Category Archives: Standard of review

Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000871

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court was not statutorily authorized to impose a section 12022.53(c) enhancement for a section 26100 offense (discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle). We remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.

First Holding:

We review the trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. In deciding whether the trial court has abused its discretion, we note that when a trial court’s decision rests on an error of law, that decision is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847

People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) (2008) 43 Cal.4th 737, 746

Second Holding:

Section 12022.53, in relevant part, sets forth escalating additional and consecutive penalties, beyond that imposed for a substantive crime, for the use of a firearm in the commission of specified felonies. Section 12022.53(c) mandates the imposition of a 20-year term for the personal and intentional discharge of a firearm in the commission of one of the section 12022.53(a) felonies, which does not include section 26100.

Imposition of that enhancement was an abuse of discretion, which resulted in an unauthorized sentence.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53

Third Holding:

The People suggest this court can modify the sentence and impose a lesser included section 12022.5(a) enhancement of 10 years. But section 12022.5(a) provides that the enhancement does not apply if firearm use is an element of the underlying offense, which precludes its application to the crime of discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle. Thus, we remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Kramer (2002) 29 Cal.4th 720, 723, fn. 2

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 700, fn. 12

Discretion, Juveniles, Standard of review

Case 000860

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse the juvenile court’s transfer order and remand for a new hearing and ruling on the district attorney’s transfer motion.

First Holding:

The ultimate question for the juvenile court in a transfer petition is whether a minor is amenable to rehabilitation before the juvenile court’s jurisdiction expires. To order a minor’s transfer to a court of criminal jurisdiction, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(3)

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.770(a), (b)

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 212

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

Second Holding:

In making that determination, the juvenile court must consider five specific criteria: (1) the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited 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) 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.

Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(a)(3) also sets forth a nonexhaustive list of relevant factors for the juvenile court to consider with respect to each of the five criteria.

Authority:

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 212

Third Holding:

The allegation that a minor committed a serious offense, including murder, does not automatically require a finding of unfitness. Rather, in evaluating this criterion, a juvenile court may rely on evidence that, while not justifying or excusing the crime, tends to lessen its magnitude.

Authority:

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 189

Fourth Holding:

A juvenile court can retain jurisdiction over a minor as described in section 602 for the offense of murder until he or she attains 25 years of age, or upon the expiration of a two-year period of control, whichever occurs later.

In determining whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction, ‘the juvenile court shall give weight to any relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the minor’s potential to grow and mature.

Expert witnesses may testify on the issue of the availability of treatment programs in the juvenile court system and the amenability of the minor to those programs.

Authority:

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 213

Fifth Holding:

A minor’s amenability to rehabilitation is the central and dispositive question in proceedings under section 707, and the juvenile court’s analysis of the section 707 criteria must be focused through the lens of amenability to rehabilitation.

Authority:

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 161–162

In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1288, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re J.M. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 745, 751–753

Sixth Holding:

We review the juvenile court’s ruling on a transfer motion for abuse of discretion. The lower court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.

The court’s ultimate finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under its jurisdiction is also reviewed for substantial evidence. In conducting substantial evidence review, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court’s findings.

Moreover, a trial court abuses its discretion when its factual findings are not supported by the evidence, or its decision is based on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

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

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 433

Seventh Holding:

When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true.

The clear and convincing evidence 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:

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 160–161

Eighth Holding:

The court’s reliance on uncertainty born out of the district attorney’s limited proof about why the minor would not accept or respond to the available treatment that the probation department believed would prepare the minor for re-entry into the community resulted in an improper shift of the burden from the district attorney to show the minor’s unamenability to the minor to show his amenability to rehabilitation.

This shift amounts to an abuse of discretion based on the application of an incorrect legal standard. Given that the juvenile court improperly applied the burden of proof in deciding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the court’s jurisdiction, we agree with the minor that the court’s order granting the transfer motion must be reversed and the matter remanded for a new transfer hearing.

Authority:

J.N. v. Superior Court (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 706, 722 [holding there was an abuse of discretion where there was no evidence that demonstrated existing programs were unlikely to result in the minor’s rehabilitation, why they were unlikely to work in this case, or that they would take more than three years to accomplish the task of rehabilitating minor]

People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 673 [The prosecution cannot suggest that deficiencies in the defense case can make up for shortcomings in its own]

Fifth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000858

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We hold that the officers’ un-Mirandized questioning of the defendant was a custodial interrogation and reverse the judgment.

First Holding:

When reviewing issues under Miranda, we accept the trial court’s findings of historical fact if supported by substantial evidence but independently determine whether the interrogation was custodial. Where, as here, an interview is recorded, the facts surrounding the admission are undisputed and subject to our independent review.

Authority:

People v. Aguilera (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1161

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 172

Second Holding:

To give force to the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination, a custodial interrogation must be preceded by Miranda warnings and the suspect’s voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights.

Persons in custody thus must be warned that they have the right to remain silent, any statement made may be used as evidence against them, and they have the right to an attorney.

For Miranda purposes, interrogation means express questioning or 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.

Authority:

Florida v. Powell (2010) 559 U.S. 50, 59

People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523, 530–531

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 244

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

Third Holding:

The protections provided by Miranda apply only to custodial interrogations. The term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.

Volunteered statements, for instance, that were not made in response to police questioning are not the product of an interrogation and thus not inadmissible under Miranda even when the statements were made while in custody.

Where a defendant seeks to exclude statements made in the absence of a Miranda advisement, they must therefore establish both that the police questioning was an interrogation and that it occurred while the individual was in custody.

Authority:

People v. Zapata (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 529, 538

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

People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 648

Fourth Holding:

A custodial interrogation occurs when a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would feel that their freedom has been deprived in any significant way; for example, a formal arrest or a restraint of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest.

When there has been no formal arrest, the question is how a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have understood their situation. All the circumstances of the interrogation are relevant to this inquiry, including the location, length and form of the interrogation, the degree to which the investigation was focused on the defendant, and whether any indicia of arrest were present.

Whether a person is in custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.

Authority:

California v. Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 1125

People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 491

People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal.4th 386, 395

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 172

Fifth Holding:

When the court considers whether an individual was in custody during their questioning, it looks at the interplay and combined effect of all the circumstances to determine whether on balance they created a coercive atmosphere such that a reasonable person would have experienced a restraint tantamount to an arrest. The courts have articulated a number of non-exhaustive factors to consider when conducting this analysis.

The relevant factors include: (1) whether contact was initiated by the police or the person interrogated, and if by the police, whether the person voluntarily agreed to an interview; (2) whether the express purpose of the interview was to question the person as a witness or a suspect; (3) location of the interview; (4) whether police informed the person they were under arrest or in custody; (5) whether they informed the person they were free to terminate the interview and leave at any time; (6) whether there were restrictions on the person’s freedom of movement during the interview; (7) length of the interrogation; (8) how many police officers participated; (9) whether they dominated and controlled the course of the interrogation; (10) whether they manifested a belief that the person was culpable and they had evidence to prove it; (11) whether the police were aggressive, confrontational, and/or accusatory; (12) whether the police used interrogation techniques to pressure the suspect; and 13) whether the person was arrested at the end of the interrogation.

Authority:

People v. Aguilera (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1162

Sixth Holding:

The circumstances are less likely to suggest to an individual that they are unable to leave or end the questioning when they voluntarily subject themselves to such an examination.

Authority:

People v. Potter (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 528, 541 [holding that the defendant was not in custody when he voluntarily came to the police station for an interview]

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 173 [defendant’s agreement to be voluntarily interviewed in unmarked police car weighed against a custodial finding]

Seventh Holding:

A custodial interrogation does not occur where an officer detains a suspect for investigation and limits questioning to the purpose of identification or obtaining sufficient information to confirm or dispel the officer’s suspicions that a crime has occurred.

Authority:

People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 180

People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 679–680

Eighth Holding:

The mere fact that an individual is a suspect is not enough to foster a custodial environment; the officers’ suspicion must also be communicated to that person for it to factor into the custody determination.

The awareness of the person being questioned by an officer that the police have ample cause to arrest him, may well lead him to conclude, as a reasonable person, that he is not free to leave, and that he has been significantly deprived of his freedom.

Authority:

People v. Vasquez (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1163—1164

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 176 [holding that officers’ expressed belief that the defendant was culpable and they had evidence to prove it weighed in favor of custody determination]

Ninth Holding:

An interview that takes place in public within view of any passersby reduces the ability of an unscrupulous officer to use illegitimate means to elicit incriminating responses and should lessen a suspect’s fear of abuse should they not cooperate.

Authority:

Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 438

Tenth Holding:

The longer the period of questioning, the more likely it will be found to be coercive and custodial, although even one question may be enough in the proper circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Herdan (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 300, 307, fn. 12

Eleventh Holding:

If the court finds that the statement was admitted in violation of Miranda, the court must determine whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not impact the jury’s guilty verdict, such that the jury would not have reached a different result had the trial court excluded the challenged statements.  

The court assesses whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. To say that an error did not contribute to the verdict is to find that error unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question.

Authority:

People v. NavaAdame (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1, 21–22

People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 495

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

Twelfth Holding:

A confession is like no other evidence. Indeed, the defendant’s own confession is probably the most probative and damaging evidence that can be admitted against him. On the record in this case, we cannot find that the admission of the defendant’s statements was harmless error.

Authority:

Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 296.

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 181 [finding prejudice where there were no witnesses or physical evidence and defendant’s non-Mirandized statements was primary evidence]

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Vicarious liability

Case 000852

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage. Remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

First Holding:

Morris held that an aider and abettor of murder must actually aid and abet the lethal act in order to be convicted of murder, we agree with defendant that the record of conviction does not show he was convicted as either the actual killer or as an aider and abettor who acted with the intent to kill as a matter of law,

Authority:

People v. Morris (2026) 19 Cal.5th 671, 678

Second Holding:

SB 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), effective January 1, 2019, significantly limited the scope of California’s felony-murder rule and eliminated liability for murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine through two key statutory provisions.

Section 189 was amended so that a defendant is liable for felony murder only if he was (1) the actual killer, (2) a direct aider and abettor with the intent to kill, or (3) a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Section 188 was amended to impose a new requirement that, except in cases of felony murder, a principal in the crime of murder can only be convicted where he or she acted with malice aforethought, and malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.

Authority:

PEN 189

PEN 188

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708

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

People v. Love (2025) 107 Cal.App.5th 1280, 1286

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 724

People v. Berry-Vierwinden (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 921, 931

Third Holding:

A person convicted of felony murder or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime may file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

Fourth Holding:

Courts may not engage in factfinding at the prima facie stage. The court takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved. If so, the court must issue an order to show cause.

A court should not reject the petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. At the prima facie hearing, the court may consider the record of conviction. The record of conviction includes jury verdicts, jury instructions, and closing arguments.

This does not include our appellate opinion. The factual summary in an appellate opinion is not evidence that may be considered at an evidentiary hearing to determine a petitioner’s eligibility for resentencing. If such evidence may not be considered at an evidentiary hearing to determine a petitioner’s ultimate eligibility for resentencing, we fail to see how such evidence could establish, as a matter of law, a petitioner’s ineligibility for resentencing at the prima facie stage.

If the petition and record in the case establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief, the trial court may dismiss the petition.

Authority:

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

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 54-56 [considering jury instructions and verdicts to determine whether defendant made prima facie showing of eligibility]

People v. Ervin (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 90, 106 [considering sentencing enhancements, jury instructions, closing arguments, and verdicts at prima facie stage]

People v. Flores (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 974, 988, fn. omitted

People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 292 [Trial judges should not rely on the factual summaries contained in prior appellate decisions when a section 1172.6 petition reaches the stage of a full-fledged evidentiary hearing.]

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

Fifth Holding:

We independently review a trial court’s determination of whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing. We may affirm a ruling that is correct in law on any ground.

Authority:

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

People v. Cortes (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 198, 204

Sixth Holding:

For a person to be convicted of murder as an aider and abettor, the person must aid and abet the actual killer in the lethal act itself, and not just in the underlying felony.

Here, the record of conviction does not establish as a matter of law that defendant participated in aiding and abetting the kidnapping and other acts that led to the victim’s death and that he acted with the intent to kill. We thus reverse the trial court’s order and remand the matter with directions to issue an order to show cause and to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

People v. Morris (2026) 19 Cal.5th 671, 681

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000851

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude the trial court erred when it denied mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36, conditionally reverse the judgment, and remand the matter for the court to reconsider the defendant’s motion.

First Holding:

Diversion under section 1001.36 postpones criminal proceedings to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment, subject to specified conditions. It is intended to mitigate the entry and reentry of people with mental disorders into the criminal justice system by addressing their unique needs while simultaneously protecting public safety. A recognition that incarceration accomplishes little to deter lawlessness, but successful mental health treatment helps individuals and makes communities safer, led the Legislature to create and then expand this pretrial diversion.

Authority:

PEN 1001.35(a)(c)

People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 801

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 890–891

Second Holding:

To qualify for mental health diversion, defendants must meet the two eligibility criteria under section 1001.36(b), and the four suitability criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of that section.

Authority:

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 685

Third Holding:

Eligible defendants are suitable for diversion where (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, which concerns the risk the defendant will commit violent felonies colloquially referred to as super strikes.

Authority:

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 452

Fourth Holding:

Even when the defendant makes a prima facie showing of meeting the statutory eligibility and suitability criteria, the court may nonetheless exercise its discretion to deny diversion.

But this residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law, including the strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders given the resulting benefits to both the offending individual and the community.

Where the court chooses to exercise this residual discretion to deny diversion, its statement of reasons should reflect consideration of the underlying purposes of the statute and explain why diversion would not meet those goals.

Authority:

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

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

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on a request for mental health diversion for abuse of discretion. A 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.

Authority:

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 687

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 453

Sixth Holding:

A ruling or decision, itself correct in law, will not be disturbed on appeal merely because given for a wrong reason. If right upon any theory of the law applicable to the case, it must be sustained regardless of the considerations which may have moved the trial court to its conclusion.

Authority:

People v. Turner (2020) 10 Cal.5th 786, 807

Seventh Holding:

The court erred in finding the defendant not suitable for diversion because of his repeated failures to comply with other forms of supervision. It was an abuse of discretion to deny diversion based on such reasoning, whether on the ground that the defendant’s symptoms would not respond to treatment  or on the ground that the recommended treatment plan would not meet his or her needs.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(1), (f)(1)(A)(i)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 893-894

Eighth Holding:

We will conditionally reverse the judgment and remand the matter for the trial court to reconsider the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion, bearing in mind the statutory principles and purpose of the statute, including the goal of promoting increased diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate their entry and reentry into the criminal justice system.

We express no opinion as to how the court should rule on remand. Still, we observe that denying diversion based on a defendant’s treatment history may be a proper exercise of discretion if the proposed treatment plan is no different from one that failed in the past.

On the other hand, a defendant’s failure to benefit from past treatment may not support an order denying diversion where the proposed treatment plan adequately addresses the defendant’s mental health needs and is significantly different from the prior treatment.

Authority:

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 892, 895

People v. Russo (2026) 121 Cal.App.5th 134, 139

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 894-895

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

Case 000848

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in imposing an indeterminate sentence on the attempted sodomy conviction and failed to properly calculate the defendant’s determinate sentence.

First Holding:

In evaluating claims of insufficient evidence, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence such that a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We presume the existence of every fact supporting the judgment that the jury reasonably could deduce from the evidence. A judgment will be reversed only if there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict under any hypothesis. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury, reweigh the evidence, or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses.

Authority:

People v. Elliot (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 466

People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206

People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331

Second Holding:

Under either simple or aggravated kidnapping, the asportation element requires that the movement be more than that which is merely incidental to the commission or attempted commission of the associated crime.

Simple kidnapping requires that the defendant moved the victim a substantial distance, but no minimum distance is required.

The aggravated kidnapping circumstance, however, also requires that the movement substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim beyond that inherent in the underlying offense. The increased risk may be of either physical or psychological harm.

Authority:

People v. Waqa (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 565, 577-578

Third Holding:

The crime of attempted sodomy is not subject to the One Strike law under section 667.61(c). Thus, it was error to impose an indeterminate sentence for that offense.

Authority:

PEN 667.61

People v. Rodriguez (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 204, 217

Fourth Holding:

Sentencing a defendant for offenses subject to determinate terms involves a three-step process:

First, the trial court is required to select a base term—either the statutory low, middle or upper term—for each of the crimes.

Second, if the court determines that a consecutive sentence is merited, it must designate the crime with the greatest selected base term as the principal term and the other crimes as subordinate terms.

Third, the court sentences the defendant to the full base term it selected for the principal term crime and one-third of the middle term for any crimes for which the sentence is ordered to run consecutively.

A subordinate term is one-third of the middle term even if the trial court had initially selected the lower or upper term as the base term. The court did not follow this procedure on three of the counts, and resentencing is required.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1

People v. Rodriguez (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 204, 211-212

Fifth Holding:

Generally, when a defendant successfully appeals a criminal conviction, California’s constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy precludes the imposition of more severe punishment on resentencing.

This rule does not apply, however, when a trial court imposes an unauthorized sentence. In such cases, courts may impose the proper judgment on remand even though it is more severe than the original unauthorized pronouncement.

Authority:

People v. Vizcarra (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 422, 431

People v. Burhop (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 808, 814 [An unauthorized sentence renders the unlawful part of a judgment of conviction and sentence void and correctable at any time.]

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1036, fn. 21 [We must correct an unauthorized sentence even where the corrected sentence results in a longer term.]

Sixth Holding:

Here, the trial court’s sentence on count 4 of an indeterminate term of 25 years to life was unauthorized and must be corrected. Likewise, the court’s failure to designate a principal term among counts 6 through 8 amounted to an unauthorized sentence. Accordingly, the trial court is not constrained by the length of the original determinative sentence for purposes of resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Neely (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 787, 797–798 [court erroneously applied principal term/subordinate term methodology set forth in sec. 1170.1 to all the offenses when it imposed one-third of the middle term sentences for the determinate term offenses]

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000846

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing under section 1172.75, the court erred in failing to update the credit for time served. Remanded for the court to calculate the correct number of days and to correct the abstract of judgment that reflected the credit as of only the original sentence date.

First Holding:

The trial court incorrectly calculated his custody credit, and the abstract of judgment following the resentencing hearing does not reflect the actual days of custody credit as of the date of resentencing. We therefore remand the matter so the court may recalculate Smith’s actual days of custody credit and prepare an amended abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23

Second Holding:

(Gary note: The appellate court otherwise affirmed the sentence imposed on resentencing, but announced principles worthy of mention here, though they did not support any relief on appeal for this defendant.)

We review the trial court’s sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. We interpret relevant statutes and review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo.

Authority:

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

People v. Mayfield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 142, 199

People v. Terwilligar (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 585, 595

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000845

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court incorrectly imposed a consecutive subordinate term for the child abuse and a concurrent term for the false imprisonment because those counts were stayed under Penal Code section 654.

The abstract of judgment does not reflect the correct amount of the defendant’s local conduct credits. We therefore exercise our inherent authority to modify the judgment to correct these errors.

First Holding:

Section 654 generally precludes multiple punishments for a single physical act that violates different provisions of law as well as multiple punishments for an indivisible course of conduct that violates more than one criminal statute.

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

If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

If, on the other hand, the defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives that were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.

Authority:

PEN 654

In re Raymundo M. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 78, 94

Second Holding:

The question whether section 654 is factually applicable to a given series of offenses is for the trial court, and the law gives the trial court broad latitude in making this determination. Its findings on this question must be upheld on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them.

We view the evidence favorably to support the judgment and presume every factual finding that could reasonably be deduced from the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Roles (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 935, 946–947

Third Holding:

Because the court stayed counts 3 and 5 under section 654, count 3 should not be a consecutive one-third term and count 5 should not be concurrent. Remand is not necessary to correct these matters. The trial court clearly intended to impose the midterm for all counts and enhancements, and to stay execution of the sentences in counts 3 and 5 and the enhancement attached to count 5. We will therefore exercise our authority to modify the judgment to correct the unauthorized sentence.

Authority:

People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 796

People v. Cantrell (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1164

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473

Fourth Holding:

There were errors in the abstract of judgment, including the failure to mark that counts 3 and 5 were stayed under section 654, and reflected seven days credit for time served less than ordered by the court. We exercise our authority to correct this error as well

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Discretion, Duty of the court, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000842

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In the prior appeal, the appellate court reversed the denial of the defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 and ordered the trial court to grant the petition. On remand, the trial court granted the motion and redesignated the offense as three counts, and imposed the upper term.

It was error to resurrect and redesignate for sentencing counts that were dismissed in the original plea negotiations. It was also error to impose the upper term on circumstances in aggravation that were not submitted to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

When the trial court granted the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, his judgment became nonfinal and was subject to the retroactive application of AB 333. AB 333 made changes to the law on gang enhancements and narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang.

The defendant’s admission under the former law does not satisfy the elements now required under the current law. The stipulation at the preliminary hearing that the [named gang] was an ongoing street gang that engages in a pattern of criminal activity pursuant to section 186.22(f) is insufficient under any standard to prove either the gang enhancement or the gang offense under current law.

Authority:

People v. Trent (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 251, 262–263 [once petition for resentencing under sec. 1172.6 is granted, judgment is no longer final]

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 393 [AB 333 is retroactive to nonfinal judgments]

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

People v. Silva (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 505, 526–527

Second Holding:

When a murder or attempted murder conviction is set aside under section 1172.6, the petitioner’s conviction shall be redesignated as the target offense or underlying felony for resentencing purposes if the murder or attempted murder was charged generically, and the target offense was not charged.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(e)

Third Holding:

Section 1172.6 does not define what constitutes an underlying felony or target offense, but our high court in Arellano held that the meaning of these terms is clear—an underlying felony refers to the felony underlying a felony-murder theory, and the target offense refers to the offense the natural and probable consequence of which was murder.

Authority:

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457

People v. Lara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1005 [the trial court erred by resurrecting counts dismissed in the parties’ plea agreement on resentencing]

Fourth Holding:

Application of the trial court’s resentencing discretion under section 1172.6(e) here is circumscribed by the prosecution’s exercise of charging discretion in the original proceeding. Here, that limitation is the district attorney’s election to dismiss all charges involving [victim 1] as well as the substantive gang count in return for the defendant’s plea to a single count of attempted second degree murder of [victim 2].

Authority:

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 476 [deeming it unlikely the Legislature intended to allow the prosecution to effectively revisit its charging decisions  every time a petitioner succeeds in setting aside a  conviction under section 1172.6]

People v. Lara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1005, 1026

Fifth Holding:

There is no dispute that there is no qualifying felony for which the prosecutor could have proceeded under a theory of felony murder in this case.

Thus when resentencing the defendant, the trial court was required to redesignate his offense as a target offense—the offense of which the natural and probable consequence was the attempted murder.

In this case, conviction for attempted murder of [victim 2] was properly redesignated as assault with a semiautomatic firearm on [victim 2]. We conclude that the trial court erred by resurrecting counts stemming from conduct that the district attorney plainly chose to dismiss as part of the negotiated settlement.

These dismissed counts cannot form the predicate for relief for the defendant’s petition for resentencing. Because the defendant did not plead to any other offenses than the attempted murder of [victim 2], the target offense underlying the attempted murder of one named person is not two assaults with a firearm on two persons. Courts may not impose uncharged and unproven sentence allegations or enhancements when resentencing a successful petitioner under section 1172.6e).

Authority:

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 475, 477

People v. Lara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1005, 1027

Sixth Holding:

Though not applicable here, had the prosecution alleged and proved a target offense in addition to the attempted murder, on successful petition under section 1172.6, the court would be limited to sentencing the defendant on the charged target offenses that were proved. The trial court under section 1172.6(d)(3) would not have been otherwise entitled to resentence the defendant on charges that could have been [but were not] established by the evidence.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(d)(3)

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 470

Seventh Holding:

The trial court erred by imposing an upper term for the count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm on [victim 2] without holding a jury trial as requested.

Under section 1170(b), when a statute specifies three possible terms, the trial court shall, in its sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, unless circumstances in aggravation that justify an upper term sentence have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

However, a trial court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)

Eighth Holding:

After the defendant’s resentencing, the California Supreme Court decided Wiley. Relying on Erlinger, our high court held that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury determination on aggravating factors related to a defendant’s criminal history, such as whether a defendant’s convictions were of increasing seriousness under rule 4.421(b)(2), and whether the defendant’s prior performance on probation was unsatisfactory under rule 4.421(b)(5).

Wiley concluded that a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm. 

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1086

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 834 [virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty plea]

Ninth Holding:

where a defendant was deprived of a jury trial on aggravating factors used at sentencing, we must apply the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard in Chapman.

Under this standard, we must reverse the judgment unless we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1087

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

Tenth Holding:

The trial court relied on the defendant’s rap sheet to determine that the crimes were of increasing seriousness and were numerous under rule 4.421(b)(2). According to defendant’s rap sheet, he had a juvenile adjudication in 2007 [for specified offenses], 2010 juvenile adjudications for [different offenses] and a 2014 conviction for [a different offense].  

Based on these series of offenses, a rational jury could have disagreed as to whether it demonstrated criminal conduct of increasing seriousness. Likewise, a rational jury could have also found that the defendant’s prior convictions were not particularly numerous. The failure to submit these aggravating factors to the jury was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant is entitled to reversal of the upper term sentence.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1089

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 848

 

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

Case 000838

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the court did not follow the required procedures for adjudicating the petition brought under section 1170.91, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. We also direct the superior court to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

We interpret the requirements of section 1170.91 de novo.

Authority:

People v. Bonilla-Bray (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 234, 237

Second Holding:

Section 1170.91(b)(1) provides that a person currently serving a sentence for a felony conviction, whether by trial or plea, who is, or was, a member of the United States military and who may be suffering from sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or mental health problems as a result of the person’s military service may petition for a recall of sentence, before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in the case, to request resentencing if the circumstance of suffering from sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or mental health problems as a result of the person’s military service was not considered as a factor in mitigation at the time of sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1170.91

Third Holding:

If the trial court finds the defendant satisfies the criteria for relief, the court may, in the interest of justice, do either of the following: (1) reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment by modifying the sentence; or (2) vacate the conviction and impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense, whether or not that offense was charged in the original pleading, and then resentence the defendant to a reduced term of imprisonment with the concurrence of both the defendant and the prosecution.

Authority:

PEN 1170.91(b)(3)(A)–(B)

Fourth Holding:

Upon receiving a section 1170.91 petition for resentencing, the trial court must hold a public hearing to determine whether the defendant satisfies the statutory criteria for relief. The prosecution, the defense, and any victim must be given at least 15 days’ notice of the hearing. At that hearing, the prosecution shall have an opportunity to be heard on the defendant’s eligibility and suitability for resentencing. The trial court erred by denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing without holding a properly noticed public hearing as required by section 1170.91(b)(3).

Authority:

PEN 1170.91(b)(3)

People v. Bonilla-Bray (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 234, 239

Fifth Holding:

Though the original version of section 1170.91 limited its application to those serving a determinate sentence, the Legislature amended the section in 2022 to remove the limitation.

Authority:

People v. Sherman (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 325, 330 [In 2022, the Legislature amended

again. The 2022 amendment expanded subdivisions (a) and (b) to include those serving indeterminate sentences]

People v. Harrison (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1145, 1154 [same]

Sixth Holding:

There is a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. It states that the defendant was convicted of grand theft of a vehicle pursuant to section 487h(a), when in fact he was convicted of the lesser included offense of unlawful driving of a vehicle pursuant to Vehicle Code section 10851(a).

If not already done, the abstract of judgment must be amended to correct this error.

Authority:

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

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000837

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing following the defendant’s earlier appeal, the court misunderstood the scope of discretion with regard to striking or reducing the term imposed for firearm enhancements.

It also erred in imposing the upper term based on circumstances in aggravation that should have been, but were not, either stipulated to by the defendant or submitted to a jury for determination beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

When an accusatory pleading alleges and the jury finds true the facts supporting a greater firearm enhancement, the court may impose a lesser included, uncharged statutory enhancement. Further, a trial court may strike a defendant’s enhancement under section 12022.53 and impose a lesser uncharged enhancement authorized elsewhere in the Penal Code, that is, outside of section 12022.53.

Authority:

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 697, 700

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1030

Second Holding:

We consider a trial court’s sentencing decisions under an 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 not supported by substantial evidence.

A ruling otherwise within the trial court’s power will nonetheless be set aside where it appears from the record that in issuing the ruling the court failed to exercise the discretion vested in it by law.

Authority:

People v. Moseley (2004) 105 Cal.App.5th 870, 874

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 887

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 694

Third Holding:

Unless the record affirmatively demonstrates otherwise, the trial court is deemed to have considered all the relevant sentencing factors. A silent record does not demonstrate a lack of awareness of the court’s full sentencing discretion.

Even if the sentencing court was unaware of its discretion, remand is not necessary when the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

It appears from the record in this case that the court believed that its only choices were to impose the section 12022.53 enhancement or to strike it entirely. It appears that the court was unaware that it also had the option to impose a firearm enhancement under a lesser statute, section 12022.5.

Authority:

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

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

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

Fourth Holding:

The court erred in imposing the upper term based on a circumstance in aggravation that was not submitted to a jury for determination beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant’s (specifically, that the defendant’s prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings are numerous or of increasing seriousness).

Authority:

PEN 1170

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

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

Fifth Holding:

A trial court’s sentencing decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 371

Sixth Holding:

When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review.

Under that standard, a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

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

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

Case 000833

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court’s true findings on three of the four strike priors and three of the four prior serious felony enhancements must be vacated and the matter remanded to the court for any retrial of these allegations, because there is insufficient evidence to support the finding defendant’s three 2016 convictions qualify as serious or violent felonies for purposes of three of the four strike priors and three of the four prior serious felony enhancements under the 2022 amendments to section 186.22 enacted by AB 333.

First Holding:

Under the Three Strikes law, defendants previously convicted of serious or violent felonies are subject to increased prison terms: if a defendant has one prior conviction for a serious or violent felony, the defendant’s term of imprisonment is doubled, and if a defendant has two or more such strike priors, the defendant may receive life imprisonment.

The Three Strikes law defines “serious or violent” felony to include any offense defined as a serious felony under section 1192.7(a). Section 1192.7 defines “serious felony” to include, among other things, any felony offense that would also constitute a felony violation of section 186.22.

Authority:

PEN 1170.12

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

Second Holding:

Section 186.22(a) makes it unlawful to actively participate in a criminal street gang with knowledge that its members engage in, or have engaged in, a pattern of criminal gang activity, and to willfully promote, further, or assist in felonious criminal conduct by members of that gang.

Section 186.22(b) provides for enhancements if a person commits a felony for the benefit of such a gang. Section 186.22 also defines the terms criminal street gang and pattern of criminal gang activity as well as benefitting a gang.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

Third Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 333 narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang, the definition of a pattern of criminal activity, and what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang.

First, it narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons.

Second, whereas former section 186.22(f) required only that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a ‘criminal street gang, AB 333 requires that any such pattern that have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, AB 333 also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the offense commonly benefitted a criminal street gang and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Fourth, AB 333 narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational. Moreover, because these changes are ameliorative in nature, they apply to nonfinal judgments on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

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

Fourth Holding:

Fletcher held that, where a defendant has suffered a conviction under the prior version of section 186.22, AB 333 applies to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements.

Whether a prior conviction was for an offense that constitutes a felony violation of section 186.22 is determined by applying the current version of section 186.22.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583, 607

Fifth Holding:

On appeal, a reviewing court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the judgment to ascertain whether it is supported by substantial evidence. In other words, the reviewing court determines whether a rational trier of fact could have found the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the elements of the sentence enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt.

The People must prove all elements of an alleged sentence enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the mere fact of conviction under a particular statute does not prove the offense was a serious felony, otherwise admissible evidence from the entire record of the conviction may be examined to resolve the issue.

Authority:

People v. Miles (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1074, 1082, 1083

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1067

Sixth Holding:

The inquiry concerning whether a prior conviction qualifies as a serious felony is a determination regarding the nature or basis of the defendant’s prior conviction—specifically, whether that conviction qualified as a conviction of a serious felony.

If the prior conviction was for an offense that can be committed in multiple ways, and the record of the conviction does not disclose how the offense was committed, a court must presume the conviction was for the least serious form of the offense.

In such a case, if the statute under which the prior conviction occurred could be violated in a way that does not qualify for the alleged enhancement, the evidence is thus insufficient, and the People have failed in their burden.

Authority:

People v. McGee (2006) 38 Cal.4th 682, 706

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1065 (superseded by statute on another ground, as stated in People v. Frahs (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 784, 795)