Category Archives: Standard of review

Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Standard of review

Case: 000219

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in instructing the jury that implied malice murder can be based on an act that was reasonably foreseeable to cause death rather than highly likely to cause death. The prosecutor erred by making arguments to the jury on the same point. The defendant’s convictions on the counts of murder are reversed. The charges may be retried on remand. [The defendant was convicted as a result of the death of three occupants of a vehicle he crashed into while he was driving under the influence.]

First Holding:

Malice may be implied when a defendant does an act with a high probability that it will result in death and does it with a base antisocial motive and with a wanton disregard for human life. The trial court erred here by requiring only that death be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of appellant’s act, rather than a highly probable one. Similarly, the prosecutor erred by arguing to the jury that it need not find that appellant’s act of driving impaired created a strong probability of death.

Authority:

People v. Dellinger (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1212, 1219

Second Holding:

When the trial court misinstructs the jury on an element of a charged crime, we consider prejudice under the standard of Chapman. Under that standard, we reverse the judgment unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

People v. Hendrix (2022) 13 Cal.5th 933, 942

Amelioration, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case: 000211

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Earlier, the defendant pleaded guilty to the first degree murder and admitted a firearm enhancement, admitting that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and proximately caused great bodily injury and death to another person, who is not an accomplice. The trial court denied his petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage. He has not, at this juncture, made a prima facie case for relief under section 1172.6 in light of the record of conviction. Out of an abundance of caution, we remand the matter to the trial court with directions for that court to consider an amended petition should the defendant, within 30 days of that remand, seek to file one.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature enacted SB 1437 to modify accomplice liability for murder and the felony-murder rule. It eliminated natural and probable consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting, and limited the scope of the felony-murder rule. Section 1172.6 is the new law’s procedure allowing people convicted of murder under the old law to petition for an order vacating their convictions and resentencing them on remaining counts if they could not now be convicted because of the changes made to sections 188 and 189 by SB 1437.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 563, 569–570

People v. Mares (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1158, 1164

Second Holding:

Regarding the prima facie stage, the court takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if the factual allegations were proved. If so, the court must issue an order to show cause. A court should not reject the petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. However, if the record, including the court’s own documents, contains facts refuting the allegations made in the petition, then the court is justified in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 563

Third Holding:

In reviewing any part of the record of conviction at this preliminary juncture, a trial court should not engage in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion. The preliminary hearing transcript preceding a guilty plea is part of the record of conviction that may be consulted at the prima facie stage. When, as here, the petitioner’s conviction resulted from a guilty plea rather than a trial, the record of conviction includes the facts the defendant admitted as the factual basis for a guilty plea. It also includes the petitioner’s express admissions at the plea colloquy.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 564, 568-569

People v. Glass (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 922, 927

Fourth Holding:

We review the denial of a petition at the prima facie stage de novo.

Authority:

People v. Saavedra (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 444, 447

Fifth Holding:

As in Patton, and out of an abundance of caution, we will grant the defendant’s request to remand the matter to permit him to plead additional facts. We therefore will order a remand to the trial court with directions for that court to consider an amended petition should the defendant, within 30 days of that remand, seek to file one.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 569-570

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000210

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for full resentencing. The trial court abused its discretion when declining to fully strike the firearm enhancement or strike it and impose a lesser firearm enhancement. The trial court errantly focused only on the defendant’s past and present danger to public safety, and not whether striking the enhancement would endanger public safety in the future. The trial court erred in deciding whether striking the enhancement would endanger public safety because, as the record of the sentencing hearing indicates, it focused solely on defendant’s past conduct and the circumstances of the murder. In the context of section 1385, the key question is forward looking—whether striking the enhancement would likely endanger public safety. Thus, even if the trial court struck the enhancement, the defendant would still be serving an indeterminate 15-to-life term with parole eligibility subject to the Parole Board and Governor’s review. The trial court must consider this future-looking issue for purposes of public safety.

First Holding:

A trial court’s decision not to dismiss an enhancement pursuant to section 1385 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion arises if the trial court based its decision on impermissible factors or on an incorrect legal standard. A court acting while unaware of the scope of its discretion is understood to have abused it.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 694 [reminding that a defendant is entitled to sentencing decisions made by a court exercising informed discretion]

Second Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022,Penal Code section 1385 was amended 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. It reads, in part, “Notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so …. In exercising its discretion under this subdivision, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) 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.” Subparagraphs (A) to (I) list nine distinct mitigating circumstances, including, as is relevant here, subparagraph (C) where the application of an enhancement could result in a sentence of over 20 years. Subparagraph (C) states in this instance, the enhancement shall be dismissed.

Authority:

PEN 1385

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

Third Holding:

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 of the enhancement will impact the length of the defendant’s sentence. For a defendant facing a lengthy indeterminate sentence, the inquiry should also take into account that the defendant’s release from prison is contingent on review by the Board of Parole Hearings (and for murder convictions, by the Governor), who will have the opportunity to assess the defendant’s dangerousness at that time. This future review will act as a safety valve against a release that would endanger the public and is relevant to a trial court’s analysis of whether the dismissal of an enhancement imposed on a defendant serving an indeterminate prison term will endanger public safety.

Authority:

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

 

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Fifth Amendment, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000206

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The true findings on the gang enhancements and gang-related firearm enhancements are vacated. The sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded. On remand, the People may retry the enhancement allegations under the law as amended by AB 333. If the People do not retry the enhancements, or at the conclusion of a retrial, the trial court shall conduct a full resentencing.

First Holding:

Several years after the defendant was sentenced, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) recommended recall and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.1(a)(1), based on the defendant’s exceptional conduct while incarcerated. The trial court recalled the sentence and resentenced him to 40 years to life, despite the recommendation by both parties that the sentence be reduced to a determinate term less than half that 40-year minimum. The trial court erred in not examining the impact of AB 333, which amended the gang activity statutes significantly. When the defendant’s sentence was recalled, the trial court regained the jurisdiction and duty to consider what punishment was appropriate for him, and the defendant regained the right to appeal whatever new sentence was imposed. His judgment thus became nonfinal, and it remains nonfinal in its present posture. The defendant is entitled to the benefits of AB 333’s ameliorative changes to section 186.22.

Authority:

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 161–162

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 312 [the application of law to undisputed facts is a question of law subject to de novo review]

Second Holding:

The evidence adduced at the defendant’s trial was insufficient to establish that the predicate offenses benefitted the gang beyond enhancing its reputation. Accordingly, we must vacate the true findings on the gang enhancements under section 186.22(b)(1), as well as the true findings on the gang-related firearm enhancements under section 12022.53(b), (c), (d), and (e)(1).

Authority:

People v. Lee (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 232, 239–240

People v. Perez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 192, 206, fn. 11

Third Holding:

Because we do not reverse based on the insufficiency of the evidence required to prove a violation of the statute as it read at the time of trial, the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution will not bar a retrial. Where, as here, evidence is not introduced at trial because the law at that time would have rendered it irrelevant, the remand to prove that element is proper and the reviewing court does not treat the issue as one of sufficiency of the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 669-670

Fourth Holding:

Whether the People decide not to retry the enhancements, or at the conclusion of such a retrial, the defendant is entitled to a full resentencing.

Authority:

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

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424–425 [the full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant]

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000202

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court’s finding that the People provided clear and convincing evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in his commission of the offenses was not supported by substantial evidence. We remand to the trial court for a new diversion eligibility hearing under section 1001.36. If the court determines that defendant is eligible for diversion, it may grant his application. If the court determines defendant is ineligible, defendant’s convictions and sentence shall be reinstated.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted sections 1001.35 and 1001.36 to authorize trial courts to grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendants with qualifying mental disorders. To be eligible for mental health diversion, a defendant must have been diagnosed within the past five years with a mental disorder identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the defendant’s mental disorder must be a significant factor in the commission of the offense. There is a presumption that a defendant’s mental disorder diagnosis, if the diagnosis occurred within the past five years, was a significant factor in the commission of the offense. Once a presumption is established, it is the People’s burden to provide clear and convincing evidence that defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to overcome it.

Authority:

PEN 1001.35

PEN 1001.36

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 678

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on an application for mental health diversion for an abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. A court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. By definition, ‘substantial evidence’ requires evidence and not mere speculation.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Ramon (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 843, 851

Third Holding:

In reviewing a trial court’s finding that a fact has been proven by clear and convincing evidence, the question before us is whether the record contains evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the disputed fact was true. We view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence. Those inferences must be drawn from evidence rather than speculation

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401-402

People v. Ramon (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 843, 851

Fourth Holding:

The absence of evidence proving that defendant’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses is not substantial evidence supporting a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s mental disorder was not a factor in the commission of the offenses.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 404

Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000200

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant’s sentence on two firearm enhancements and one possession of an explosive device should have been imposed and stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. We modify the judgment accordingly.

First 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

Second 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. Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor.

Authority:

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

People v. Dowdell (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1414

Third Holding:

When a trial court sentences a defendant to separate terms without making an express finding the defendant entertained separate objectives, the trial court is deemed to have made an implied finding each offense had a separate objective. We review for substantial evidence a trial court’s implied finding that a defendant had separate intents and objectives for different offenses.

Authority:

People v. Islas (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 116, 129

People v. Dowdell (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1414

In re L.J. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 37, 43

Fourth Holding:

The sentences on each of three counts were based on his simultaneous possession of two completed assault rifles, and we assume that such possession can constitute two physical acts for the purposes of section 654. Even so, multiple punishment can be imposed consistent with section 654—on two of the three counts —only if substantial evidence in the record supports an implied finding that he had a separate objective in possessing one firearm versus the other. Our review of the record reveals no such evidence. Section 654 also prohibits multiple punishment for both possession of an explosive device and possession of ingredients to make an explosive device, because the explosives the defendant possessed were not actually capable of exploding, and thus identical evidence supported both counts. Both counts were based on the defendant’s possession of the ingredients in the box truck, at the same time and place, and under the same circumstances. Both counts were based on, essentially, the same course of conduct.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 358 [suggesting simultaneous possession of different items of contraband’ are separate acts for purposes of section 654]

In re L.J. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 37, 43

Fifth Holding:

Because it is apparent from the sentence imposed that the sentence would be little changed as a result of remand, in the interests of judicial economy, and given that the parties agree on this remedy, we will modify the judgment to stay the sentences on counts 5 and 6 rather than remand for resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1260 [authority to modify unauthorized sentence]

People v. Burns (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 1178, 1184 [staying execution of the penalty imposed is the preferred remedy for section 654 error where the reduction in sentence would be relatively minor because in such cases, it would not serve the interests of justice or judicial economy to require remand]

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473 [exercising authority to modify judgment to impose and stay sentence under section 654 rather than remand for resentencing that will not change defendant’s actual prison time]

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

Case: 000188

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court denied the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion under section 1001.36, and placed him on probation. The evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that his undisputed mental health disorders were not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor in his involvement in the crime. We will reverse the probation order due to insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s finding of ineligibility for mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36(b)(2). We will remand the matter for the trial court to exercise its discretion under Penal Code section 1001.36(c) regarding defendant’s suitability for mental health diversion.

First Holding:

Since 2018, Penal Code section 1001.36 has afforded trial courts discretion to grant criminal defendants suffering from certain recognized mental disorders pretrial diversion to receive mental health treatment. Diversion allows for the suspension of criminal proceedings and potential dismissal of charges upon successful completion of mental health treatment. The express purpose of the legislation was to increase diversion of eligible individuals, and later amendments have only confirmed the Legislature’s desire to expand mental health treatment through diversion. As currently enacted, a defendant accused of a qualifying offense is eligible for mental health diversion if the defendant has been diagnosed with a qualifying mental health disorder which was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense. A qualifying diagnosis creates a rebuttable presumption that the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense. The presumption can be overcome if there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113, 119

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 890

Second Holding:

We review for substantial evidence a decision that a qualifying mental health disorder (which the trial court found to exist here) was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor in the charged conduct—a finding that must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Given that standard, on appeal we must determine whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true. We also must view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.

Even considering the record in the light most favorable to the challenged ruling, we conclude it does not contain substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found it highly probable that defendant’s mental disorders were not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor in his involvement in the crime. A qualifying diagnosis creates a presumption that the defendant’s mental condition contributed to his criminal behavior. And the prosecution can only rebut this presumption by producing clear and convincing evidence that there was no causal connection. he statutory presumption is not overcome simply by the absence of evidence that the mental disorder was a motivating factor, or the absence of evidence that the defendant was actively experiencing symptoms while committing the crime. The statutory presumption is not overcome simply by the absence of evidence that the mental disorder was a motivating factor, or the absence of evidence that the defendant was actively experiencing symptoms while committing the crime.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401, 404

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 995–996

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

Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

000184

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A jury found the defendant guilty of felony reckless evasion of a police officer. There were evidentiary conflicts. Under the highly deferential substantial evidence review standard, we conclude the conflicting trial evidence nonetheless supports his conviction. These evidentiary conflicts were sufficient, however, to raise a substantial question about whether all the elements of reckless evasion were present, warranting an instruction on the lesser included offense of simple evasion. We conclude failure to give this instruction was prejudicial error.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment with the direction that if the People do not timely elect to retry the defendant for reckless evasion, then the judgment shall be modified to reflect a conviction for simple evasion and the trial court shall resentence the defendant.

First Holding:

It is undisputed that misdemeanor simple evasion (Veh. Code, sec. 2800.1) is a lesser included offense of felony reckless evasion (Veh. Code, sec. 2800.2) and that the only distinction between the two crimes is that the greater offense requires proof of the additional element that the defendant drove the pursued vehicle in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. The greater offense’s additional element can be established by proving that during the evasion the defendant committed three or more violations that are assigned a traffic violation point count under section 12810.

Authority:

VEH 2800.1

VEH 2800.2

People v. Springfield (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1674, 1680

People v. Diaz (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1486

Second Holding:

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not determine the facts ourselves. Rather, we examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence — evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value — such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact. Moreover, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a convictionIf the circumstances reasonably justify the findings made by the trier of fact, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.

Authority:

People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1215

People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756, 819–820

People v. Ramirez (2022) 13 Cal.5th 997, 1118

People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 638, 639

Third Holding:

California law has long provided that even absent a request, and over any party’s objection, a trial court must instruct a criminal jury on any lesser offense necessarily included in the charged offense, if there is substantial evidence that only the lesser crime was committed. This venerable instructional rule ensures that the jury may consider all supportable crimes necessarily included within the charge itself, thus encouraging the most accurate verdict permitted by the pleadings and the evidence. The rule 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.

Thus, a trial court errs if it fails to instruct, sua sponte, on all theories of a lesser included offense which find substantial support in the evidence. On the other hand, the court is not obliged to instruct on theories that have no such evidentiary support. In this context, substantial evidence is not any evidence, no matter how weak; it is evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive. If there is no proof, other than an unexplainable rejection of the prosecution’s evidence, that the offense was less than that charged, such instructions shall not be given. Although we concluded above that substantial evidence supports the finding that the defendant committed at least three qualifying Vehicle Code violations during the pursuit, there is also substantial evidence that he did not commit at least three qualifying violations. Accordingly, the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte regarding this lesser included offense.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 239–240

People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154

People v. Williams (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1244, 1263

People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1063

Fourth Holding:

We apply the generally applicable California test for harmless error under which we deem an error harmless unless it is reasonably probable the outcome would have been different in the absence of the error. Other than in cases involving the unique relationship between murder and voluntary manslaughter, the general rule is that the failure to instruct on other forms of lesser included offenses in noncapital cases is an error of state law. A reasonable probability in this context does not mean more likely than not, but merely a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility. In assessing prejudice, we consider both the magnitude of the error and the closeness of the case. Applying this standard, we find the error here prejudicial.

Authority:

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 251

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

People v. Hendrix (2022) 13 Cal.5th 933, 944

People v. Vasquez (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 786, 798

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000183

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court denied the defendant’s petition for recall filed under Penal Code section 1172.6 his attempted murder conviction. His guilty plea did not conclusively establish his ineligibility for resentencing as a matter of law and the court improperly engaged in factfinding to determine his eligibility for relief. We conclude the court erred in denying the petition at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause. Because the record does not conclusively show that the defendant acted with the specific intent to kill, it cannot establish ineligibility for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law. At minimum, the petition raised a factual question requiring further inquiry, and the trial court was not permitted to resolve that question against him at the prima facie stage.

First Holding:

When evaluating a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, the trial court must determine at the prima facie stage whether the petitioner made a showing entitling them to relief. Although the court may consult the record of conviction to assess eligibility, it is prohibited from engaging in factfinding, weighing the evidence, or exercising its own discretion. The court generally must accept the petitioner’s factual allegations as true unless they are conclusively refuted by the record of conviction.

A court may deny a petition at the prima facie stage only if the record of conviction demonstrates, incontrovertibly and as a matter of law, that the petitioner is ineligible for relief. Unless the record “conclusively establishes” that the defendant committed the acts and harbored the mental state required for liability under a still-valid theory, the allegations of the petition may not be disregarded. And if the petitioner could, at an evidentiary hearing, present evidence rebutting the record, the matter necessarily involves factual determinations that cannot be resolved at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

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

People v. Ervin (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 90, 101

People v. Rivera (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 217, 230

People v. Estrada (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 328, 339

Second Holding:

Applying these principles, we independently review the trial court’s denial of resentencing. We review factual findings for substantial evidence but evaluate the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo. Under this standard, the record of conviction does not conclusively establish that the defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

Authority:

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

People v. Arnold (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 376, 383

Third Holding:

Before SB 1437 and 775, a defendant could be convicted of attempted murder either by directly aiding and abetting with the intent to kill or under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Following those statutory amendments, liability based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine is no longer valid for attempted murder, but direct aiding and abetting with intent to kill remains a valid theory. A petitioner is therefore eligible for resentencing only if the conviction could have been based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Because the defendant’s plea is fully consistent with both theories—(1) direct aiding and abetting with intent to kill, and (2) aiding another offense whose natural and probable consequence was attempted murder—the record does not foreclose the latter, invalid theory. The absence of any explicit admission of intent to kill is critical. A defendant’s guilty plea to attempted murder does not, by itself, establish that he personally harbored express malice; defendants routinely plead to charges for reasons unrelated to their precise mental state, including the reasonable belief that a jury might convict under an at-the-time valid imputed-malice theory.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 451, 456–457

People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 546, 548

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

Case: 000181

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court employed an incorrect standard of review for determining whether the defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under Penal Code section 1172.6 should be denied. Reversed and remanded for another new hearing.

First Holding:

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. The legislation amended section 188 to provide that, except in cases of felony murder, in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought.

It also created, in what is now section 1172.6, a mechanism for individuals convicted of qualifying offenses to petition for resentencing. If the trial court finds that a petitioning defendant has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing. At that hearing, the burden of proof shall be on the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder or attempted murder under California law as amended by the changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

PEN 188(a)

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

Second Holding:

On appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition after an evidentiary hearing, the appellate court reviews the superior court’s factual findings for substantial evidence and the court’s application of the law to those facts de novo.

Authority:

People v. Hill (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1066

Third Holding:

For the trial court to properly conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant here was guilty of murder under the law as amended, the People had to prove he was the actual killer, or that he directly aided and abetted the murder and thus possessed malice aforethought. Felony murder is not at issue in this case.

Authority:

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 710 [sec. 1172.6 relief is unavailable if the defendant was the actual killer]

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 848 [SB 1437 does not eliminate direct aiding and abetting liability for murder because a direct aider and abettor to murder must possess malice aforethought], [abrogated on another ground as stated in People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756, 836]

Fourth Holding:

It was an error for the trial court to conclude that the court had to determine whether the People could prove they could obtain a conviction of the defendant based on basic accomplice liability or whether he acted with reckless disregard for the life of the victim. The correct standard for the trial court at defendant’s section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing was whether the prosecution has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant is guilty of murder under California law as amended.

The trial court’s reference to whether defendant acted with reckless disregard for life is inapposite, because that aspect is relevant only in the context of whether a defendant was a major participant in the commission of a different felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life–i.e., it is relevant only to felony murder, which is not at issue in this case. Further, the trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable jury would convict the defendant as he was charged. But at the section 1172.6 hearing, it is the trial court that is the fact finder tasked with holding the People to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

Authority:

People v. Harris (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 623, 632

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000178

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36. The People concede that the court erred in finding the him ineligible for diversion. The judgment is conditionally reversed, the order denying the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion is vacated, and the matter is remanded for the trial court to reconsider his diversion motion consistent with this opinion. If the trial court again denies the motion, the judgment shall be reinstated.

First Holding:

A trial court may grant mental health diversion to defendants who satisfy the eligibility and suitability requirements set forth in the statute. A defendant is eligible for diversion if he or she has been diagnosed with a qualifying mental disorder and that disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense. A defendant is suitable for diversion if the defendant’s symptoms would respond to mental health treatment, the defendant consents to diversion and waives the right to a speedy trial, the defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion, and the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s denial of 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. When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true. In making this assessment the appellate court must view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.

Authority:

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

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011

Third Holding:

Under the statute, a trial court must presume that a defendant’s diagnosed mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the crime, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. The prosecution bears the burden of presenting such clear and convincing evidence. The absence of evidence proving that a defendant’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses is not substantial evidence supporting a finding by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant’s mental disorder was not a factor in the commission of the offenses.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 404

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

Case: 000175

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred in considering grand jury testimony at the evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motion to recall his sentence under Penal Code section 1172.6.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 narrowed the scope of the felony-murder rule and eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a basis for murder liability. Among other things, the enactment amended section 188 to require that a principal convicted of murder act with malice aforethought. It further provided that malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime. It also added a procedure to permit individuals convicted of murder under prior law to seek vacatur of their convictions and resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448-450

Second Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature adopted SB 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) to expressly allow those convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or manslaughter to seek resentencing. The Legislature enacted the provision to clarify that persons who were convicted of attempted murder or manslaughter under a theory of felony murder and the natural and probable consequences doctrine are permitted the same relief as those persons convicted of murder under the same theories.

Authority:

People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 544, 548

Third Holding:

A trial court’s denial of a section 1172.6 petition following an evidentiary hearing is ordinarily reviewed for substantial evidence. Under this standard, an appellate court reviews the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The meaning of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 988

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

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1032

Fourth Holding:

A panel of this court concluded that testimony from a grand jury proceeding is admissible in an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6(d)(3) as evidence previously admitted at any prior hearing or trial.

Authority:

People v. Robinson (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 854, 872, review granted February 26, 2025, S288606

Fifth Holding:

Pending our state high court’s decision, we conclude that testimony adduced at a grand jury proceeding is not admissible in a section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing. The context in which section 1172.6 uses the word “hearing,” precludes a broad reading of the term. With limited exception, the Legislature’s statutory scheme for grand jury proceedings does not label a grand jury proceeding a “hearing.” Instead, the Legislature provided that grand juries convene in “sessions” (Pen. Code, secs. 934, 935, 938, 939, 939.1) or “proceedings” (Pen. Code, secs. 891, 939.21; see Pen. Code, pt. 2, tit. 4, chs. 1-3, sec. 888 et seq. [entitled “Grand Jury Proceedings”]).

Authority:

Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1249 [looking to context to construe term “hearing”]

Sixth Holding:

Grand jury proceedings are different in kind from the hearings and trials that are undisputedly covered by section 1172.6(d)(3), such as preliminary hearings or criminal trials. A grand jury proceeding serves as part of the charging process of criminal procedure, not the adjudicative process that is the province of the courts or trial jury. The grand jury’s charge is to investigate and inquire. (Pen. Code, secs. 888, 917, 918, 939.6.) The proceeding is investigatory, not adversarial. Unlike a preliminary hearing or trial, a grand jury session is not the same proceeding as a subsequent criminal prosecution.

Authority:

People v. Davenport (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1158 [preliminary hearing testimony]

People v. Cody (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 87, 101-104 [testimony at jury trial]

Cummiskey v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1018, 1026

People v. Ocobachi (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1174, 1182

People v. Petrilli (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 814, 825