a holistic balancing with special emphasis on the enumerated mitigating factors as required under Walker. Under these circumstances, we conclude that remand for resentencing is required. In reaching our decision, we do not express any position on how the court should exercise its discretion under section 1385 regarding dismissal of the section 667(a) enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424 [noting that if the trial court is unaware of the scope of its informed discretion at the time of sentencing and fails to exercise it in making a sentencing decision, the appellate court must remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion]

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 228

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1036

Jury trial, Standard of review

Case: 000355

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred when it overruled defendant’s objection to the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge to excuse a prospective Hispanic juror who reported negative experiences with law enforcement and the criminal justice system, where the prosecutor did not overcome the presumptive invalidity of the challenge by clear and convincing evidence.

First Holding:

Intentional discrimination is not the correct standard for determining whether the exercise of a peremptory challenge was improper. The court did not first require the prosecutor to overcome the presumptive invalidity of the challenge under the more demanding standard set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7(e). We may not impute to the trial court findings it did not make, but in this case, the record is devoid of any evidence that the prospective juror’s negative experiences with law enforcement and the criminal justice system bore on his inability to be fair and impartial. Under these circumstances, the prosecutor did not overcome the presumptive invalidity of the peremptory challenge, the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s objection, and section 231.7 compels reversal of the judgment and remand for a new trial.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(e) and (j)

People v. Guzman (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 464, 475

People v. Jimenez (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 534, 540

Second Holding:

Both the federal and state Constitutions prohibit any advocate’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors based on race. Doing so violates both the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and the right to trial by a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community under article I, section 16 of the California Constitution.

Authority:

People v. Parker (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1184, 1210–1211

People v. Lenix (2008) 44 Cal.4th 602, 612

Third Holding:

The Fourteenth Amendment’s mandate that race discrimination be eliminated from all official acts and proceedings of the State is most compelling in the judicial system. This is so because it is not only litigants who are harmed when the right to trial by impartial jury is abridged. Taints of discriminatory bias in jury selection—actual or perceived—erode confidence in the adjudicative process, undermining the public’s trust in courts.

Authority:

Powers v. Ohio (1991) 499 U.S. 400, 412, 415

People v. Gutierrez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1150, 1154

Miller-El v. Dretke (2005) 545 U.S. 231, 238

Fourth Holding:

Under the Batson/Wheeler test, the ultimate question for the trial court in ruling on an objection to a peremptory challenge is whether the party exercising the objection engaged in ‘purposeful discrimination. Recognizing the limitations of the Batson/Wheeler inquiry, the Legislature enacted AB 3070 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) to add Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, which creates new procedures for identifying unlawful discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges. The Legislature intended that the new law be broadly construed to further the purpose of eliminating the use of group stereotypes and discrimination, whether based on conscious or unconscious bias, in the exercise of peremptory challenges.

Authority:

CCP 231.7

People v. Guzman (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 464, 475

People v. Jaime (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 941, 943

People v. Ortiz (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 768, 791–792

Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79

People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258

Fifth Holding:

Section 231.7 prohibits the use of a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of the prospective juror’s race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or the perceived membership of the prospective juror in any of those groups. If a party or the trial court objects to the use of a peremptory challenge, the party exercising the peremptory challenge shall state the reasons the peremptory challenge has been exercised.

If the reason for the exercise of the peremptory challenge is not presumptively invalid under section 231.7(e) or (g) (which set forth specific reasons that are presumptively invalid), the reason is to be evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances to determine if there is a substantial likelihood that an objectively reasonable person, who is aware that unconscious bias and purposeful discrimination have resulted in the unfair exclusion of potential jurors in California, would view membership or perceived membership in any of the protected groups as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge. The court need not find purposeful discrimination to sustain the objection.

Authority:

CCP 231.7

People v. Barnes (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 560, 577–578

Sixth Holding:

The trial court’s denial of an objection under section 231.7 is reviewed de novo, with the trial court’s express factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence. The appellate court shall not impute to the trial court any findings, including findings of a prospective juror’s demeanor, that the trial court did not expressly state on the record. The reviewing court shall consider only reasons actually given under subdivision (c) and shall not speculate as to or consider reasons that were not given to explain either the party’s use of the peremptory challenge or the party’s failure to challenge similarly situated jurors who are not members of the same cognizable group as the challenged juror, regardless of whether the moving party made a comparative analysis argument in the trial court. Should the appellate court determine that the objection was erroneously denied, that error shall be deemed prejudicial, the judgment shall be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(j)

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

Case: 000351

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of aggravated sexual assault by sexual penetration under section 289. The One Strike law applies only to certain offenses. The offense resulting in conviction of Count 18 is not one of those offenses, and the One Strike Sentence for that count is modified accordingly.

First Holding:

Section 289 defines various terms pertaining to the conduct it describes as a crime. [Gary note: you just witnessed a little adjustment of precise language to maintain a “G” rating for this movie. If you have an issue involving this section, read it carefully for its definitions. In this case, the conduct in question did not meet the definition for violation of this section.]

Authority:

PEN 289(k)

Second Holding:

When reviewing for substantial evidence, we examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if a rational factfinder could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence is reasonable, credible evidence of solid value, even if circumstantial. We will reverse only if upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support it.

Authority:

People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357

People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755

Third Holding:

When insufficient evidence supports a conviction for a greater offense, we may modify the judgment to reflect a conviction for a lesser included offense.

Authority:

People v. Bailey (2012) 54 Cal.4th 740, 748

Fourth Holding:

The only lesser offenses here are time barred. Although the defendant did not raise the statute of limitations in his supplemental brief, a defendant may not inadvertently forfeit the statute of limitations and be convicted of a time-barred charged offense. Because the only applicable lesser included offenses are time-barred, we must reverse the defendant’s conviction for count 19 for insufficient evidence.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1999) 21 Cal.4th 335, 338

Kellett v. Superior Court (1966) 63 Cal.2d 822, 827 [Failure to unite all such offenses will result in a bar to subsequent prosecution of any offense omitted if the initial proceedings culminate in either acquittal or conviction and sentence.]

Fifth Holding:

The One Strike law, section 667.61, applies only to certain felony sex offenses. The defendant’s Count 18 conviction is not among those offenses. Consequently, we reverse the jury’s two count 18 true findings under section 667.61.

Authority:

PEN 667.61(c)

People v. Anderson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 92, 102

People v. Seals (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1385

Sixth Holding:

The defendant contends his sentence of [hundreds of years to life] constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the United States and California Constitutions. The defendant forfeited this claim of error. A claim that a sentence is cruel or unusual requires a fact specific inquiry and is forfeited if not raised below. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel never invoked the state constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17). The defendant did not adequately preserve an objection under the Eighth Amendment either. To the contrary, after imposing the sentence, the court asked if counsel for either side wanted to be heard, and defense counsel responded, “No.” As a result, the defendant’s federal constitutional claim is also forfeited.

Authority:

People v. Baker (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 711, 720

People v. Boyce (2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 731

Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000348

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Remand is necessary for resentencing because the trial court determined one of the factors in aggravation against the defendant in violation of his constitutional right to a jury and relied on such determination in increasing his sentence. [Not error to fail to instruct on section 148 as lesser of section 69 because the jury necessarily relied on the force element of PC 69.]

First Holding:

It was error for the court to impose the upper term based on its own conclusion that the defendant’s prior convictions are numerous or of increasing seriousness. The right to a jury on any fact that increases the normal punishment for an offense derives from the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Authority:

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

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

Second Holding:

A criminal defendant does not waive his constitutional right to a jury trial by failing to object when a court resolves issues to which the right attaches without first obtaining the requisite waivers. As to whether the error was harmless, because the right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors derives from the United States Constitution, we assess prejudice under the standard set forth in Chapman. Under the Chapman standard, a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Authority:

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47

People v. Holmes (1960) 54 Cal.2d 442, 443–444

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

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 761 [When the trial court actually relies on improperly proven aggravating facts to justify an upper term sentence, a Sixth Amendment violation occurs and Chapman must be satisfied.]

Third Holding:

Because a reasonable jury could have concluded the defendant’s convictions were not of increasing seriousness, we remand for resentencing without the need to consider their numerosity. Even if we were to reach the issue, we would likely have reasonable doubt a jury would have concluded the defendant’s prior convictions were numerous. Whether prior convictions are “numerous” for purposes of rule 4.421(b)(2) is not further defined in the California Rules of Court. A reasonable jury might consider numerosity in terms of the number of criminal episodes resulting n convictions, not in the number of convictions alone.

Authority:

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 847

Fourth Holding:

We review the trial court’s failure to instruct on a lesser included offense de novo considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.

Authority:

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 847

Fifth Holding:

A trial court is obligated to instruct the jury on an uncharged lesser offense included in one charged if there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude the defendant committed the lesser, but not the greater, offense. Because this is a sua sponte obligation, a defendant may raise it for the first time on appeal. This instructional requirement prevents either party, whether by design or inadvertence, from forcing an all-or-nothing choice between conviction of the stated offense on the one hand, or complete acquittal on the other. Hence, the rule encourages a verdict, within the charge chosen by the prosecution, that is neither harsher nor more lenient than the evidence merits.

Authority:

People v. DePriest (2007) 42 Cal.4th 1, 50

People v. Brothers (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 24, 29-30, 33, fn. 6

Sixth Holding:

The most significant difference between the lesser offense described in section 148(a)(1) and the greater offense described in section 69(a) is that a defendant may be convicted of the lesser offense even if he did not use force or violence to effectuate the resistance. Accordingly, the trial court was required to instruct on the lesser offense of section 148(a)(1) resisting if substantial evidence supported a finding that the defendant did not use force or violence when he resisted the deputies.

Authority:

People v. Brown (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 140, 153

Seventh Holding:

Resisting an officer by force or violence under section 69(a) does not require either a threshold quantum of force or violence, or the use of force or violence upon the person of the officer. The statutory language does not, in other words, require the defendant to have actual physical contact with the officer. Thus, forceful resistance of an officer by itself gives rise to a violation of section 69, without proof force was directed toward or used on any officer. Here, there is no evidence the defendant did not use force in resisting arrest by the deputies. Under the facts here, there is no substantial evidence to show that only the lesser crime was committed. No reasonable juror could conclude the defendant’s physical resistance amounted to a violation of section 148(a)(1) but not of section 69(a). Therefore, the trial court was correct not to instruct the jury on section 148(a)(1).

Authority:

People v. Morgan (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 488, 508, disapproved on another ground in People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

People v. Carrasco (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 978, 985-986 [where uncontradicted evidence was that the defendant struggled forcefully against arrest, instruction on section 148(a)(1) was unnecessary because there was no evidence on which a jury could conclude the defendant resisted without violating section 69(a)]

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Fifth Amendment, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000347

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse and vacate the true findings on the gang murder special circumstances for counts 1 and 4. We also reverse and vacate the true findings on the gang enhancements for counts 1, 2, and 4. We remand the matter to the trial court to allow the District Attorney to retry the gang murder special circumstance and the gang enhancement for count 4 under the current version of the laws as amended by AB No. 333. Principles of double jeopardy preclude retrial as to the gang murder special circumstance for count 1 and the gang enhancement for counts 1 and 2.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 333 amended section 186.22. The amendment narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang as used for the gang enhancement in section 186.22(b) and the gang murder special circumstance in section 190.2(a)(22). It changed the definition to an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons whose members collectively engage in, or have engaged in, a pattern of criminal gang activity, rather than individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal gang activity under the former version of section 186.22. A pattern of criminal activity under former section 186.22(e) required two or more predicate offenses committed on separate occasions or by evidence of such offenses committed by two or more persons on the same occasion.

The amendment changed the requirements of a pattern of criminal activity in four ways. First, a pattern of criminal activity now requires the predicate offenses to be separate from the currently charged offense or offenses. Second, the last predicate offense must have occurred within three years of the commission of the currently charged offense. Third, it requires that the predicate offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to persons. Fourth, the predicate offenses must have commonly benefited a criminal street gang. AB 333 narrowed the common benefit for the gang by the commission of an offense to be more than reputational. The prosecution must show how the predicate offenses provided an actual common benefit to the gang, and that they did not merely enhance the reputation of its individual members.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(g)

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 738

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 460-461

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 450

Second Holding:

AB 333 applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments as we have here. The instructions read to the defendant’s jury preceded the effective date of AB 333 and his appeal was pending on that effective date. The new requirements in section 186.22 apply retroactively to his case on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 396

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 738-739

Third Holding:

We must reverse the gang enhancements and the gang murder special circumstance if any rational fact finder could have come to the opposite conclusion regarding the new requirements of AB 333.

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 462

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 739

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 453

Fourth Holding:

The double jeopardy clause of the federal constitution’s Fifth Amendment provides that no person may be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. The state constitution provides the same protection. A defendant may not be tried a second time for the same offense if the conviction is set aside for insufficiency of the evidence. Our conclusion that the gang special circumstance and the gang allegation were unsupported by sufficient evidence bars retrial.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 15

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 454-455, 468

Discretion, Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000346

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed a minimum $300 restitution fine and an assessment of $70 in ancillary costs. The trial court held a hearing and determined that the defendant had the ability to pay. We affirm the order on ancillary costs but remand to give the defendant the opportunity to further challenge the restitution fine under Kopp.

First Holding:

A person convicted of a crime can, and in some cases must, be ordered to pay a variety of punitive fines along with other nonpunitive ancillary costs. Some statutes require the imposition of fines and ancillary costs regardless of a defendant’s ability to pay. Other statutes require a finding of the ability to pay or allow for its consideration. Restitution fines under section 1202.4 are considered punitive fines, whereas assessments to fund court facilities and operations are considered ancillary costs. The distinction between punitive fines and other imposed payments is important because it impacts whether a given form of required payment is initially challenged under, and then reviewed under, the constitutional excessive fines clauses, or under the constitutional provision for equal protection.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 12, 14-15, 18 [we analyze fines and ancillary costs separately because different justifications support each, and different constitutional protections apply]

Second Holding:

If requested by a defendant, the court must consider the defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under section 1465.8(a)(1), or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1).

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 25-26, 30 [in light of the Legislature’s provision of fee waivers to indigent civil litigants, equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing either assessment]

Third Holding:

In reaching its conclusion that the defendant did not meet his burden to show his inability to pay the ancillary costs, the court considered his potential to earn wages while in prison and his general ability to work, which was within its discretion to do. The trial court did not state that it was relying solely on the defendant’s ability to earn wages while in prison. The court found simply that he is capable of working. The trial court’s conclusion that he had the ability to pay $70 in court assessments was not arbitrary or irrational.

Authority:

People v. Fish (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 730, 739 [collecting cases]

People v. Santos (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 923, 934 [factors to consider in determining ability to pay may include, among others, the defendant’s realistic ability to earn prison wages or obtain employment]

People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490, disapproved in part as stated in Kopp, at p. 23, fn. 17. 490 [trial court may consider potential prison pay during the period of incarceration” in determining inability to pay]

People v. Cervantes (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 213, 229 [ability to pay includes the ability both to obtain prison wages and to earn money after release from custody]

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377 [a trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it]

Fourth Holding:

Punitive fines are subject to a different approach. There is no due process requirement to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine. Sentencing judges may, and often do, consider the defendant’s ability to pay, but in such circumstances they are guided by sound judicial discretion rather than by constitutional mandate.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 23

San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez (1973) 411 U.S. 1, 22

Fifth Holding:

A court has discretion to impose a nonexcessive fine as punishment, even on indigent defendants. Thus, the excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines. The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry for excessive fines is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish. While ability to pay may be part of the proportionality analysis, it is not the only factor.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 8th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 21, 23

United States v. Bajakajian (1998) 524 U.S. 321, 334

Sixth Holding:

Under section 1202.4(b), the restitution fine shall be set at the discretion of the court and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. The court shall impose the restitution fine unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. A defendant’s inability to pay shall not be considered a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution fine. Inability to pay may be considered only in increasing the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the minimum fine.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4

Seventh Holding:

A court’s ruling on ability to pay is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating his or her inability to pay the imposed amounts.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 21, 24

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 868

People v. Lowery (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1046, 1057, 1053

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

Case: 000345

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Pursuant to a plea bargain, the two defendants pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter. Both petitioned the court for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. The court denied each man’s petition. We reverse and remand for the trial court to hold another evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 1172.6(d)(3) to determine whether the defendant’s would be guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt under current law.

First Holding:

In 2019, the Legislature enacted SB 1437, which altered the rules of murder liability to ensure culpability more closely matched punishment. To provide retroactive relief, SB 1437 also established a resentencing process, now codified in section 1172.6. This statute permits individuals convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter under a theory made invalid by the current law to petition the sentencing court to vacate the conviction and seek resentencing. Petitioners can seek such relief whether their convictions are the result of a trial or acceptance of a plea offer in lieu of a trial.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 472

Second Holding:

We review the court’s finding for substantial evidence, making all inferences in favor of the judgment.

Authority:

People v. Schell (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 437, 442

Third Holding:

Three times the court stated the defendants could be convicted of the crime to which they pleaded–voluntary manslaughter. In one instance, the court noted it was significant the crime they had pleaded to was manslaughter. However, that is not the question the court must answer. The evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6(d)(3), requires the court to determine whether the petitioner could be convicted of murder or attempted murder under current law – not manslaughter.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

Fourth Holding:

On this record, we cannot confidently find the trial court meant to find the two men could be found guilty of murder and not manslaughter under current law. We therefore remand for the court to hold an evidentiary hearing and answer the required question under section 1172.6(d)(3) with regard to their manslaughter convictions.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Jury instructions, Standard of review

Case 000344

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred and violated his due process rights by failing to provide a self-defense instruction as to the lesser included battery offense. We reverse defendant’s misdemeanor simple battery conviction.

First Holding:

The trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 239

Second Holding:

We independently review claims of instructional error. We examine 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 in an impermissible manner.

Authority:

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

People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218

People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1229

Third Holding:

Under appropriate circumstances a trial court may be required to give a requested jury instruction that pinpoints a defense theory of the case. But a trial court need not give a pinpoint instruction if it is argumentative , merely duplicates other instructions , or is not supported by substantial evidence. However, a defendant bears the burden of requesting a pinpoint instruction; a trial court has no sua sponte duty to provide one.

Authority:

People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 558

People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 824

Fourth Holding:

Furthermore, a trial court must instruct the jury sua sponte on general principles of law applicable to the case, including any defense supported by substantial evidence that is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case. In deciding whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the evidence, but only whether there is evidence which, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt.

Authority:

People v. Villanueva (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 41, 49

People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 195

People v. Orlosky (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 257, 269-270

Fifth Holding:

Generally, a party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language. But that rule does not apply when the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law. Moreover, a failure to object to instructional error will not result in forfeiture if the error affects the defendant’s substantial rights. In this instance, the trial court on its own modified the instruction on the lesser included offense of battery by omitting the element of lack of self-defense, and directing the jury to consider self-defense solely on the question of whether he acted in self-defense on the greater offense of inflicting corporal injury. The instruction affirmatively and erroneously precluded the jury from considering the self-defense evidence in connection with the lesser included battery charge.

Authority:

People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1011-1012

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

People v. Townsel (2016) 63 Cal.4th 25, 60

Sixth Holding:

The California Supreme Court has yet to determine whether a trial court’s failure to instruct on a requested affirmative defense instruction supported by substantial evidence is federal constitutional error or state law error. We need not resolve the question in this case, because the error was prejudicial even under the state law standard. Under that standard, reversal is warranted if it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error. In this context, a probability does not mean more likely than not, but merely a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 186, 199

People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 984

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [federal harmlessness standard]

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836-837 [state law harmlessness standard]

Richardson v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1040, 1050

Effective assistance of counsel, Fines and fees, Standard of review

Case: 000341

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court ordered restitution in the amount of the manufacturer’s suggested retail price rather than the wholesale price of the goods taken from the retailer. The items had been returned to the retailer following the arrest. Rather than attempt to resell the items on its website advertising “like new” items for sale, the retailer simply destroyed them or donated the items. It was error to base the value of the loss at the manufacturer’s suggested retail price. We will vacate the restitution order and remand for a new restitution hearing.

First Holding:

The defendant did not object on the specific ground that the measure should have been the wholesale value, but that it should have been calculated using a diminished value. Nonetheless, even assuming defendant did not properly object to the trial court’s calculation of restitution, reviewing courts may address issues on appeal that present pure questions of law. Because the proper measure of restitution presents a pure question of law, and in light of defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [an appellate court has authority to reach a forfeited claim]

Second Holding:

We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion. A victim’s restitution right is to be broadly and liberally construed. When there is a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court, no abuse of discretion will be found by the reviewing court.

Authority:

In re Johnny M. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1132

Third Holding:

A restitution order is not intended to provide the victim with a windfall; rather, it is intended to compensate for the victim’s actual loss. Here, there is no evidence in the record of any profits the retailer lost due to defendant’s crimes. As the People concede, giving the retailer restitution based on the retail value of the merchandise rather than the wholesale cost would provide a windfall, because such award would exceed the cost to replace those items.

Authority:

People v. Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1172, 1178-1180 [holding that hat because prosecutor presented no evidence that the retailer lost any profit due to the defendants’ theft, the court’s restitution order based on the retail price of the merchandise was improper]