Category Archives: Standard of review

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

Case 000926

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude that the juvenile court erred when it found all five statutory criteria weigh in favor of transferring the minor to criminal court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(a)(3)(A)–(E)), and when it found him not amenable to rehabilitation.

(Gary note: After setting out the holdings I have listed below, the opinion goes into great detail analyzing the evidence in the case under the criteria required to be considered by the juvenile court in deciding whether to retain the minor in juvenile court or to transfer the minor to adult court. The analysis is quite extensive and completely fact-heavy. Since an unpublished opinion cannot be cited as authority, the court’s analysis could not be used in any briefing to compare and contrast with any other defendant’s scenario. So I have not included that portion of the opinion.)

First Holding:

With respect to whether the minor can be rehabilitated within the two-year period the juvenile court may exercise jurisdiction over him given his age and the success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor, the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving these criteria favor transfer to criminal court and, therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings in the prosecution’s favor on these issues.

Although the weight to be given each of the five criteria is within the juvenile court’s discretion, and the court has the discretion to conclude that one or more of the five criteria predominate so as to determine the result, even though some or all of the other criteria might point to a different result, the juvenile court’s ultimate finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 159

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 417

Second Holding:

Where, as here, the juvenile court has abused its discretion in evaluating the evidence and applying the operative legal standards, it is appropriate to remand the matter so the court may reconsider the evidence and its ultimate determination through the lens of amenability to rehabilitation.

Authority:

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 162

In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1288

J.N. v. Superior Court (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 706, 714–715 [exercises of discretion must be guided by applicable legal principles]

Third Holding:

When a minor age 16 or older is alleged to have committed a felony, the prosecution may move to transfer the minor to criminal court. Upon the motion, the juvenile court must order the probation officer to submit a report on the minor’s behavioral patterns and social history. The parties may submit other relevant evidence’ in connection with the transfer motion. In determining whether to transfer a minor to criminal court, the juvenile court shall consider the criteria specified in subparagraphs (A) to (E) of section 707, subdivision (a)(3).

These criteria are: (1) the degree of criminal sophistication by the minor; (2) whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction; (3)the minor’s previous delinquent history; (4) the success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor; and (5) the circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in the petition to have been committed by the minor.

Section 707 also sets forth a nonexhaustive list of factors relevant to each of the five criteria. And consideration of these factors is now mandatory rather than discretionary.

Authority:

WIC 707

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 158-159, 160

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 164-165

Fourth Holding:

As amended by AB 2361, section 707 now provides that in order to find that the minor should be transferred to a court of criminal jurisdiction, the court shall find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

This changed the finding a juvenile court must make before ordering a transfer in two ways: (1) raising the standard of proof; and (2) requiring a new specific finding regarding amenability to rehabilitation.

It also amended section 707 to require the court to recite the basis for its decision in an order that includes the reasons supporting the court’s finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1284

Fifth Holding:

The weight to be given to each of these criteria is within the court’s discretion. However, to transfer a minor to criminal court, the juvenile court must ultimately find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

The prosecution bears the burden of proof. Nothing in section 707 indicates that the court is required to give equal weight to each of the five criteria or that it would necessarily be an abuse of discretion to find that one criterion outweighed the other criteria.

This standard requires a finding of high probability The evidence must be so clear as to leave no substantial doubt; sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.

Authority:

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 186

D.W. v. Superior Court (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 109, 116

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 159, 161

C.S. v. Superior Court (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1009, 1035

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 167

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 417

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998, fn. 2

In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1286

Sixth Holding:

We review the juvenile court’s ruling on a transfer motion for abuse of discretion. The court’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.

A decision based on insufficient evidence or the court’s erroneous understanding of applicable law is subject to reversal. But we do not reweigh the evidence and we do not substitute our discretion for the discretion exercised by the trial court.

We draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court’s findings, not against them. We are concerned only with whether the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings. When evidence reasonably justifies the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.

Authority:

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165, 169

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 187

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 211

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000924

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that, in orally pronouncing sentence, the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three pursuant to section 654. Further, the court orally pronounced that count four is the principal determinate term, whereas the abstract lists count three.

First Holding:

In orally pronouncing judgment, the trial court ordered execution of the sentence imposed on count three stayed under section 654. The abstract of judgment, however, does not reflect this pronouncement. The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over any discrepancy with the minutes or the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 864

Second Holding:

Section 654 provides, in pertinent part that 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. There is a multiple victim exception to section 654 which allows separate punishment for each crime of violence against a different victim, even though all crimes are part of an indivisible course of conduct with a single principal objective.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Felix (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1618, 1630-1631

Third Holding:

The People did not raise in the trial court their argument that the court could not stay execution of the sentence on count three based on the multiple victim exception. In any event, whether section 654 applies is a factual question, and we review the trial court’s decision for substantial evidence.

In analyzing whether section 654 bars the imposition of multiple sentences, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and affirm the trial court’s sentencing decision—whether express or implied—if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Under this standard, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the record.

Because the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three, we presume that the court implicitly found the multiple victim exception to section 654 inapplicable. The court’s implicit finding (that two others present at the shooting were not victims of the shooting) is supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

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

People v. Vasquez (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 732, 737

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042 [Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it]

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral judgment.

(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for this order, but there is plenty to be had. I have listed some that the court could have cited.)

Authority:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that, in orally pronouncing sentence, the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three pursuant to section 654. Further, the court orally pronounced that count four is the principal determinate term, whereas the abstract lists count three.

First Holding:

In orally pronouncing judgment, the trial court ordered execution of the sentence imposed on count three stayed under section 654. The abstract of judgment, however, does not reflect this pronouncement. The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over any discrepancy with the minutes or the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 864

Second Holding:

Section 654 provides, in pertinent part that 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. There is a multiple victim exception to … section 654 which allows separate punishment for each crime of violence against a different victim, even though all crimes are part of an indivisible course of conduct with a single principal objective.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Felix (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1618, 1630-1631

Third Holding:

The People did not raise in the trial court their argument that the court could not stay execution of the sentence on count three based on the multiple victim exception. In any event, whether section 654 applies is a factual question, and we review the trial court’s decision for substantial evidence.

In analyzing whether section 654 bars the imposition of multiple sentences, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and affirm the trial court’s sentencing decision—whether express or implied—if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Under this standard, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the record.

Because the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three, we presume that the court implicitly found the multiple victim exception to section 654 inapplicable. The court’s implicit finding (that two others present at the shooting were not victims of the shooting) is supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

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

People v. Vasquez (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 732, 737

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042 [Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it]

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral judgment.

(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for this order, but there is plenty to be had. I have listed some that the court could have cited.)

Authority:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fifth Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Sixth Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case 000923

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The instructional errors were prejudicial regarding the multiple-murder and lying-in-wait special circumstance findings attached to counts 1, 2 and 3.

We reverse those findings, but the prosecution may retry these special circumstance allegations.

The firearm enhancements found true as to counts 1, 2 and 3 must be reversed due to prejudicial error, including pleading deficiencies and insufficiency of the evidence. Retrial of the firearm enhancements is barred by principles of double jeopardy.

The trial court also erred by denying the defendant’s renewed motion for a transfer hearing in juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 as amended by AB 2361 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.).

Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the judgment and remand the matter with directions to refer the case to the juvenile court for a transfer hearing under current law.

First Holding:

In setting forth the relevant pertinent facts in an appellate opinion, we view the record in the light most favorable to the judgment.

Authority:

In re Jesus O. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 859, 861

People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578

Second Holding:

In counts 1 through 3, the jury convicted appellant of first degree murder. The jury found true four special circumstance allegations: (1) lying in wait; (2) multiple murders; (3) murder in the commission of robbery; and (4) murder in the commission of burglary. Because of the special circumstance findings, appellant was sentenced to three consecutive LWOP terms.

There were several instructional errors, but many we find to have been harmless error. The instructional errors were prejudicial regarding the multiple-murder and lying-in-wait special circumstance findings attached to counts 1, 2 and 3.

We reverse those findings, but the prosecution may retry these special circumstance allegations. Even if the People do not elect to do so, however, a full resentencing is required.

(Gary note: The opinion concluded that some of the instructions permitted finding guilt on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, which has been abolished. Cutting to the chase in this summary, the court stated in its analysis whether the instructional error was harmless, the court stated, that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that appellant acted as a major participant in these crimes and with his own reckless indifference to human life. It was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that any rational juror who convicted appellant of first degree murder would have necessarily found the facts required under section 189(e)(3).

(Also, the jury was erroneously told at times that, if appellant was not an actual killer, the lying-in-wait and the multiple-murder special-circumstance allegations could be found true merely if he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. This was legally incorrect. If appellant was not the actual killer, then the prosecution was required to prove that he acted with an intent to kill for each murder in order to establish these special circumstance allegations. The court did not find the error harmless on those instructions, and reversed those special circumstances, allowing the prosecution to retry them.)

Authority:

PEN 188(a)(3) [Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime]

PEN 190.2(c) and (d)

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 449

People v. Hallock (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 595, 607 [conviction reversed for instructional error may be retried if supported by sufficient evidence]

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

Third Holding:

We reject the prosecution’s contention that the defendant has forfeited claims of instructional error by failing to object. Trial courts have a sua sponte duty to correctly instruct on the elements of the charged offenses and on special circumstance allegations.

No objection is required to preserve a claim for appellate review when the jury instructions omit an essential element of a charge.

Moreover, a court may review any question of law involved in an instruction which affects the substantial rights of the defendant. As alleged, the instructional errors in this matter altered the mens rea and actus reus elements that the jury was required to find.

Accordingly, we decline to find forfeiture, and we will review this claim on its merits.

Authority:

PEN 1259

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 409

People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56, 91 [declining to rely on forfeiture doctrine where alleged instructional errors would have impacted defendant’s substantial rights].

Fourth Holding:

The instructional errors impacted appellant’s constitutional rights because they permitted the jury to convict him on an invalid legal theory. Accordingly, we must reverse the convictions unless, after examining the entire cause—including the evidence and considering all relevant circumstances—we determine the errors, including the disputed ones, were all harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

In re Ferrell (2023) 14 Cal.5th 593, 602

People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 13

Fifth Holding:

When a jury is instructed on both a legally valid theory and a legally invalid theory of guilt, harmlessness can be shown if the jury verdict on other points effectively embraces the valid theory or if, based on the evidence, it is impossible to have found what the verdict did find without also finding the facts underlying the valid theory.

To make this assessment, we must rigorously review the evidence to determine whether any rational juror who found the defendant guilty based on an invalid theory, and made the factual findings reflected in the jury’s verdict, would necessarily have found the defendant guilty based on a valid theory as well.

We must be convinced that the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and we must be satisfied that this standard is beyond serious debate.

We have rigorously reviewed the totality of the record to determine whether, based on the evidence, it is impossible for a rational juror to have found what the verdicts did find without also finding the facts underlying a valid theory.

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 443-444

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

In re Ferrell (2023) 14 Cal.5th 593, 602

Sixth Holding:

Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court’s instructions.

Authority:

People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852

Seventh Holding:

Section 12022.53(d) requires personal discharge by the defendant; it does not impose vicarious liability for another principal’s firearm discharge. Vicarious firearm liability is available only when a gang enhancement is proven. Once the gang allegations were dismissed on motion of the prosecution, the vicarious theory was unavailable.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53(d) and (e)

PEN 186.22(b)(1)

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 746

Eighth Holding:

Because personal discharge by appellant was neither charged nor expressly found true by the jury in the verdict forms, the court could not supply that missing fact at sentencing. Any fact increasing punishment must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

The trial court lacked authority to stay the count 1 enhancement merely as an exercise of sentencing discretion. The court was only authorized to strike or dismiss the enhancement, not to stay it even based on its own discretionary sense of justice. Based on principles of double jeopardy, retrial is barred.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53(j)

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 355, 364

Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 132–133 [“Because the prosecution had a full opportunity to prove the facts necessary for a conviction but failed to do so, double jeopardy bars a second bite at the apple”]

Curry v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 712 [jeopardy attaches when a defendant is placed on trial in a court of competent jurisdiction on a valid accusatory pleading]

Ninth Holding:

In January 2011, appellant was 16 years old when he committed the present crimes. In 2012, he was charged directly in adult court. In 2016, appellant filed a motion for remand to the juvenile court and a transfer hearing under Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57). Proposition 57 was passed in November 2016, and it prohibited prosecutors from charging crimes against juveniles directly in adult court.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 303

Tenth Holding:

Before sentencing occurred in this matter, AB 2361 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. These changes were effective January 1, 2023.

AB 2361 increased the burden of proof the prosecution was required to establish in order for a juvenile to be prosecuted in adult criminal court.

Under the newer heightened standard, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that a juvenile should be transferred to adult criminal court.

These developments materially changed the requirements for transfer in effect when the defendant originally waived his right to a transfer hearing. AB 2361 applies retroactively to nonfinal cases.

Authority:

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 416

In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1284

Eleventh Holding:

A person who is eligible to have his case proceed in juvenile court may knowingly waive this statutory right. A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.

A criminal defendant cannot be deemed to have waived or forfeited a legal argument that was not recognized at the time of his trial. Even where a right may be waived, a waiver generally does not include protections that were not reasonably available or contemplated at the time.

The matter must be remanded to the juvenile court to conduct a transfer hearing.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1620

People v. Johnson (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 123, 132 [legal counsel may waive the right to a juvenile fitness hearing for an accused who has reached adulthood]

Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) 304 U.S. 458, 464

People v. Cardenas (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1468, 1479

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 48 [in a negotiated plea, waiver of right to jury trial on charged offenses does not extend to proof of aggravating circumstances when no such jury right was recognized at time of plea]

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 85 [general waiver of right to appeal from a negotiated plea agreement will not bar the appeal of sentencing errors occurring subsequent to the plea]
People v. Becerra (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 178, 188 [defendant cannot knowingly and intelligently waive right to appeal an issue not contemplated at time of waiver].

 

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

Case 000922

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that the minor committed count 1 (conspiracy to commit assault with a firearm).

First Holding:

Conspiracy is an inchoate crime. A conviction of conspiracy requires proof that the defendant and another person had the specific intent to agree or conspire to commit an offense, as well as the specific intent to commit the elements of that offense, together with proof of the commission of an overt act by one or more of the parties to such agreement in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Criminal conspiracy is an offense distinct from the actual commission of a criminal offense that is the object of the conspiracy. Other than the agreement, the only act required is an overt act by any of the conspirators, not necessarily the defendant, and that overt act need not itself be criminal. Conspiracy thus criminalizes preparatory conduct at an earlier stage than an attempt to commit a crime.

As an inchoate crime, conspiracy fixes the point of legal intervention at the time of agreement to commit a crime, and thus reaches further back into preparatory conduct than attempt. An overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy must occur after the agreement but before the completed offense.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2014) 60 Cal.4th 603, 616, superseded on other grounds in People v. Carr (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 136, 142

People v. Zamora (1976) 18 Cal.3d 538, 560, overruled in part on other grounds in Cowan v. Superior Court (1996) 14 Cal.4th 367, 376

People v. Brown (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1361, 1368

Second Holding:

Conspiracy requires specific intent to commit the target offense. The mental state elements of conspiracy require the prosecution to demonstrate the defendant had the specific intent both to agree to the conspiracy and to commit the object offense.

The two elements are distinct, but closely related. In some cases, it may be useful to distinguish between the two elements, especially when evidence of one is direct and the other is circumstantial. But in many cases, proof of the two specific intent elements will overlap.

Together, these two specific intent elements play a critical role in a conspiracy prosecution: Proof of these elements is what separates a coconspirator from a mere bystander to the crime.

Authority:

People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 164

People v. Swain (1996) 12 Cal.4th 593, 600

People v. Marsh (1962) 58 Cal.2d 732, 742–744 [focusing on intent to commit a crime where there was clear evidence of intent to agree]

People v. Beck and Cruz (2019) 8 Cal.5th 548, 629 [focusing on intent to agree where there was clear evidence of intent to commit a crime]

Third Holding:

The First Amendment forbids punishing a person merely for associating with others—even as part of a group premised on a violent aim. Because the law will not recognize a rule of guilt by association, we insist on proof of a defendant’s knowledge of, and specific intent to further, the group’s unlawful ends.

Authority:

Scales v. United States (1961) 367 U.S. 203

Elfbrandt v. Russell (1966) 384 U.S. 11, 19 [A law that applies to membership without the specific intent to further the illegal aims of the organization rests on the doctrine of guilt by association, which has no place here]

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) 561 U.S. 1, 18 [noting that mere membership in, or association with, an organization that advocates terrorism cannot itself be criminalized]

Fourth Holding:

To prove conspiracy, the prosecution need not establish the intent to participate in every act necessary to complete the object offense. But ultimately, to connect any individual to the charged conspiracy, the prosecution must at least establish that the individual specifically intended to agree to commit the criminal offense and to play at least some role in achieving it.

Authority:

Salinas v. United States (1997) 522 U.S. 52, 63 [A conspiracy may exist even if a conspirator does not agree to commit or facilitate each and every part of the substantive offense]

People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 166-167

Fifth Holding:

We must review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment, and then determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sufficiency determinations necessarily take account of the standard of proof that applied before the trial court.

That is why in criminal cases we must ensure the record demonstrates substantial evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 167

Sixth Holding:

We must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.

But we cannot, however, venture beyond the evidence presented at trial, and may consider only those inferences that are reasonably supported by the record.

A reasonable inference may not be based on suspicion alone, or on imagination, speculation, supposition, surmise, conjecture, or guess work. It must logically flow from other facts established in the action, and it cannot be based entirely on the suspicions of the officers involved in the case and the conjecture of the prosecution.

In sum, after considering the record in its entirety, we conclude that the evidence presented at the contested jurisdiction hearing is insufficient to show that minor had the requisite specific intent to participate in a conspiracy to commit the target offense of assault with a firearm.

(Gary note: I omitted the recitation of facts the court relied on to reach its conclusion after applying the various principles set forth in the opinion and this summary.)

Authority:

People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 167-168

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Racial Justice Act, Standard of review

Case 000916

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant filed a habeas corpus petition in the superior court, alleging that his 1992 convictions for first degree murder and robbery were obtained “on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin” in violation of the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (RJA). He also requested, pursuant to the RJA, appointment of counsel and disclosure of evidence to support his claims.

The trial court denied the discovery request and the habeas petition, concluding that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case for relief under the RJA.

The court erred. We grant the petition and issue a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying the habeas petition, appoint counsel for the defendant, and conduct a new hearing to reconsider his discovery request in a manner consistent with this opinion.

(Gary note: The court outlined in several paragraphs the specific allegations the defendant set forth in his petition that, if true, arguably demonstrated that his arrest and prosecution were affected by factors disallowed by the RJA. As these summaries are designed to highlight principles and the cases or statutes supporting the principles, I am not going to include the facts of the case on which the appellate court concluded that the defendant had demonstrated a sufficient showing to warrant appointment of counsel and discovery.)

First Holding:

Ordinarily, mandate does not lie to correct judicial errors by the superior court in habeas corpus proceedings.

However, where, as here, the trial court failed to perform its required duty to conduct an independent assessment of whether the petitioner was entitled to have counsel appointed under newly adopted procedures enacted by the Legislature, then mandate may be used to compel the performance of that duty.

Authority:

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 46-47

Second Holding:

Several have concluded that writ review of the trial court’s discovery rulings in RJA cases is appropriate because such rulings involve novel legal issues of widespread interest.

The RJA is a recent legislation that has been amended multiple times since its inception, and although its command is simple, its implementation is somewhat complex.

We therefore agree with the court in Young that exercising our discretion to review discovery rulings under the RJA is appropriate to provide general guidelines for future cases.

(Gary note:  I find that last sentence regarding guidelines for future cases a bit amusing, because this is an unpublished opinion, and the only “future case” it will ever affect is THIS particular defendant’s instant case.  But hey.  Maybe the “to publish or not to publish” colloquy occurred after the opinion was written.)

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 147, 156

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 36, 53-54

McDaniel v. Superior Court (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 228, 238

Third Holding:

Because management of discovery lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, we review discovery rulings for abuse of discretion. We review the factual underpinnings of a discretionary determination for substantial evidence, but where such a determination rests on incorrect legal premises, our review is de novo.

A discretionary order based on an application of improper criteria or incorrect legal assumptions is not an exercise of informed discretion and is subject to reversal.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 156

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 36, 55

Fourth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2021, the Legislature enacted the RJA (AB 2542 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.)) to eliminate racial bias from California’s criminal justice system; to ensure that race plays no role at all in seeking or obtaining convictions or in sentencing; and to ensure that individuals have access to all relevant evidence, including statistical evidence, regarding potential discrimination in seeking or obtaining convictions or imposing sentences.

To achieve these objectives, the RJA added and amended Penal Code sections to allow defendants whose judgments are final or who are no longer in custody, respectively, to seek relief for RJA violations.

Authority:

PEN 745

PEN 1473

PEN 1473.7

In re Lynex (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 756, 767

People v. Wilson (2024) 16 Cal.5th 874, 945

Fifth Holding:

The RJA provides that the state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. The statute further sets forth four categories of conduct, any of which, if proved, is enough to establish a violation of the RJA.

Authority:

PEN 745(a)

Sixth Holding:

The court shall appoint counsel if the petitioner cannot afford counsel and the petition alleges facts that would establish a violation of section 745(a). In AB 1071, the Legislature reaffirmed that this threshold is extremely low. (Stats. 2025, ch. 721, sec. 1, subd. (b).)

AB 1071 states that courts have imposed on RJA petitioners higher burdens than the Legislature intended to meet the threshold to secure counsel and denied counsel to litigants raising RJA claims far more than they have appointed counsel.

The new legislation clarifies that the court shall appoint counsel to all indigent postconviction litigants who allege a plausible claim of an RJA violation, which does not require a prima facie showing and should be construed as a minimal pleading requirement.

Authority:

PEN 1473(e)(5)

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33

Seventh Holding:

The RJA defines a prima facie showing to mean that the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation of the RJA occurred.

By contrast, to be entitled to counsel in RJA habeas proceedings, petitioners are required only to allege facts that would establish a violation of the RJA.

Authority:

PEN 745(h)(2)

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 45

Eighth Holding:

Regarding the showing necessary for discovery, a defendant is required only to advance a plausible factual foundation, based on specific facts, that a violation of the RJA could or might have occurred in his case.

The burden at the discovery stage is a good cause showing, the burden at the prima facie stage is higher, and the burden at the evidentiary hearing is higher still—proof of an RJA violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

As the least onerous of the statute’s burdens of proof, the plausible justification standard should not be difficult to meet. Where the defendant makes a showing of plausible justification that there was or could have been a violation of the RJA, thus triggering access to all relevant evidence concerning a potential violation of section 745(a), it will likely be an abuse of discretion to totally foreclose discovery.

Authority:

PEN 745(c), (d), and (e)

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 159, 168-169

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 36, 61

Ninth Holding:

At the discovery stage, as at the prima facie stage, the court should not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations, except in the rare case where the record irrefutably establishes that the allegations are false.

Authority:

Finley v. Superior Court (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 12, 23–24

McDaniel v. Superior Court (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 228, 246, fn. 8 [A trial court’s review of supporting evidence at the discovery stage, which imposes even a lower burden of proof on defendants than the prima facie stage, must be more lenient]

Tenth Holding:

Although the defendant has offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate a plausible factual foundation for discovery under the RJA, a question remains regarding the appropriate scope of his request.

When determining if a petitioner is entitled to the requested discovery, the court must still consider and balance the so-called Alhambra factors:

(1) whether the material requested is adequately described;

(2) whether the requested material is reasonably available to the governmental entity from which it is sought (and not readily available to the defendant from other sources);

(3) whether production of the records containing the requested information would violate (i) third party confidentiality or privacy rights or (ii) any protected governmental interest;

(4) whether the defendant has acted in a timely manner;

(5) whether the time required to produce the requested information will necessitate an unreasonable delay of the defendant’s trial; and

(6) whether the production of the records containing the requested information would place an unreasonable burden on the governmental entity involved.

Authority:

City of Alhambra v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1118, 1134

Eleventh Holding:

In addition, the court must consider whether the requests for disclosure may give rise to relevant evidence, meaning that the court must determine whether they are reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence probative of a section 745(a) violation.

The trial courts in exercising their discretion should keep in mind that the Legislature has suggested that, where possible, the courts should impose partial limitations rather than outright denial of discovery.

Authority:

McDaniel v. Superior Court (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 228, 248

Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 559

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

Case 000908

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted of three charges, including two counts of conspiracy. Under the circumstances in this case, he could be convicted of only a single count of conspiracy. We reverse the conviction on count 3.

First Holding:

The defendant was charged with explosion causing mayhem and great bodily injury in count 1, conspiracy to discharge a firearm from a motor vehicle in count 2), and conspiracy to commit assault with a firearm in count 3. Both conspiracy convictions both convictions arose from a single agreement and the single criminal objective of shooting the victim.

A defendant may be convicted of only a single count of conspiracy based on a single agreement. It is well settled that the essence of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement, and thus it is the number of the agreements (not the number of the victims or number of statutes violated) that determine the number of the conspiracies. The gist of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement or confederation of the conspirators to commit one or more unlawful acts. The conspiracy is the crime, and that is one, however diverse its objects.

Authority:

People v. Meneses (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1648, 1669

People v. Lopez (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1551, 1557 [One agreement gives rise to only a single offense, despite any multiplicity of objects]

Braverman v. United States (1942) 317 U.S. 49, 53

Second Holding:

Where a defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction, 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.

We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. This standard applies whether direct or circumstantial evidence is involved. The evidence presented in this case supports only that there was a single agreement to commit one shooting of the victim.

Authority:

People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1251

Third Holding:

That the single shooting may have violated two separate criminal statutes is immaterial.

Authority:

People v. Patrick (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 952, 965 [noting that a single agreement to commit acts which, if completed, would constitute more than one substantive crime, is but a single conspiracy]

People v. Meneses (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1648, 1669 [Whether the object of a single agreement is to commit one or many crimes, it is in either case that agreement which constitutes the conspiracy which the statute punishes]

Fourth Holding:

If the felony is conspiracy to commit two or more felonies which have different punishments and the commission of those felonies constitute but one offense of conspiracy, the penalty shall be that prescribed for the felony which has the greater maximum term. Here, because the maximum punishment for count 2 is seven years and the maximum punishment for count 3 is four years , count 3, having the lesser maximum term, must be reversed.

Authority:

PEN 182(a)

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

Case 000906

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the trial court struck the one-year prior but otherwise declined to reduce the defendant’s sentence. The trial court did not apply the correct standard of law and therefore abused its discretion. We reverse the order.

First Holding:

SB 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess. amended section 667.5b) to allow courts to impose one-year prior prison term enhancements only for specified sexually violent offenses. Thereafter, SB 483 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) made the amendment retroactive to final cases and added what is now section 1172.75.

Section 1172.75 sets forth the process for recalling sentences and resentencing. If a judgment includes a qualifying enhancement, the trial court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. Resentencing shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed inclusive of the enhancements unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.

At resentencing, the court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the defendant’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.

Authority:

PEN 667.5(b)

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

Unless the court originally imposed the upper term, the court may not impose a sentence exceeding the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and those facts have been stipulated to by the defendant, or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

At a hearing under section 1172.75, the resentencing court shall apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(2)

Third Holding:

As relevant here, SB 81 (2021–2022) effected a change in law by adding subdivision (c) to section 1385. That subdivision provides that, notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute. 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(c)

Fourth Holding:

Section 1385(c) sets forth several mitigating circumstances for consideration. Two of them are relevant in this case. Under section 1385(c), absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a court retains the discretion to impose or dismiss enhancements provided that it assigns significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances when they are present.

Stated simply, if the court does not conclude that dismissal would endanger public safety, then mitigating circumstances strongly favor dismissing the enhancement. But ultimately, the court must determine whether dismissal is in furtherance of justice.

This means that, absent a danger to public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1029, 1038

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s sentencing decision under section 1172.75 for abuse of discretion and ask whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether its rulings of law are correct, and whether its application of the law to the facts was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

We similarly review a trial court’s decision not to dismiss a sentencing enhancement for an abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 857

Nazir v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 478, 490

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

Sixth Holding:

We reject the Attorney General’s argument that the defendant forfeited this contention because he failed to raise it below. The defendant did not have to ask the trial court to apply the correct standard of law to preserve a claim on appeal that the trial court applied an incorrect one. Rather, a defendant is entitled to sentencing decisions based on the sentencing court’s informed discretion, including one informed by the correct law. In any event, we may review any question of law involved in any ruling or order that affects the defendant’s substantial rights, even if the defendant did not object below.

(Gary note: The court proceeded to analyze the trial court’s treatment or lack thereof of facts specific to this defendant that demonstrated the abuse of discretion.)

Authority:

PEN 1259

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424

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

Case 000905

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court lacked potential information relevant to exercising its discretion at the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75. We reverse the judgment and remand for a new resentencing hearing.

First Holding:

On the date ultimately set for the hearing, the defendant’s attorney informed the court that he did not know the hearing on the petition was going to be held, and he needed a continuance to prepare for presenting mitigating information. The court denied the motion for continuance and held the hearing, striking the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement but otherwise making no changes to the sentence.

This was error. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements. Thus, in a case such as this, the resentencing court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the sentence, and not just the portion subjected to the recall.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402

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

Second Holding:

Section 1172.75 provides that when a court resentences a defendant under the statute, it shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

The court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the defendant’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(2), (d)(3)

Third Holding:

Section 1385(a) grants the superior court discretion, in furtherance of justice, to order an action to be dismissed. This includes the authority to strike a sentence enhancement. To apply this discretion, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of several mitigating circumstances 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.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Barboza (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 955, 965

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. One factor to consider is whether a continuance would be useful. Here, a continuance was merited because it would have allowed defense counsel to obtain potential evidence relevant to resentencing regarding childhood trauma and mental capacity.

This was apparently the defendant’s first request for a continuance, and the burden on the court of a continuance was minimal because there would have been no need to reschedule witnesses or consider juror inconvenience. 

(Gary note: The appellate court then outlined several factors specific to this defendant that the trial court failed to give any consideration to, leading to the appellate court’s decision to remand. The details are not useful for this summary.)

Because the court lacked evidence of all relevant mitigating factors identified in section 1385, we must remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the court would have reached the same conclusion even had it considered the mitigating factors.

Authority:

People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1118

People v. Grajeda (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 829, 839–840

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

Fifth Holding:

Although a court is presumed to have considered all of the relevant factors in the absence of an affirmative record to the contrary, when it expressly states the basis for its decision and declines to consider other factors, we will not infer it weighed the other factors. Because the court expressly considered only the circumstances of the defendant’s crime, we cannot infer that it also considered mitigating circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Myers (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 305, 310

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000904

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court denied the defendant’s application for mental health diversion, finding that although defendant was eligible for diversion, he was not suitable because he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

There is insufficient evidence of an unreasonable risk that defendant will commit a super strike offense if treated in the community. We will reverse the judgment and remand the matter for a new hearing on defendant’s present suitability for mental health diversion.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 1001.36 gives a trial court discretion to grant pretrial diversion for individuals with certain mental health disorders. The trial court can postpone prosecution at any time in the judicial process, either temporarily or permanently, to allow the defendant to undergo treatment. The Legislature intended the mental health diversion program to apply as broadly as possible.

Authority:

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

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147-1149

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 133

Second Holding:

A defendant must be both eligible and suitable for mental health diversion. A defendant is eligible under section 1001.36 (b) if (1) the defendant has been diagnosed by a qualified mental health expert with a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the DSM; and (2) the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

Authority:

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 133

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891

Third Holding:

As for suitability, four circumstances must be satisfied: (1) in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert the defendant’s mental disorder would respond to treatment; (2) the defendant consents to diversion and agrees to waive his or her speedy trial rights; (3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment requirements; and (4) if treated in the community, the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as defined in section 1170.18.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(1)-(4)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891-892

Fourth Holding:

A defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety under section 1170.18(c) if there is an unreasonable risk that the defendant will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv), otherwise known as a super strike.

The enumerated super strike offenses include murder, attempted murder, solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a police officer, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, a serious or violent felony punishable by death or life imprisonment, a sexually violent offense, or a sexual offense committed against a minor under the age of 14.

Authority:

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 679

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for mental health diversion for abuse of discretion. A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary decision by applying the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.

There is no evidence defendant had been previously charged with a super strike offense, and his current offense is not a super strike. Defendant’s criminal history consists of two nonviolent felonies and four misdemeanor offenses. At the time of the hearing on his application, defendant was doing well in an outpatient program. He had successfully engaged in a treatment program for six months, he was maintaining housing and a job, he had not reoffended, and his treatment provider recommended defendant continue treatment in the community.

On this record, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of an unreasonable risk that defendant will commit a super strike offense if treated in the community.

Authority:

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 135

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000903

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A defendant sentenced to LWOP is not rendered ineligible for relief under section 1172.75 unless the person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense.

First Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature declared legally invalid all prior-prison-term sentencing enhancements imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5(b) before January 1, 2020, except in cases involving terms for sexually violent offenses. Section 1172.75 established a procedure for resentencing individuals serving a term for a judgment that includes such enhancements.

Three years later, the Legislature amended the statute to preclude resentencing for an individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense as defined section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code and sentenced to death or a life term without the possibility of parole (LWOP).

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(f)

Second Holding:

The defendant was sentenced to LWOP, but has not been convicted of any sexually violent offense. Having examined the text and the legislative history of section 1172.75(f), we conclude the Legislature intended to exclude from resentencing only those individuals who were convicted of a sexually violent offense and sentenced to death or LWOP.

We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. When interpreting any statute, our goal is to determine the Legislature’s intent and give effect to the statute’s purpose. We begin by examining the statute’s words, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning. We do not, however, consider the statutory language in isolation.

We construe the words in question in context, keeping in mind the nature and obvious purpose of the statute. We also construe every statute with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part, so that all may be harmonized and anomalies avoided.

The statute’s plain meaning controls the court’s interpretation unless its words are ambiguous. If the statutory language is unclear, we may look to legislative history and public policy as aids in determining how best to give effect to Legislative intent.

Authority:

People v. Cornett (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1261, 1265

Iloff v. LaPaille (2025) 18 Cal.5th 551, 560-561

Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310, 330

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1057

People v. Robinson (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 516, 522, review granted July 15, 2026, S297048

Third Holding:

Our colleagues in the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Robinson,recently considered how to interpret section 1172.75(f). The court first observed that the ordinary and usual usage of ‘and’ is as a conjunctive, meaning an additional thing, also, or plus.

Further, the Legislature had used the term “and” and “or” in different parts of subdivision (f), which suggested that the Legislature understood the difference between the typically conjunctive “and” and the typically disjunctive “or.” It therefore appeared the challenged portion of subdivision (f) was intended to be construed conjunctively to exclude an individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense and sentenced to death or a life term without the possibility of parole.

The Robinson court further noted that even if it were to assume the plain language of section 1172,75(f) was ambiguous as to whether it should be read conjunctively or disjunctively, the legislative history supported a conjunctive interpretation.

As the plain meaning of the text and the legislative history both support a narrow reading of section 1172.75(f), we agree with the court’s holding in Robinson and find that section 1172.75(f) applies only to individuals serving a sentence of death or LWOP who are also convicted of a sexually violent offense as defined by Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600(b). Because petitioner was not convicted of a sexually violent offense, he is eligible for recall and resentencing under section 1172.75.

Authority:

People v. Robinson (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 516, 524-526, review granted July 15, 2026, S297048

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

Case 000900

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in failing to award pretrial credit for time served on several of the counts for which a determinate sentence was imposed. The abstract of judgment must be corrected as it incorrectly describes findings by the jury as enhancements.

First Holding:

We review de novo the application of section 2900.5 to the defendant’s sentence. We first examine the statutory language, giving it a plain and commonsense meaning. If the language is clear, courts must generally follow its plain meaning unless a literal interpretation would result in absurd consequences the Legislature did not intend.

Authority:

People v. Cofer (2026) 20 Cal.5th 1, 12

Second Holding:

Under section 2900.5, defendants who serve time in custody prior to their sentencing “receive credit against their prison terms for all of those days spent in custody prior to sentencing, so long as the presentence custody is attributable to the conduct that led to the conviction.

Section 2900.5(b) states in relevant part, that for the purposes of this section credit shall be given only once for a single period of custody attributable to multiple offenses for which a consecutive sentence is imposed.

That language does no more than clarify that when consecutive terms are imposed for multiple offenses in a single proceeding, only one of the terms shall receive credit for presentence custody. Thus, if sentences are imposed consecutively in a single proceeding, dual credits are expressly prohibited by statute.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 793

People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178, 1192, fn. 9

Third Holding:

Section 669(a) provides that whenever a person is committed to prison on a life sentence that is ordered to run consecutive to any determinate term of imprisonment, the determinate term of imprisonment shall be served first.

Authority:

PEN 669(a)

Fourth Holding:

Three separate sentencing schemes governed the defendant’s sentencing. For his conviction for murder (count 1), his indeterminate sentence was dictated by sections 190 and 190.2(a).

For his convictions for rape in concert (count 3) and oral copulation in concert (count 4), his indeterminate sentences were supplied by the One Strike law.

His determinate sentences for counts 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 were governed by sections 1170 and 1170.1. As the determinate sentences must be served first, the credit for time served should have been applied against the total term imposed for all seven of the determinate components of the sentence, and the court erred in failing to award credits against that part of the determinate sentence that applied to three of the counts.

He is entitled to no presentence custody against the remaining indeterminate sentences, as they were imposed consecutively.

Authority:

PEN 190

PEN 190.2

PEN 667.61(c)

PEN 669(a)

PEN 1170.1

PEN 2900.5

In re Vaquera (2024) 15 Cal.5th 706, 724 [The trial court must impose a One Strike sentence when a One Strike allegation is properly pled and proved.]

Fifth Holding:

The abstract of judgment is in error in describing the jury’s true findings under sections 190.2(d) and 667.61 as sentencing “enhancements.” The jury’s true findings pursuant to sections 190.2(d) and 667.61 are penalty provisions that exposed the defendant to greater punishment than would be authorized by a verdict on the underlying offense alone; they were not sentencing enhancements. They should not be so described in the abstract of judgment.

We will direct the trial court to delete the entries under “enhancements” in part 2 of the defendant’s indeterminate abstract of judgment.

(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for its directive that the abstract of judgment be corrected. I have listed several below (beginning with Mitchell) on which the court could have relied.)

Authority:

People v. Boswell (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 55, 60


People v. Acosta (2002) 29 Cal.4th 105, 117
.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discretion, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000899

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The electronic-data conditions are unreasonable under People v. Lent. We therefore strike them and remand for the juvenile court to consider whether to impose revised conditions. We also agree with the parties that the association condition should be modified to include a knowledge requirement.

First Holding:

When a ward of the juvenile court is placed on probation, the court may make any and all reasonable orders for the conduct of the ward, including conditions of probation that (1) are individually tailored, developmentally appropriate, and reasonable; (2) impose a burden that is proportional to the legitimate interests served by the conditions; and (3) are determined by the court to be fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced. A condition of probation that is impermissible for an adult criminal defendant is not necessarily unreasonable for a juvenile receiving guidance and supervision from the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 730(b)

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

Second Holding:

We review conditions of probation for an abuse of discretion, which occurs only if the condition is arbitrary or capricious or otherwise exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances. To determine whether a probation condition is reasonable, we apply a three-part test under Lent.

A condition cannot be held invalid under Lent unless it meets all three of the following prongs: it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not related to future criminality.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118-1119

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

Third Holding:

In addition to being reasonable, a probation condition must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated, or else it is void for vagueness. And when a probation condition imposes limitations on a probationer’s constitutional rights, it must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition—the person’s reformation and rehabilitation—to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

Whether a term of probation is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad presents a question of law, which we review de novo.

Authority:

In re David C. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 657, 661

Fifth Holding:

We conclude that the conditions are invalid under Lent. As to the first prong of Lent, there is no question that restricting the use of electronics The minor’s conduct involved asking the victim for her phone number, and asked the victim to put his number in her phone contacts list–which she did, but later deleted it. These acts do not establish the requisite relationship between the challenged probation conditions and the minor’s offense (sexual battery by restraint). Generally, decisions finding a sufficient connection between electronics search conditions and an offense rely on the probationer’s use of electronic devices to facilitate the offense.

In Appleton, the defendant met the minor victim online and later sexually assaulted him. The Court of Appeal held that the nexus between the offense and the probation condition at issue was sufficient even though it was somewhat attenuated. In Flores, the Court held that there was a reasonable relationship between the condition at issue and the defendant’s drug offense because the defendant used a website and an online program to arrange drug sales through a disguised phone number. Here, in contrast, there is no evidence that electronic devices played any role in facilitating the offense.

Here, in contrast, there is no indication that the minor ever actually contacted the victim through an electronic device. Indeed, he did not even have the ability to do so, as he never obtained her contact information. Nor is there any evidence that the victim attempted to communicate with the minor after the offense. The first two prongs of Lent have been met–the condition has no relation to the criminal conduct, and it restrains otherwise lawful conduct.

Authority:

People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717, 719-720

People v. Flores (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 563, 565-566, 573

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

Sixth Holding:

The third prong contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition. Thus, the mere fact that monitoring a probationer’s electronic devices and social media might deter or prevent future criminal conduct is insufficient to justify a broad electronics search condition. The electronic-data conditions burden the minor’s privacy in a manner substantially disproportionate to the claimed purposes of ensuring compliance with two of his other probation conditions (a no-contact order and prohibition from possessing sexual materials).

Authority:

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

In re David C. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 657, 665 and fn 4

In re Amber K. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 559, 567-568

Seventh Holding:

The court ordered the following probation condition: “The Minor shall not associate with minors under the age of 14, unless it is his own child, unless in the presence of a responsible adult, or associated person is approved by the Probation Department.”

A probation condition is unconstitutionally overbroad if it (1) impinges on constitutional rights, and (2) is not tailored carefully and reasonably related to the compelling state interest in reformation and rehabilitation. 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 probationer’s constitutional rights—bearing in mind, of course, that perfection in such matters is impossible, and that practical necessity will justify some infringement.

The restriction is not unreasonable, but it must be tailored to require the minor’s express knowledge that the minor is under the age of 14. Generally speaking, if a probation condition prohibits a probationer from associating with a certain group of people, the condition is unconstitutionally vague unless it also requires that the probationer know a given person is in that group. Here, the minor may not reasonably know that an individual is under 14 years of age.

Thus, we modify the association condition to read: “The Minor shall not associate with minors whom he knows or reasonably should know are under the age of 14, unless it is his own child, unless he is in the presence of a responsible adult, or unless the associated person is approved by the Probation Department.”

Authority:

People v. Gonsalves (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1, 8–9

People v. Bray (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 494, 503

People v. Turner (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1436 [modifying condition prohibiting association with people under age 18].