Category Archives: Standard of review

Probation Parole PRCS, Standard of review

Case: 000113

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The condition of probation that prohibits the defendant from “frequenting] any area where gang members are known by him/her to congregate, or areas known by him/her for gang related activity” is overbroad and can be more narrowly tailored by allowing the defendant’s probation officer to specify the areas involving gang-related activity. Accordingly, we modify the condition of probation to read that the defendant “shall not associate with any person known to him/her as a gang member and shall not frequent any areas specified by his probation officer as involving gang-related activity, subject to reasonable exceptions to accommodate family, work, and educational needs as determined by his probation officer.”

First Holding:

The court’s discretion of the court to impose conditions of probation is not boundless. The authority is wholly statutory, and the statute furnishes and limits the measure of authority which the court may exercise. A condition of probation will not be held invalid unless 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. Conversely, a condition of probation that requires or forbids conduct which is not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Cervantes (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 353, 356

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

Second Holding:

The Lent test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term. As such, even if a condition of probation has no relationship to the crime of which a defendant was convicted and involves conduct that is not itself criminal, the condition is valid as long as the condition is reasonably related to preventing future criminality.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

As to the third prong of Lent, courts may properly base probation conditions upon information in a probation report that raises concerns about future criminality unrelated to a prior offense. But the third prong “contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition.

Authority:

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

People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 626 [relying on information in probation report for gang-related condition]

Fourth Holding:

Probation is a privilege and not a right, and adult probationers, in preference to incarceration, validly may consent to limitations upon their constitutional rights.

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 384

Fifth Holding:

A probation condition that infringes a constitutional right is permissible if necessary to serve the dual purpose of rehabilitation and public safety. However, a probation condition that imposes limitations on a person’s constitutional rights must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad. The essential question in an overbreadth challenge is the closeness of the fit between the legitimate purpose of the restriction and the burden it imposes on the defendant’s constitutional rights—bearing in mind, of course, that perfection in such matters is impossible, and that practical necessity will justify some infringement.

Authority:

People v. Burden (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1277, 1281

People v. Salvador (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 57, 62-63

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890

In re E.O. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153

Sixth Holding:

In Victor L., the defendant challenged for overbreadth and vagueness a condition of probation ordering him to stay away from areas known by him for gang-related activity. The court distinguished between probation restrictions encompassing areas known for gang related crimes (which other courts had upheld against constitutional challenges) from restrictions involving gang-related activity. Noting the word ‘activity’ is one of surpassing breadth that could banish the defendant from the area in which he lived, worked, or went to school, Victor L. determined that an individualized list of stay away areas, together with any exceptions necessary to reasonably accommodate the defendant’s legitimate work and educational needs was required. Victor L. reasoned a probation officer, rather than the trial court, was in a better position to identify the forbidden areas for each defendant, using either geographic or activity-based limits. Victor L. modified the condition to prohibit the defendant’s presence in areas known by him for gang-related activity (or specified by his probation officer as involving gang-related activity). Other courts have imposed similar gang-area restrictions.

Authority:

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 913-918, 931-932

People v. Barajas (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 748, 754-760 [affirming condition that stated that the defendant was not to visit or remain in any specific location which he knows to be or which the probation officer informs him to be an area of criminal street gang-related activity]

In re H.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1072 [It would be altogether preferable to name the actual geographic area that would be prohibited to the minor and then to except from that certain kinds of travel, that is, to school or to work]

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

Case: 000109

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was charged with first degree murder under two theories–deliberation and premeditation, and lying in wait. The jury was not required to agree unanimously on the theory. He was convicted of first degree murder, along with a count of attempted murder with premeditation and deliberation. We conclude that insufficient evidence supports the finding of lying in wait. One of the elements of lying in wait, namely, “a substantial period of watching and waiting for an opportune time to act,” is not supported by substantial evidence. That conclusion requires us to reverse the finding on the lying-in-wait special circumstance, but it does not require a reversal of the first degree murder convictions, as they are supported by the alternative theory of premeditation and deliberation.

First Holding:

The lying-in-wait special circumstance requires an intentional murder, committed under circumstances that include (1) a concealment of purpose, (2) a substantial period of watching and waiting for an opportune time to act, and (3) a surprise attack on an unsuspecting victim from a position of advantage It includes the elements of first degree lying-in-wait murder but requires the additional element that the killing was intentional, not merely committed with implied malice.

Authority:

PEN 190.2(a)(15)

People v. Flinner (2020) 10 Cal.5th 686, 74

Second Holding:

To support a finding of concealment of purpose, it is not required that a defendant be literally concealed from view before he attacks the victim. Rather, it is sufficient that a defendant’s true intent and purpose were concealed by his actions or conduct. The concealment, in that sense, is that which puts the defendant in a position of advantage, from which the factfinder can infer that lying-in-wait was part of the defendant’s plan to take the victim by surprise. Concealment of purpose inhibits detection, defeats self-defense, and may betray at least some level of trust, making it more blameworthy than premeditated murder that does not involve surprise.

The lying-in-wait special circumstance requires no fixed, quantitative minimum time, but the lying in wait must continue for long enough to premeditate and deliberate, conceal one’s purpose, and wait and watch for an opportune moment to attack. To distinguish the circumstance from ordinary premeditation and deliberation, a distinct period of watchful waiting is required. “Watchful” does not require actual watching; it can include being alert and vigilant in anticipation of the victim’s arrival to take him or her by surprise.

Authority:

People v. Barrett (2025) 17 Cal.5th 897, 966–967

People v. Duong (2020) 10 Cal.5th 36, 67

People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 204

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 629

People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, 551

People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 247

Third Holding:

In assessing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must review the whole 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 same standard applies when examining the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a special circumstance finding. “Substantial evidence” includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.

Authority:

People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 57

Fourth Holding:

A first degree murder verdict will be upheld if there is sufficient evidence as to at least one of the theories on which the jury is instructed, absent an affirmative indication in the record that the verdict actually did rest on the inadequate ground. The appellate court should affirm the judgment unless a review of the entire record affirmatively demonstrates a reasonable probability that the jury in fact found the defendant guilty solely on the unsupported theory. In making that determination, we examine the entire record, including the facts and the instructions, the arguments of counsel, any communications from the jury during deliberations, and the entire verdict.

The defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of premeditation and deliberation. Thus, our inquiry is whether there is a reasonable probability that the jury returned a verdict of first degree murder based solely on lying in wait, rather than also on premeditation and deliberation. The jury’s express findings in connection with the attempted murder in count 2 preclude any reasonable probability the jury relied solely on lying in wait as the theory for first degree murder.

Authority:

People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, 552 [affirming first degree murder based on sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation despite insufficient evidence to support lying in wait]

People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1130

Fifth Holding:

The court committed harmless error under Chapman in declining the defendant’s request to instruct the jury on the theory of imperfect self-defense. Under the doctrine of imperfect self-defense. if a person kills in the unreasonable but good faith belief in having to act in self-defense, the belief negates what would otherwise be malice, and that person is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, not murder.

Authority:

People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 561

People v. Rios (2000) 23 Cal.4th 450, 461

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 243

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

Sixth Holding:

The trial court was required to instruct on imperfect self-defense if there was substantial evidence to support the theory. “Substantial evidence” is evidence from which a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter was committed, but does not include evidence that is speculative, minimal, or insubstantial.

Authority:

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 253

People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 132

Seventh Holding:

We review de novo a trial court’s decision not to give an imperfect self-defense instruction. When the record contains substantial evidence of imperfect self-defense, the trial court’s failure to instruct on that theory amounts to constitutional error and is thus subject to review under the federal Chapman standard. Under the Chapman standard, reversal is required unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. Though there was insufficient evidence of the watchful waiting to support a finding of lying in wait, the jury returned a finding that the murder was committed by lying in wait.

There was sufficient evidence of the aspects of lying in wait other than watchful waiting. Because of its true finding on lying in wait, the jury could not have found an imperfect self-defense in which the defendant used deadly force against the victim because he unreasonably believed that doing so was necessary to defend himself.

Authority:

People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 133

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 243

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

People v. Cruz (2008) 44 Cal.4th 636, 665 [a jury’s true finding on a lying-in-wait special circumstance negated any possibility that defendant was prejudiced from the failure to instruct on unreasonable self-defense theories of manslaughter]

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

Case: 000107

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals his conviction of violating Penal Code section 422. We reverse the judgment because there was no substantial evidence that the victim of the crime experienced sustained fear.

First Holding:

Elements of section 422 include: that the threat actually caused the person threatened to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, and that the threatened person’s fear was reasonable under the circumstances.

Authority:

PEN 422(a)

People v. Toledo (2001) 26 Cal.4th 221, 227–228

Second Holding:

Sustained fear must occur over a period of time that extends beyond what is momentary, fleeting, or transitory. Ordinarily, sustained fear lasts beyond the moments of the encounter.

Authority:

People v. Roles (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 935, 942

In re Ricky T. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1132, 1140

Third Holding:

Courts have held that 15 minutes satisfies the sustained fear requirement.

Authority:

People v. Roles (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 935, 942

People v. Wilson (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 193, 201

People v. Allen (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1156

Fourth Holding:

Under circumstances not applicable here a shorter duration of fear, or fear confined to the length of the encounter, may be sufficient. A victim may experience sustained fear even though the fear exists only during the incident itself. In Brugman, the incident was a drawn-out ordeal. Similarly, if the circumstances are extreme enough—such as when a person believes they will be killed imminently—even one minute can be enough time for fear to be sustained.

Authority:

People v. Brugman (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 608, 634

People v. Fierro (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1349

Fifth Holding:

In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we review the whole 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. In determining whether the record is sufficient the appellate court can give credit only to substantial evidence, i.e., evidence that reasonably inspires confidence and is of solid value. Reasonableness is the ultimate standard under the substantial evidence rule.

Authority:

People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 307

People v. Kunkin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 245, 250

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000106

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court modified the defendant’s sentence only to the extent required under sections 1172.75 and 1170.18, but otherwise left the balance intact, finding that the defendant remained a danger to the public. The case is remanded for the trial court to calculate the days of actual custody and to correct the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

Because the sentence was modified under PC 1172.75, the trial court erred in not calculating the actual days in custody.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37

Second Holding:

We review the trial court’s finding that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety under the clear and convincing evidence standard.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(1)

Third Holding:

The clear and convincing evidence standard requires the party with the burden of proof to convince the trier of fact that it is highly probable the facts which he asserts are true.

Authority:

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998

Fourth Holding:

The narrow definition of danger to public safety under PC 1170.18 does not apply to the undefined term of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. [GARY NOTE: after the opinion in this case 000106 was filed, the Supreme Court ruled in Guevara that it was constitutionally necessary to apply the Three Strikes Reform Act’s understanding of the term “unreasonable risk to public safety” within the meaning of section 1170.126 (enacted by initiative) in order to reconcile the application of section 1172.75 (enacted by the Legislature) to those who would otherwise qualify but are serving a sentence under the Three Strikes Law (an initiative provision).]

Authority:

People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 374, 374-375

[People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838]

Fifth Holding:

The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects a determinate term of 14 years instead of 10 years, and it must be corrected. [GARY NOTE: The court did not cite authority, most likely because the error and solution are obvious. There are many relevant cases supporting this holding, some of which I have set out below.]

Authority:

People v. Hamed (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 928, 937–938

People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 242

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

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000104

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Under section 654, the trial court should have stayed the sentence imposed on either of two counts, each of which was based on the same assault and committed with the same intent and objective.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 654 prohibits punishment under more than one provision for any act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law. This section applies not only where there was but one act in the ordinary sense, but also where there was a course of conduct which violated more than one statute but nevertheless constituted an indivisible transaction. Whether a course of conduct is indivisible depends upon the intent and objective of the actor. If all the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 309

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 551

Second Holding:

Whether a defendant possessed a single intent and objective is a factual question subject to substantial evidence review on appeal. However, where the facts are undisputed, whether Penal Code section 654 precludes multiple punishment is a legal question, subject to de novo review.

Authority:

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 552, fn. 5

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

People v. Goode (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 484, 493

People v. Pitts (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1547, 1552, 1560 [multiple punishment precluded where mayhem and assault convictions were based on a course of conduct in which the defendant threw the victim down, punched her, took a box cutter that she tried to use to defend herself, and used the weapon to slash the victim]

Third Holding:

A course of conduct divisible in time, although directed to one objective, may give rise to multiple violations and punishment.

Authority:

People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 639, fn. 11

People v. Kwok (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1253

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000101

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2022, defendant was resentenced under Penal Code section 1172.75 and the trial court struck seven years from his determinate term. Defendant appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion under section 1385 when declining to further reduce defendant’s sentence because the court found he currently posed a danger to public safety. We agree and accordingly vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for a full resentencing.

First Holding:

The court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so.” Section 1385(c)(2) provides: “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.

Authority:

PEN 1385

Second Holding:

We review the trial court’s decision not to strike an enhancement under section 1385 for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court, for example, is unaware of its discretion, fails to consider a relevant factor that deserves significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or impermissible factor, or makes a decision so arbitrary or irrational that no reasonable person could agree with it.

Authority:

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

In re White (2020) 9 Cal.5th 455, 470

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

Third Holding:

The trial court abused its discretion because the plain words of section 1385 do not support the trial court’s singular focus on whether the defendant currently poses a danger and instead focuses on the danger associated with the dismissal of an enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Williams (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1057

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 228-229

Fourth Holding:

Determining whether resentencing a defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society is necessarily a forward-looking inquiry. When determining whether resentencing poses an unreasonable risk of danger, the trial court must look to when a defendant would be released if the petition is granted and the defendant is resentenced. A defendant who would obtain immediate release if the petition is granted poses a different potential danger to society than a defendant who could be released only in his or her 70s.

Authority:

People v. Williams (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1057, 1063

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000098

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The petitioner argues the trial court erred by failing to hold a hearing on his PC 1172.6 petition as to whether he has stated a prima facie case for relief or even appoint counsel for him. The People concede error. We agree, and reverse.

First Holding:

Upon receiving a petition with sufficient information or a petition where any missing information can readily be ascertained by the court, if the petitioner has requested counsel, the court shall appoint counsel to represent the petitioner.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

Second Holding:

Following appointment of counsel and a briefing period, the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief. Following this initial hearing, the trial court shall issue an order to show cause, if a prima facie case for relief was made, or shall provide a statement fully setting forth its reasons for declining to issue an order to show cause. If an order to show cause issues, then the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether to vacate the conviction and to recall the sentence and resentence the petitioner on any remaining counts. All of these steps are mandatory, if the conditions are met, and the court has no discretion to refuse to follow these statutory directives.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

Third Holding:

We review de novo a trial court’s analysis of whether a petitioner under section 1172.6 has made a prima facie showing.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

Since the decision to appoint counsel is not discretionary, we review that without deference as well.

Authority:

Bontilao v. Superior Court (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 980, 987–988

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000095

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the superior court applied an incorrect legal standard in deciding whether to dismiss the five-year enhancement, we reverse the judgment and direct the court to exercise its discretion whether to strike that enhancement and to resentence the defendant.

First Holding:

By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements.

Authority:

People v. Dixon (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 236, 243, review granted Oct. 22, 2025, S292223

Second Holding:

We conclude the superior court erred by applying an incorrect legal standard in denying the defendant’s request to dismiss the five-year enhancement for the prior serious felony. Section 1385 provides that the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so. It also provides that, in exercising its discretion, the court must consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove any of nine listed mitigating factors, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. If the court does not find dismissing an enhancement would endanger public safety, the court must consider whether the defendant has presented evidence of one or more of the mitigating factors listed in section 1385. If so, the court must engage in a holistic balancing with special emphasis on the [nine] enumerated mitigating factors and must dismiss the enhancement unless the court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1385

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

Third Holding:

Without the benefit of Walker, decided several months after the resentencing, the superior court did not apply the correct legal standard. It did not find that reducing the sentence by five years would endanger public safety. Nor did it consider dismissing the prior conviction that was more than five years old, instead relying on the fact that the original court found the prior conviction to be true. By deferring to the original trial court on whether to strike the serious felony conviction enhancement, the superior court ignored section 1172.75’s mandate to apply changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion. In 2015 the trial court had to impose the five-year prior serious felony enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), but effective 2019, SB 1393 gave trial courts discretion to strike that enhancement under section 1385. In addition, section 1172.75 authorized the superior court to consider postconviction factors, such as the defendant’s disciplinary record and rehabilitation while in prison, his age, and his physical condition—factors not available to the trial court in 2015.

Authority:

People v. Carter (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 960, 968 [simply striking the one-year enhancement imposed under the repealed portion of former section 667.5(b) deprived the defendant of his right to full resentencing under the changes in the law]

People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562, 567 [court erred by failing to provide the defendant with a full resentencing hearing, meaning a hearing in which he could have sought further sentencing relief under at least two other statutes that were enacted after his conviction]

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 361

Fourth Holding:

The superior court’s error was prejudicial because the record does not clearly indicate the court would have reached the same conclusion had it applied the correct legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424 [where the trial court fails to exercise informed discretion, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion]

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

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402 [remand was required where the defendant was entitled to, but did not receive, a full resentencing under the terms of section 1172.75, including the application of any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion]

Fifth Holding:

On remand, the superior court should consider whether dismissing the prior serious felony enhancement and reducing the defendant’s sentence from 25 years six months to 20 years six months would endanger public safety. If the court does not make that finding, it should dismiss the enhancement, unless it finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that neutralize the great weight of any applicable mitigating circumstance enumerated in section 1385(c)(2), including that the enhancement was based on a prior conviction that was more than five years old.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 230-231 [in assessing whether dismissing an enhancement would endanger public safety, the trial court should have considered the date on which the defendant could be released if the enhancement was dismissed, not only whether the defendant currently posed a danger to the public]

Sixth Holding:

We review a trial court’s sentencing decisions in a section 1172.75 resentencing proceeding for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Moseley (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 870, 874

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 855-856

Seventh Holding:

In reviewing matters of statutory interpretation we review the trial court’s decision de novo.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 323

People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 804 [The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law that this court reviews de novo]

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000088

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court made several errors in resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.5. It failed to strike the now-invalid priors, if failed to consider the impact of AB 333 on gang aspects; it imposed of repealed $10 admin fee. On remand the court must also recalculate credits and correct the abstract of judgment. [GARY NOTE: The opinion also provided extensive discussion of the application of section 1385, regarding dismissals in the furtherance or interest of justice, touching on abuse of discretion, etc., that were resolved against the defendant on appeal. I have provided a few principles and authorities on those points for educational reasons, even though they did not support relief for the defendant in this instance.]

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 declares legally invalid all one-year prior prison term enhancements except those for sexually violent offenses described in WI Code section 6600(b). Because the defendant’s two priors are not sexually violent offenses, they were legally invalid and should have been stricken.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (AB 333) modified the gang enhancement by adding new requirements that did not previously exist. Because AB 333 retroactively applies to people, like defendant, who have been granted a resentencing hearing, the trial court erred in not assessing whether the jury’s findings in this case otherwise addressed the new requirements or whether the jury’s failure to do so was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 395-396

Third Holding:

The trial court imposed a $10 administrative screening fee ostensibly under section 1463.07 in November 2018. This is unenforceable because our Legislature in 2021 repealed that section and nullified prior fees imposed under that section.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Fourth Holding:

It was not necessary for the trial court to respond to all of the defendant’s contentions at the sentencing hearing. Unless the record affirmatively demonstrates otherwise, the trial court is deemed to have considered all the relevant sentencing factors set forth in the rules.

Authority:

Rules of Court, rule 4.409 [sentencing factors will be deemed to have been considered unless the record affirmatively reflects otherwise]

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

People v. Parra Martinez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 317, 322

People v. Brugman (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 608, 637

Fifth Holding:

We review the exercise of sentencing discretion for an abuse of discretion but recognize that a trial court’s reliance on an incorrect legal standard constitutes such an abuse. Application of the wrong test in determination of whether a defendant poses a danger to public safety is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

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

Sixth Holding:

Despite the use of the phrase “shall be dismissed,” section 1385’s provisions that require a court to give great weight in favor of dismissal do not apply where a trial court finds that dismissal of the enhancements would endanger public safety.

Authority:

People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 296

People v. Mazur (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 438, 444-446

People v. Cota (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 318, 335-337

People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276, 1284-1290

People v. Anderson (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 233, 238-241

People v. Lipscomb (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 9, 15-21

Fourth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000086

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence, contending the court erred when it found police officers had reasonable suspicion to detain him. Because we have concluded there was insufficient evidence that defendant’s conduct, when considered in the totality of circumstances, supported a reasonable suspicion that he was, or was about to be, engaged in activity relating to crime, we agree with defendant that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him. Accordingly, the subsequent recovery of the handgun was the product of an illegal detention and arrest and evidence related to the recovery was subject to exclusion.

[GARY NOTE: The facts relied on by the court are too extensive to adequately summarize. Essentially, the officer saw a group of people milling about. When some appeared to notice him, they ran off, though the defendant and one other did not run off. The officer described various body movements and claimed to have seen something that was not borne out by the appellate court’s review of the body cam video.]

First Holding:

The Fourth Amendment permits an officer to initiate a brief investigative stop when the officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. [Although a mere hunch does not create reasonable suspicion, the level of suspicion the standard requires is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence, and obviously less than is necessary for probable cause. Because it is a less demanding standard, reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause. The standard depends on the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. Courts cannot reasonably demand scientific certainty where none exists. Rather, they must permit officers to make commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior.

Authority:

Kansas v. Glover (2020) 589 U.S. 376, 380–381

People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1041

Second Holding:

The officer’s subjective suspicion must be objectively reasonable, and an investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith.

Authority:

People v. Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078, 1083

Third Holding:

In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we defer to that court’s factual findings, express or implied, if they are supported by substantial evidence. We exercise our independent judgment in determining whether, on the facts presented, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. In doing so we do not consider each fact in isolation. Instead, we must consider the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture.

Authority:

People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1043

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000082

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred in imposing the upper term based on aggravating circumstances not proven in accordance with Penal Code section 1170(b). We will vacate defendant’s sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for further litigation of the aggravating circumstances and resentencing.

First 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.

Authority:

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

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

Second Holding:

A Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

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. A judge may do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

The aggravating circumstances were not proven in accordance with section 1170(b)(2) and the prior conviction exception would not apply to them.e

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1083-1084 [We understand Erlinger to require that any fact, beyond the bare fact of a prior conviction, that exposes a defendant to harsher punishment, must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt]

Fifth 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.

Authority:

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

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

Sixth Holding:

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 People bear the burden of establishing that the federal constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 775-776 [To the extent a potential aggravating circumstance rests on a somewhat vague or subjective standard, it may be difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court]

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090 [deciding it could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a properly instructed jury would have found the defendant’s criminal convictions were of increasing seriousness]

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Discretion, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 00072

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in imposing the great bodily injury enhancement on count 2 because it did not afford great weight to the mitigating circumstance of the defendant’s prior victimization. The trial court applied the wrong legal standard in declining to dismiss the great bodily injury enhancement. We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. Also, the abstract of judgment incorrectly shows murder as in the first degree and must be corrected to show that the conviction was for murder in the second degree.

First Holding:

The trial court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so. In exercising its discretion in this regard, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove certain enumerated mitigating circumstances, and 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. One of the listed mitigating circumstances is the current offense is connected to prior victimization or childhood trauma.

Authority:

PEN 1385

Second Holding:

Absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a court must assign significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances when they are present. In practice, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1038

Third Holding:

We review a trial court’s decisions under section 1385 for abuse of discretion. As relevant here, an abuse of discretion arises if the trial court based its decision on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

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

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

Fourth Holding:

When, as here, a sentencing court was not fully aware of the scope of its discretionary powers, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 425

Fifth Holding:

The abstract of judgment incorrectly states that the defendant was convicted of first degree murder in count 1. When issuing a new abstract of judgment after resentencing, the trial court shall correctly identify the crime in count 1 as second degree murder. [Gary note: the court did not cite any authority for its order to correct the abstract of judgment, likely because it seems so obvious. But there is authority that the court could have cited, some of which I have listed below, even though not cited in the opinion.]

Authority:

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324

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

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–388

People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689

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