Category Archives: Standard of review

Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000336 (There is no 000335)

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court should have stayed the sentence for either the assault or the battery conviction.

First Holding:

Although Code of Civil Procedure section 269 provided defendant with a statutory right to a certified shorthand reporter rather than an electronic recording, we conclude violation of that statutory right was harmless. The proceedings were recorded electronically and extensive transcripts were prepared based on the recordings.

The California Supreme Court has held that the trial court’s failure to comply with Penal Code section 190.9, requiring that all proceedings in a capital case be conducted on the record with a court reporter present, was harmless where the record was nevertheless adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.

Similarly, here, defendant possessed a statutory right to a certified court reporter, but the trial court’s inability to comply with that right, regardless of the reason, was harmless so long as the electronic recording produced an adequate appellate record.

(Gary note:  You might want to look at Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court (Contra Costa County) 8/10/26 S288176, in which the Supreme Court recognized the right to a verbatim transcript, whether by certified shorthand reporter or electronic, despite the Government Code section 69957 proscription against use of electronic recording other than in limited exceptions.  While the case was a civil dispute, the principles would seem to apply in criminal cases as well.  It’s at least worth looking at, because it may be useful on the quality of the transcript process even where criminal proceedings are electronically recorded.)

Authority:

CCP 269

People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1256-1258 (Hajek and Vo were abrogated on another point by People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1216)

Second Holding:

An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.

Authority:

PEN 654

Third Holding:

Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an act or omission may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective. We first consider if the different crimes were completed by a single physical act. If so, the defendant may not be punished more than once for that act.

Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single intent and objective or multiple intents and objectives. Section 654 prohibits multiple sentences where the defendant commits different acts that violate different statutes but the acts comprise an indivisible course of conduct engaged in with a single intent and objective.

Whether section 654 applies in a given case is a question of fact for the trial court, which is vested with broad latitude in making its determination. Its findings will not be reversed on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them.

Authority:

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

People v. Latten (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 574, 577

People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143

Fourth Holding:

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. Thus, unless the record clearly indicates which sentence the trial court would stay, remand is required to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion.

Authority:

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

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

Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case: 000331

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court failed to appropriately instruct the jury that, in order to find them guilty of implied malice murder as aiders and abettors, the jury must find that they personally acted with malice.

First Holding:

In order to find the defendants guilty of implied malice murder as aiders and abettors, the jury must find that they personally acted with malice.

Authority:

People v. Langi (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 972, 982 [the previous standard jury instructions on aider and abettor liability create an ambiguity under which the jury may find the defendant guilty of aiding and abetting second degree murder without finding that he personally acted with malice]

Second Holding:

We determine whether a jury instruction correctly states the law under the independent or de novo standard of review. When we review a purportedly erroneous instruction, we consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution. We consider the instructions as a whole and assume that jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.

Authority:

People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088

People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028

Third Holding:

If a trial court incorrectly instructs on an element of a charged offense such that the error impermissibly shifted or lowered the burden of proof for that element, the applicable standard of prejudice is the Chapman standard. Under the Chapman standard, a federal constitutional error requires reversal unless the People show the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570, 570–581

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

Fourth Holding:

For the error to be harmless, the state must show it would be impossible, based on the evidence, for a jury to make the findings reflected in its verdict without also making the findings that would support a valid theory of liability. While overwhelming evidence may demonstrate harmlessness, a court’s analysis of whether the evidence is overwhelming in this context is not as subjective or free-ranging as that term might imply. Instead, the analysis requires a court to rigorously review the evidence to determine whether any rational juror who found the defendant guilty based on an invalid theory, and made the factual findings reflected in the jury’s verdict, would necessarily have found the defendant guilty based on a valid theory as well. The question here is not the sufficiency of the evidence to support a valid theory, but its opposite.

Authority:

In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562, 568, 591

Fifth Holding:

In determining whether instructional error that leaves out an element of the offense is harmless, we do not focus exclusively on the evidence favorable to the verdict, and we do not presume the existence of any facts the jury might reasonably infer in favor of the prosecution. We do not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, and in doing so, we do not reweigh the evidence or resolve evidentiary conflicts. The testimony of a single witness may be sufficient—even if there is significant countervailing evidence, and the testimony is subject to justifiable suspicion. If a thorough review of the record shows there is any evidence that a rational juror could find as a basis for reasonable doubt as to any erroneously omitted element, then the error requires reversal, even when there is ample evidence to support a finding of guilt.

Authority:

People v. Madrigal (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 219, 243

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400

People v. Valenti (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1166, 1167

People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 1052

Sixth Holding:

Second degree murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought but without the additional elements, such as willfulness, premeditation, and deliberation, that would support a conviction of first degree murder. Malice may be either express, i.e., when a defendant manifests an intention to kill, or implied. Malice is implied when the killing is proximately caused by an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life. Thus, implied malice includes an objective component—an act that is dangerous to life—and a subjective component—the defendant’s awareness of and disregard for the danger. Intent to kill may be inferred from the defendant’s acts and the circumstances of the crime. A person can be convicted of aiding and abetting second degree murder based on implied malice.

Authority:

People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal. App. 5th 276, 299

People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 741

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 850 [Notwithstanding SB 1437’s elimination of natural and probable consequences liability for second degree murder, an aider and abettor who does not expressly intend to aid a killing can still be convicted of second degree murder if the person knows that his or her conduct endangers the life of another and acts with conscious disregard for life]

Seventh Holding:

In the context of implied malice, the actus reus required of the perpetrator is the commission of a life-endangering act. For the direct aider and abettor, the actus reus includes whatever acts constitute aiding the commission of the life-endangering act. Thus, to be liable for an implied malice murder, the direct aider and abettor must, by words or conduct, aid the commission of the life-endangering act, not the result of that act. The mens rea, which must be personally harbored by the direct aider and abettor, is knowledge that the perpetrator intended to commit the act, intent to aid the perpetrator in the commission of the act, knowledge that the act is dangerous to human life, and acting in conscious disregard for human life.

Authority:

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

Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review

000321

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by imposing sentence on the robberies which served as the predicate offenses for his murder conviction under the felony murder theory. We remand for full resentencing so the trial court may determine whether section 654 applies to all of the underlying robberies or to only one, and to correct other errors (if any) that the parties asserted in this appeal.

First Holding:

Section 654 provides that the same act or omission shall not be punished under more than one provision of law. Thus, where felony murder is the sole theory of murder under which the case was prosecuted, section 654 precludes imposition of separate terms for the predicate felonies for the theory of felony murder, for which defendant received his first degree murder sentence.

Authority:

PEN 654
People v. Montes (2014) 58 Cal.4th 809, 898

Second Holding:

An appellate court normally reviews the trial court’s factual determinations in applying section 654 for substantial evidence.

Authority:

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

People v. Jacobo (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 32, 53-54

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000319

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Summary denial of of the defendant’s 1172.6 petition without an evidentiary hearing was error where the jury had been given instructions that permitted it to find defendant guilty of murder under the felony murder rule or under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and allowed it to find him guilty of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature passed SB 1437 that amended sections 188 and 189 to significantly limit the reach of the felony-murder rule and to eliminate the natural and probable consequences doctrine in cases of first and second degree murder as it applies to aiding and abetting. The bill also added section 1172.6 to provide a procedural mechanism for defendants who could no longer be convicted of murder because of the amendments to petition for retroactive relief. The Legislature later amended section 1172.6 effective January 1, 2022, to provide resentencing relief to defendants convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 188

PEN 189

PEN 1172.6

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

People v. Rodriguez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 451, 457

Second Holding:

Section 189 as amended effective January 1, 2019, provides that a participant in the perpetration of a robbery or kidnapping (or attempted perpetration of those crimes) in which a death occurs is liable for first degree murder only if it is proven that the participant was the either (i) the actual killer; (ii) was not the actual killer but with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of the first degree murder; or, (iii) was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

PEN 189

Third Holding:

Upon receipt of a petition that sets forth the required allegations, the trial court must conduct a prima facie analysis and hearing to determine the defendant’s eligibility for relief. Although the court should not reject the petition’s factual allegations without first conducting an evidentiary hearing, it may make a credibility determination adverse to the defendant if the court’s own documents refute those allegations.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(b)(3) and (c)

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

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

Fourth Holding:

We review de novo the trial court’s denial of a section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 545

Fifth Holding:

It appears the trial court found that giving instructions that allowed the jury to find defendant guilty of murder based on theories of liability that had been abrogated by SB 1437 was harmless because the jury also received instructions on the still valid theories of being a major participant who aided and abetted with an intent to kill or acted with reckless indifference to human life. The difficulty here, however, is defendant was convicted in 2012, well before Banks clarified the law concerning major participant findings by identifying a series of considerations to assist in the inquiry whether a defendant is a major participant. Clark reiterated the Banks elements and substantially clarified the considerations relevant to determining whether a defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 798-804

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 611-623

Sixth Holding:

Unless a felony murder defendant was tried after Banks, a major participant finding will not defeat an otherwise valid prima facie case for section 1172.6 resentencing relief and, unless a defendant was tried after Clark, a reckless indifference to human life finding will not defeat an otherwise valid prima facie case for such relief. Because defendant was convicted before Banks and Clark, the special circumstance findings that he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life do not preclude him from establishing a prima facie case for resentencing relief.

Authority:

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 721

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000314

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court improperly imposed the upper term for the attempted murder conviction based on unpleaded and unproven aggravating factors. Accordingly, we will remand for resentencing and otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

In selecting a term of imprisonment, 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. Notwithstanding this rule, 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.

Authority:

PEN 1170

Second Holding:

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. 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. Further the United States Supreme Court rejected the argument that the prior conviction exception to the Sixth Amendment permits a judge to find perhaps any fact related to a defendant’s past offenses. Rather, a judge may do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 747, 768

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281

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

Third Holding:

A trial court’s 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. If the reviewing court cannot so determine, applying the Chapman standard of review, the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing. When assessing prejudice under Chapman, the proper inquiry is whether any rational fact finder could have come to the opposite conclusion. If a rational juror could have reached the opposite conclusion, the error is not harmless under Chapman. The Attorney General bears the burden of establishing that the federal constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

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

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

People v. Avalos (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 926, 953

Fourth Holding:

The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The record does not necessarily reflect that defendant’s convictions were increasing in seriousness. He was subject to a sustained juvenile petition for robbery, and his adult conviction was for unlawful firearm activity. A rational jury could have concluded that his felony conduct was not increasing in seriousness. The trial court’s remaining findings are subjective determinations that go beyond the mere fact of a prior conviction.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 767 [The Sixth Amendment jury trial right attaches to every aggravating fact, other than a prior conviction, used to justify imposition of the upper term]

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

Case: 000309

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Denial of petition to vacate judgment of murder and for resentencing under section 1172.6 is reversed. The appellant’s participation in the planning and commission of the robbery and failure to render aid to the co-defendant do not demonstrate that he acted with the requisite reckless indifference to human life to be culpable of murder.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted SB 1437 to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. As amended by SB 1437, section 189 now limits liability under a felony-murder theory to actual killers and those who, with the intent to kill, aid or abet the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree. Individuals who do not fall into those categories can be held liable for murder only if they were major participants in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in section 190.2(d)—the statute defining the felony-murder special circumstance. Section 1172.6 permits individuals who were convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory, but who could not be convicted of murder following SB 1437’s changes to sections 188 and 189, to petition the sentencing court to vacate the conviction and resentence on any remaining counts.

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 189

PEN 1172.6

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

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

Second Holding:

On appeal from an order denying a section 1172.6 petition after an evidentiary hearing, we review the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence. 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. 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 do not reweigh evidence or revisit the trial court’s credibility determinations.

Authority:

People v. Richardson (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1085, 1090

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

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

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

People v. Cody (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 87, 112-113

Third Holding:

In Banks, the Supreme Court set out a nonexhaustive list of considerations relevant to whether a defendant’s participation in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death is sufficiently significant to render him or her a major participant in the crime. Those considerations are: What role did the defendant have in planning the criminal enterprise that led to one or more deaths? What role did the defendant have in supplying or using lethal weapons? What awareness did the defendant have of particular dangers posed by the nature of the crime, weapons used, or past experience or conduct of the other participants? Was the defendant present at the scene of the killing, in a position to facilitate or prevent the actual murder, and did his or her own actions or inaction play a particular role in the death? What did the defendant do after lethal force was used?

Authority:

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 794, 803

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 705

Fourth Holding:

Clark similarly set forth a list of considerations relevant to determining whether a defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life. The first factor relates to weapons: was the defendant aware that weapons would be used in the felony? Did the defendant use a weapon? How many weapons were used in the crime? The court cautioned that the mere fact of a defendant’s awareness that a gun will be used in the felony is not sufficient to establish reckless indifference to human life. A robbery in which the only factor supporting reckless indifference to human life is the fact of the use of a gun is what the Banks court meant by a garden-variety armed robbery.

The second factor is the defendant’s physical proximity to the murder and the events leading up to it, and the opportunities that proximity afforded to restrain the crime or aid the victim.

The third factor is the duration of the felony, particularly the duration of the interaction between victims and perpetrators; more prolonged incidents provide “‘a greater window of opportunity for violence.

The fourth factor is the defendant’s awareness of his or her codefendants’ propensity for violence or likelihood of killing a victim.

The final factor is the defendant’s efforts to minimize the risk of violence during the felony, though the court cautioned that some effort to minimize the risk of violence does not, in itself, necessarily foreclose a finding that defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life. In cases where a defendant was a youth at the time of the crime, his or her age may also be relevant to determining whether he or she acted with reckless indifference.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 617-623

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 794, 802

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 885 fn 6

In re Moore (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 434, 453-454

People v. Ramirez (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 970, 987

Fifth Holding:

No single Banks or Clark factor is determinative. Lower courts should take care to consider the presence or absence relating to each relevant factor on its own merits before considering the evidence in its totality.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 618, 621-623

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 888

Sixth Holding:

There is significant overlap between being a major participant and acting with reckless indifference to human life, and the greater the defendant’s participation in the felony murder, the more likely that he acted with reckless indifference to human life. However, that does not necessarily mean that every major participant in a crime acts with reckless indifference to human life. Participation in a gardenvariety armed robbery is insufficient without more to establish reckless indifference. The defendant must not merely be aware of the foreseeable risk of death inherent in any violent felony; he or she must knowingly create a grave risk of death to demonstrate reckless indifference to human life. The defendant’s actions before and during the crime are important but not determinative; the key inquiry is what his actions reveal about his mental state.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 618, 614-615

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

Elements of crime, Fifth Amendment, Juveniles, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000306

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The evidence to support the alleged use of a deadly weapon is insufficient as a matter of law. The minor was alleged to have committed robbery with the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon (knife).

First Holding:

Section 12022(b)(1) allows a defendant’s sentence to be enhanced if he or she personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon during a felony. To prove use, the evidence must show something more than merely being armed. Intentionally displaying a weapon in a menacing manner qualifies. When a defendant deliberately shows a weapon or otherwise makes its presence known, and there is no evidence to suggest any purpose other than intimidating the victim (or others) so as to successfully complete the underlying offense, the fact finder is entitled to find a facilitative use rather than an incidental or inadvertent exposure. But the use enhancement is not applicable if the evidence shows that the defendant’s conduct with respect to the weapon appears to be purely incidental to the crime, or if the defendant did no more than passively display the weapon.

Authority:

People v. Chambers (1972) 7 Cal.3d 666, 672

People v. Wims (1995) 10 Cal.4th 293, 302

People v. Granado (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 317, 325

People v. Hays (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 534, 548–549

Second Holding:

To determine whether the defendant used a knife for purposes of section 12022(b)(1), we may properly consult cases construing the term uses in other enhancement statutes, including cases involving the personal use of a firearm. But in doing so, we are mindful that unlike a firearm, a knife can be, and usually is, used for innocent purposes, and for that reason is not among the few objects that are inherently deadly weapons.

Authority:

People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1198, overruled on other grounds in People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1216

People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 6

Third Holding:

In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support an enhancement, we review 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—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 59–60

Fourth Holding:

On a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we consider the record evidence, not how a trial court might have responded to a timely objection.

Authority:

People v. McCullogh (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 596

In re I.A. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 767, 776 [No objection is necessary to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for appeal]

People v. Hiller (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 335, 345 [a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is generally not subject to forfeiture]

Fifth Holding:

Reversal of the use enhancement for insufficiency of the evidence bars retrial of the enhancement.

Authority:

Tibbs v. Florida (1982) 457 U.S. 31, 42

People v. Eroshevich (2014) 60 Cal.4th 583, 591

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000305

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The order denying the petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is reversed.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. It accomplished this by amending sections 188 and 189. Section 188(a)(3) now prohibits imputing malice based solely on an individual’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a principal of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule in section 189(e). Section 189 requires the prosecution to prove the defendant was the actual killer; an aider and abettor to murder who acted with the intent to kill; or a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

PEN 189

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

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 868–869

Second Holding:

The Legislature, to provide relief to those with existing murder convictions dependent on theories of the crime it had rejected, devised a path to resentencing. It has since expanded this path to allow relief for those with attempted murder convictions based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558

Third Holding:

If the record of conviction establishes ineligibility for resentencing as a matter of law, the petition is properly denied at the prima facie stage. However, the petition and record of conviction must establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 970-972

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

Fourth Holding:

We independently review a trial court’s determination whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief.

Authority:

We independently review a trial court’s determination whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief.

Fifth Holding:

We conclude the defendant has made a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief. The record of conviction does demonstrate a possibility that he was convicted of second degree murder under an imputed malice theory, that is, that he was guilty of murder based solely on his participation in the robbery. In assessing section 1172.6 petitions, the jury instructions will be critical. Indeed we look at the jury’s verdicts, viewed in light of the court’s jury instructions, to assess whether a defendant has made a prima facie showing for relief under section 1172.6.

Authority:

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 731

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 441

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000304

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant filed a petition for dismissal citing three different Penal Code sections—sections 1203.4, 1203.4a, and 1203.41. The trial court denied the petition based on section 1203.41, under which the defendant was not entitled to relief. We reverse and remand to allow the court to consider the defendant’s claim for relief under section 1203.4.

First Holding:

The trial court’s denial of relief under any of these statutes (1203.4, 1203.41, 1203.4a) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. McLernon (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 569, 572

Second Holding:

Section 1203.4 authorizes the trial court to expunge a criminal record if the defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period, the defendant was discharged before the probation period ended, or if the court believes relief should be granted in the interests of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1203.4

Third Holding:

Section 1203.4a authorizes dismissal of charges against defendants who are convicted of misdemeanors but were not granted probation.
Authority:

Authority:

PEN 1203.4a

Fourth Holding:

Section 1203.41 allows an individual convicted of a felony, under certain circumstances, to withdraw a guilty or nolo contendere plea, or set aside a guilty verdict in the interests of justice, in the court’s discretion. The crime to which the defendant pleaded guilty is a wobbler. In this case, because the defendant was sentenced to probation with 364 days in county jail, it is a misdemeanor offense.

Authority:

PEN 1203.41

People v. McElroy (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 874, 880

Fifth Holding:

it appears the trial court may have been confused by the defendant’s petition, which sought relief under all three statutes. Relief was not authorized to the defendant under sections 1203.4a and 1203.41, and the court did not err in denying relief under section 1203.41. When a trial court evaluates a petition under the incorrect statute or misunderstands the scope of its discretion, this is an abuse of discretion and the case must be reversed and remanded for an exercise of informed discretion, unless the record clearly indicates the same result would follow.

Authority:

People v. Fuhrman (1997) 16 Cal.4th 930, 944 [where the record affirmatively discloses that the trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion, remand to the trial court is required]

People v. Parker (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 498, 501–502 [case remanded because trial court mistakenly believed an imposed but suspended sentence is a bar to section 1203.4 relief]

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000302

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendants are entitled to retrial on the counts for active participation in a criminal street gang in light of AB 333’s retroactive changes to section 186.22. It was error to order Defendant’s 2 and 3 to be jointly responsible for the funeral expenses of the victim killed by Defendant 1. In addition there were several errors in Defendant 1’s consolidated abstract of judgment that need correction.

First Holding:

During the appeal, the Legislature amended section 186.22’s defendant of a criminal street gang. It narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons; it requires that the pattern of criminal activity foundational to a criminal street gang have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang; it also imposed further requirements limiting the offenses on which a pattern of criminal gang activity could be predicated; and it required that for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, any common benefit be more than reputational.

Authority:

AB 333

PEN 186.22

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

Second Holding:

The ameliorative amendments apply retroactively to all cases not yet final as of its effective date.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

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

Third Holding:

The trial court instructed the jury on the then-applicable definition of a criminal street gang, omitting several of the requirements that have now been imposed by AB 333. The jury instruction thus relieved the prosecution of its burden to prove all elements of the crime as now defined.

Authority:

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 742

Fourth Holding:

We apply the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard articulated in Chapman. When a jury instruction has omitted an element of an offense, our task is to determine whether the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the omitted element. The question is not whether there is evidence in the record that would support a jury finding of the missing element, but whether we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same had the jury been instructed on the missing element.

Authority:

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

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 742-743

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 449

Fifth Holding:

All three defendants will be entitled to a full resentencing upon remand, independent of the prosecution’s election whether to pursue the gang charge or enhancements on remand. The full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

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

Sixth Holding:

We observe, however, that neither Defendant 2 nor Defendant 3 can be ordered to pay restitution for any losses attributable to Defendant 1’s murder of the deceased. Neither of them were charged with any offense involving the deceased, and nothing in the evidence before the jury or the court at sentencing implicated them in his murder. It was accordingly error to make them jointly and severally liable for the deceased’s funeral expenses.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f) [authorizing restitution where a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct]

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [unauthorized sentence cannot be lawfully imposed]

Seventh Holding:

Defendant 1’s consolidated abstract of judgment requires correction. First, in case number A, the abstract of judgment erroneously lists as stayed count 2’s multiple-murder special circumstance when the trial court vacated this finding. In case number B, Defendant 1’s conviction for assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of section 245(a)(4) is described on the abstract as “Asslt w/deadly wpn/force likely to prod GBI.” We agree that an amended abstract should be reworded to avoid confusion between assault with a deadly weapon (sec. 245(a)(1), (2), or (3))—a serious felony under section 1192.7—and assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (sec. 245(a)(4)).

(GARY NOTE–the appellate court did not cite case authority for the correction of the abstract, but it is abundantly clear the court has that authority. I have set forth some below)

Authority:

PEN 1192.7(c) [listing serious felonies]

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1065

[on correction of abstracts]

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

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

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

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Defenses, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000300

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We order the protective order modified to strike [person x] as a protected person. We reject the defendant’s claim that the trial erred in not sua sponte instruction on the defense of unconsciousness.

First Holding:

Unconsciousness, if not induced by voluntary intoxication, is a complete defense to a criminal charge. For purposes of the defense, unconsciousness need not rise to the level of coma or inability to walk or perform manual movements; it can exist where the subject physically acts but is not, at the time, conscious of acting. The law presumes that a person who appears to be acting in a state of consciousness is conscious. Accordingly, the burden is on a criminal defendant to produce evidence rebutting this presumption of consciousness. If a defendant produces substantial evidence that he or she was unconscious, the trial court is obligated to instruct the jury on the theory; the failure to do so is error. In this case, the defendant did not rebut the presumption of his consciousness, and it was therefore not error for the trial court to fail to instruct the jury on unconsciousness sua sponte.

Authority:

PEN 26

People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 417

People v. James (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 794, 804

Second Holding:

Unconsciousness caused by voluntary intoxication may negate specific intent, but it is not a defense to a general intent crime. Assault with a deadly weapon is a general intent crime. Reckless evasion of a peace officer is a specific intent crime.

Authority:

People v. James (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 794, 805

People v. Rocha (1971) 3 Cal.3d 893, 899

People v. Williams (2001) 26 Cal.4th 779, 788

People v. Taylor (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1195, 1203-1206

Third Holding:

We review de novo whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury.

Authority:

People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 78

Fourth Holding:

A case is not authority for propositions not considered.

Authority:

People v. Chavez (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 477, 480

Fifth Holding:

Where a defendant is convicted of certain defined crimes of domestic violence, the trial may issue a protective order restraining the defendant from any contact with a victim of the crime. Such orders are limited to defendants convicted of crimes that qualify as domestic violence and where the protected person qualifies as a victim of said crimes. The trial court does not have authority to restrain a defendant from contacting a person who was not present during or otherwise suffered harm from the crime.

For instance, a protective order covering children who were present but asleep during a domestic violence incident was found to be improper in Lopez. With respect to the issuance of a legally authorized criminal protective order, we imply all findings necessary to support the judgment, and our review is limited to whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support these implied findings.

The record here contains no substantial evidence from which the trial court reasonably could conclude that [person x] was a victim of the crime subject to protection under section 136.2(i)(1).

Authority:

PEN 136.2,(i)(1)

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 237

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 648

People v. Race (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 211, 217

People v. Delarosarauda (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 205, 212 [absent evidence from which the trial court could reasonably conclude that appellant had harmed or attempted to harm two children, the court lacked authority to issue the no-contact protective order as to the children]

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000298

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Although a trial court has broad discretion in imposing terms and conditions when sentencing a criminal defendant to probation instead of imprisonment, any conditions imposed must have some relationship to the crime and be designed to prevent future criminality. In this case, one of the probation conditions imposed required defendant to participate in mental health and substance abuse testing and treatment. Not only was this unconnected to the underlying crime, any suggestion in the probation and sentencing report that defendant suffered from mental health or substance abuse issues was wholly unsupported. Therefore, that probation condition must be stricken.

Holding:

A sentencing court has broad discretion to impose probation conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.1. But such discretion is not unlimited: A condition of probation must serve a purpose specified in the statute and conditions regulating noncriminal conduct must be reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality. A probation condition will be upheld unless all of the following are true: it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. We review a challenge to the conditions of probation for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 403

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