Category Archives: Standard of review

Fifth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000071

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to suppress his interrogation statements because he invoked his right to counsel under Miranda. His statements were involuntary and coerced. We conclude the admission of the interrogation was prejudicial. We therefore reverse his convictions and remand for retrial.

First Holding:

A custodial interrogation can come in various forms and does not require questions. The term interrogation under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. The Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent.

Authority:

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436

Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291, 301

Second Holding:

Miranda’s safeguards do not apply when police ask a suspect routine booking questions to secure the biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services. But there is an exception to that exception: courts have recognized the potential for abuse by law enforcement officers who might, under the guise of seeking objective or neutral information, deliberately elicit an incriminating statement from a suspect.

Authority:

Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990) 496 U.S. 582, 601

United States v. Zapien (9th Cir. 2017) 861 F.3d 971, 975

E

Third Holding:

When a police officer has reason to know that a suspect’s answer may incriminate him even routine questioning may amount to interrogation.

Authority:

United States v. Williams (9th Cir. 2016) 842 F.3d 1143, 1147

Fourth Holding:

Once a suspect states he wishes to consult with an attorney, the interrogation must stop until an attorney is present or the suspect reinitiates contact. This is a bright-line rule: it requires all questioning cease after a suspect requests counsel. This is a prophylactic rule designed to prevent police from badgering a defendant into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights. In the absence of such a bright-line prohibition, the authorities through badgering or overreaching—explicit or subtle, deliberate or unintentional—might otherwise wear down the accused and persuade him to incriminate himself notwithstanding his earlier request for counsel’s assistance. Once a suspect invokes the right to counsel, everything changes; that is, the police can no longer engage in efforts to convince the suspect to speak to them.

Authority:

Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477, 484–485

People v. Johnson (2022) 12 Cal.5th 544, 580

Michigan v. Harvey (1990) 494 U.S. 344, 350

People v. Henderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1013, 1022

People v. Avalos (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 926, 932

Fifth Holding:

The error requires reversal unless it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523

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

Sixth Holding:

We review Miranda claims under federal constitutional standards. We accept the trial court’s determination of disputed facts if supported by substantial evidence, but we independently decide whether the challenged statements were obtained in violation of Miranda. When an interview is recorded, the facts surrounding the admission or confession are undisputed and we may apply independent review.

Authority:

People v. Johnson (2022) 12 Cal.5th 544, 578

People v. Henderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1013, 1023

People v. Suarez (2020) 10 Cal.5th 116, 158

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Duty of counsel, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000069

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 on the ground he had failed to make a prima facie case for relief. Based on recent California Supreme Court authority, the defendant must be given an opportunity to file an amended petition with additional facts. We remand the matter to allow him to do so. Additionally, at the original sentencing hearing, the trial court stayed or struck the sentence on several of the counts to which he pled guilty, but failed to impose a sentence that could be stayed or struck. We therefore remand the matter to the court for the additional purpose of imposing sentence.

First Holding:

In a proceeding under Penal Code section 1172.6 for recall of sentence based on recent changes in homicide law, the preliminary hearing transcript may be considered in determining whether a prima facie showing has been made.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

We review de novo a trial court’s ruling whether a defendant has made a prima facie showing with respect to a section 1172.6 petition.

Authority:

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

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

Third Holding:

A trial court may rely on unchallenged, relief-foreclosing facts within a preliminary hearing transcript to refute conclusory, checkbox allegations, regardless of whether the defendant stipulated to the transcript as the factual basis of a plea.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, at pp. 564, 569, fn. 12

Fourth Holding:

Upon conviction it is the duty of the court to pass sentence on the defendant and impose the punishment prescribed. Pursuant to this duty the court must either sentence the defendant or grant probation in a lawful manner; it has no other discretion. A sentence must be imposed on each count, otherwise if the nonstayed sentence is vacated, either on appeal or in a collateral attack on the judgment, no valid sentence will remain. Where the trial court fails to pronounce sentence on all counts, the appellate court may remand the matter to correct the unauthorized sentence on the defendant’s appeal, even if the People did not appeal.

Authority:

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468–1469

People v. Irvin (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 180, 192

Evidence, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000059

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We find there is insufficient evidence to support one of the convictions for sexual penetration. We find no other errors. Thus, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for resentencing.

First Holding:

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 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. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27

Second Holding:

In deciding the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court resolves neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts. Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact.

Authority:

People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181

Third Holding:

The reviewing court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably deduce from the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1208

Fourth Holding:

Evidence of a defendant’s state of mind is almost inevitably circumstantial, but circumstantial evidence is as sufficient as direct evidence to support a conviction.

Authority:

People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1208

Probation Parole PRCS, Standard of review

Case 000045

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal, the minor contends that the electronics search conditions should be stricken as unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 or, at a minimum, modified as unconstitutionally overbroad. He also maintains that the association condition should be modified due to its overbreadth. We find the electronics search conditions reasonable under Lent, but we accept the People’s concession that they are unconstitutionally overbroad. We see no constitutional infirmity in the association condition. We therefore remand the matter to the trial court to strike or modify the electronics search condition. Remanded to modify terms 9 and 16

First Holding:

Under Lent, 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. The Lent test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term. We find dispositive the first element of Lent’s test, which asks whether the probation condition has no relationship to the conviction. Here, the record supports an implied finding that there was a relationship between the offense and minor’s use of an electronic device and the internet.

Authority:

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

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934, 945

Second Holding:

The failure to object to a probation condition as unreasonable under Lent generally forfeits the contention on appeal. Only facial constitutional challenges to a probation condition that are capable of correction without reference to the particular sentencing record are exempt from the general forfeiture rule.

Authority:

People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 234-235, 237

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887

Third Holding:

The court may nevertheless exercise its discretion to consider the merits of both his Lent and constitutional claims in light of the People’s concession and the minor’s alternative contention that his trial counsel’s failure to make an adequate objection constituted ineffective assistance.

Authority:

People v. Mattson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 826, 854 [considering issues not raised in trial court to forestall later claim of constitutionally inadequate representation]

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [appellate courts may reach unpreserved questions]

Fourth Holding:

In applying the Lent test, we review the conditions imposed for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118

People v. Salvador (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 57, 62, 64

Fifth Holding:

We review constitutional overbreadth questions de novo

Authority:

In re P.O. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 288, 297

Sixth Holding:

The electronic search conditions here were overly broad.

Authority:

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1355 [If a probation condition serves to rehabilitate and protect public safety, the condition may impinge upon a constitutional right otherwise enjoyed by the probationer, who is not entitled to the same degree of constitutional protection as other citizens.]

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

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

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000034

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s imposition of probation conditions regarding association with minors, completion of a sex offender treatment program, polygraph examinations, possession of pornography, electronic search, and electronic monitoring. We conclude the association with minors and pornography conditions are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad and will remand the case to the trial court to modify them

First Holding:

Regarding the conditions of probation. we conclude the association with minors and pornography conditions are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad and will remand the case to the trial court to modify them.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

Second Holding:

A probation condition is valid under the statutory scheme if it relates to the crime for which the defendant was convicted, relates to other criminal conduct, or requires or forbids conduct that is reasonably related to future criminality.

Authority:

People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 498

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

Third Holding:

The Lent test is conjunctive—all three factors must be found in order to invalidate a probation condition.

Authority:

People v. Balestra (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 57, 65, fn. 3

Fourth Holding:

A trial court abuses its discretion only when the probation conditions imposed are arbitrary, capricious, or exceed the bounds of reason.

Authority:

People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 233-234

Fifth Holding:

Even valid probation conditions must not be unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Vagueness considers whether a condition is sufficiently precise to give the probationer fair warning of what conduct is required or prohibited; overbreadth considers the closeness of fit between the state’s interest in reformation and rehabilitation and the burden imposed on the [probationer’s] constitutional rights.

Authority:

People v. Rhinehart (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1123, 1126-1127

In re I.V. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 249, 260

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

Sixth Holding:

A probation condition must be sufficiently definite for the probationer to know what conduct is required or prohibited, and to allow the court to determine when that condition has been violated.

Authority:

People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 500

Seventh Holding:

A probation condition also must be closely tailored to its legitimate objective to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad

Authority:

People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934, 946

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

People v. Garcia (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 101-102 [such conditions must be narrowly drawn]

Eighth Holding:

We review de novo constitutional challenges to probation conditions.

Authority:

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

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000024

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

GARY note: The winning issue was relatively simple, but in affirming the overall conviction, the court shared several principles I thought worthy of reporting, even though many did not bear on the dual use of enhancements.

For the attempted murder of the victim in count 3, the trial court should have stayed the three-year enhancement for great bodily injury under section 12022.7 because it also imposed a term of 25 years to life under section 12022.53, subdivision (d), for personally and proximately causing great bodily injury with a firearm. We will modify the judgment so that it accords with the law.

First Holding:

Where multiple prison terms are improperly imposed as in this case, the reviewing court may modify the sentence to stay imposition of the sentence

Authority:

People v. Hunter (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1531, 1537

Second Holding:

It is improper to impose the enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.7 in addition to enhancement under section 12022.53(d), and it must be stayed.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 941, 949

People v. Hunter (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1531, 1537

Third Holding:

If an error violates a defendant’s federal constitutional rights, reversal is required unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2011) 51 Cal.4th 733, 745

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

People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591, 615

People v. Concha (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1087

Fourth Holding:

A harmless error analysis may include consideration of implausible defense testimony and closing argument to the jury.

Authority:

People v. Fayed (2020) 9 Cal.5th 147, 195

People v. Zambrano (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 228, 243

People v. Flores (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 855, 881

Fifth Holding:

With respect to errors alleged regarding the conviction of the murder, the error can be found to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt even under the Chapman standard, as the court concludes in this instance.

Authority:

People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 983-984

People v. Garcia (2001) 25 Cal.4th 744, 755

Wright v. West (1992) 505 U.S. 277, 296

Hanrahan v. Thieret (7th Cir. 1991) 933 F.2d 1328, 1340

Phelps v. Duckworth (7th Cir. 1985) 772 F.2d 1410, 1413-1414

Sixth Holding:

The standard of review on sufficiency of evidence is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime or special circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution.

Authority:

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

Seventh Holding:

Substantial evidence is evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value.

Authority:

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

Eighth Holding:

A conviction for attempted murder requires proof that the defendant intended to kill the victim and proof of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing that goal. But a finding of willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation requires more than a showing of an intent to kill.

Authority:

People v. Medina (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 146, 153

People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 282

Ninth Holding:

When reviewing a claim the trial court erred in denying a motion for a judgment of acquittal (sec. 1118.1) that was made at the close of the prosecution’s case-in-chief, the appellate court considers the evidence as it stood at that point,

Authority:

People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1212-1213

Tenth Holding:

It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error based on the appellate record and with meaningful legal analysis with adequate citation to the record.

Authority:

People v. Dauterman (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 603, 609

Eleventh Holding:

Arguments not raised below are forfeited.

Authority:

People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1022-1023

Twelfth Holding:

The court conducts de novo review to detemine if jury miscontrued or misapplied the law.

Authority:

People v. Shaw (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 833, 838

Thirteenth Holding:

Error in failing to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense is harmless when the jury necessarily decides the factual questions posed by the omitted instructions adversely to defendant under other properly given instructions.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 646

Fourteenth Holding:

Errors in the abstract of judgment may be corrected.

Authority:

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

 

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000022

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed an improper burden on the defendant to demonstrate his mental disorder was a significant factor in the charged offense by reversing the statutory presumption in his favor on this issue. Because of this error, the court found defendant failed to prove he was eligible for mental health diversion as provided under Penal Code section 1001.36. Because the court did indeed use an erroneous standard, we will reverse and remand to allow the court to reevaluate the diversion request with a correct understanding of the law.

First Holding:

The prosecution bears burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that mental health diagnosis was not a causal factor in the crime.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485, 490

Second Holding:

The court reviews the trial court’s denial of a request for mental health diversion for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

Negron v. Superior Court (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1016

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

Third Holding:

Diversion is discretionary, even if eligibility and suitability are present.

Authority:

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

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 888

Fourth Holding:

If eligibility is established, the trial court must then consider whether a particular individual is suitable, by rendering a positive finding on each of four factors: (1) that in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder would respond to mental health treatment; (2) that the defendant consent to diversion and waive speedy trial rights; (3) that the defendant will agree to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and (4) that the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, which is defined as the likelihood the defendant would commit a new violent felony from a limited subset of particularly violent crimes, colloquially referred to as a “super strike.”

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

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

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000021

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The timing of the defendant’s plea does not preclude him relief under section 1172.6 because, at the time of his plea, he could have been convicted under invalidated theories of attempted murder. We also find his admissions, including his admission to acting with an intent to kill, did not establish all the elements of a valid theory of attempted murder under current law. Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of his petition and remand for further proceedings.

First Holding:

Where a petition states eligibility on its face, and the court examines the record of the conviction suggesting otherwise, the defendant must be given an opportunity to file an amended petition.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill 1437 amended the felony murder rule and eliminated 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.

Authority:

SB 1437

SB 775

PEN 1172.6
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959

Third Holding:

At the prima facie hearing, the trial court may examine the record of conviction to assess whether it refutes a defendant’s claim of eligibility.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

It is only where the record of conviction establishes the petition lacks merit as a matter of law that the court may deny the petition without a hearing

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 566, 576

Fifth Holding:

When the defendant’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 and the defendant’s express admissions at the plea colloquy.

Authority:

People v. Gaillard (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1206, 1211–1212

People v. Fisher (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1022, 1029

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

Sixth Holding:

If the trial court denies the petition without issuing an order to show cause, it must state its reasons.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(c)

Seventh Holding:

We independently review a summary denial of a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Gaillard (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1206

Amelioration, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000017

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse the court’s denial of the resentencing petition, which was not based on a review of the record, and remand for further proceedings under section 1172.6(c).

First Holding:

The trial court may deny a section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage only if the petition and record in the case establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. If a petitioner files a facially sufficient section 1172.6 petition by indicating, among other criteria, that he meets the statutory requirements for relief,it triggers the prosecution’s duty to submit a response and the petitioner’s right to file a reply on the issue of whether a prima facie case for relief exists.

Authority:

People v. Hickman (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1262

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707

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

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558–559

Second Holding:

The record of conviction includes documents from jury trial such as jury instructions and verdict forms.

Authority:

People v. Gallardo (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 296

Third Holding:

We review an order denying a petition at the prima facie stage de novo.

Authority:

People v. Hickman (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1262

Fourth Holding:

The right to seek replacement of counsel under Marsden applies at all stages of a criminal proceeding.

Authority:

People v. Armijo (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1171, 1179

People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118

People v. Carter (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1092, 1096 [Marsden motion sought disqualification of the public defender’s office and individual deputy public defender]

Fifth Holding:

The record of conviction will inform the court’s prima facie inquiry, allowing the court to distinguish clearly meritless claims.

Authority:

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

 

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000014

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her petition for mental health diversion. We agree that the court applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on her petition. And we disagree with the People that we can imply from the court’s ruling the missing findings required by the statute. We thus conditionally vacate her no contest plea, conditionally reverse the judgment, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with section 1001.36.

First Holding:

A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard. Application of an incorrect legal standard on Mental Health Diversion requires reversal.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Grossmont Union High School Dist. v. Diego Plus Education Corp. (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 552, 584 [trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when it did not apply one of the essential components for deciding whether fees should be awarded under the applicable fee statute]

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

Second Holding:

The court reviews denial of Mental Health diversion under the abuse of discretion standard. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard, or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

There is a presumption of correctness in court orders. We presume a trial court’s order is correct and indulge all intendments and reasonable inferences to support it. Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume a trial court knew and applied the law. When the record clearly demonstrates what the trial court did, we will not presume it did something different.

Authority:

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

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

Lafayette Morehouse Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1384

Paterno v. State of California (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 998, 1015

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000011

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially committed constitutional and statutory error in imposing the upper term sentence based on aggravating factors not tried to the jury. The factors relied on were: the victim’s particular vulnerability; the offense was carried out with planning, sophistication, and professionalism; the defendant engaged in violent conduct which indicated a serious danger to society; the defendant had numerous prior convictions and they were of increasing seriousness.

First Holding:

The defendant is entitled to a jury trial on aggravating factors, which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before they can be relied on to impose the upper term (unless they are stipulated to by the defendant).

Authority:

PEN 1170

Second Holding:

The standard of review for evaluating the improper use of untried aggravating fact is whether error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

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

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466

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

Third Holding:

The parties agree the court erred in relying on those circumstances to impose the upper term on the principal count. Their disagreement centers around whether such error was prejudicial under the circumstances. On the record before us, we conclude it was.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078

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

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

Case 000008

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appealed from a postjudgment order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. The appellate court reversed and remanded the matter to the lower court because the evidence was insufficient to support the finding defendant aided and abetted the murder of the officer.

First Holding:

In this instance, the appellate court found that there was insufficient evidence to show that the defendant aided and abetted the murder.

Authority:

SB 1437

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830

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

Second Holding:

A trial court’s denial of a section 1172.6 petition is reviewed for substantial evidence. Under this standard, the appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

Under a direct aider and abettor liability theory, the prosecution must prove the person who is not the actual killer engaged in the requisite acts and had the requisite intent to aid and abet the target crime of murder.

Authority:

People v. Pacheco (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 118, 124

Fourth Holding:

Direct aiding and abetting is based on the combined actus reus of the participants and the aider and abettor’s own mens rea.

Authority:

People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 712-713

Fifth Holding:

It is well settled that aiding and abetting the commission of a crime requires some affirmative action.

Authority:

People v. Partee (2020) 8 Cal.5th 860, 868

Sixth Holding:

A person present at the scene of a crime—even one who is the criminal’s companion, knows a crime is being committed, fails to prevent it, and later expresses approval of it—is not guilty of aiding and abetting the crime if he takes no action to aid or encourage the crime.

Authority:

In re K.M. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 323, 329