Category Archives: Standard of review

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000305

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The order denying the petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is reversed.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. It accomplished this by amending sections 188 and 189. Section 188(a)(3) now prohibits imputing malice based solely on an individual’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a principal of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule in section 189(e). Section 189 requires the prosecution to prove the defendant was the actual killer; an aider and abettor to murder who acted with the intent to kill; or a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

PEN 189

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957

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

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 868–869

Second Holding:

The Legislature, to provide relief to those with existing murder convictions dependent on theories of the crime it had rejected, devised a path to resentencing. It has since expanded this path to allow relief for those with attempted murder convictions based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

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

Third Holding:

If the record of conviction establishes ineligibility for resentencing as a matter of law, the petition is properly denied at the prima facie stage. However, the petition and record of conviction must establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 970-972

People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, 14

Fourth Holding:

We independently review a trial court’s determination whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief.

Authority:

We independently review a trial court’s determination whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief.

Fifth Holding:

We conclude the defendant has made a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief. The record of conviction does demonstrate a possibility that he was convicted of second degree murder under an imputed malice theory, that is, that he was guilty of murder based solely on his participation in the robbery. In assessing section 1172.6 petitions, the jury instructions will be critical. Indeed we look at the jury’s verdicts, viewed in light of the court’s jury instructions, to assess whether a defendant has made a prima facie showing for relief under section 1172.6.

Authority:

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 731

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 441

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000304

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant filed a petition for dismissal citing three different Penal Code sections—sections 1203.4, 1203.4a, and 1203.41. The trial court denied the petition based on section 1203.41, under which the defendant was not entitled to relief. We reverse and remand to allow the court to consider the defendant’s claim for relief under section 1203.4.

First Holding:

The trial court’s denial of relief under any of these statutes (1203.4, 1203.41, 1203.4a) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. McLernon (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 569, 572

Second Holding:

Section 1203.4 authorizes the trial court to expunge a criminal record if the defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period, the defendant was discharged before the probation period ended, or if the court believes relief should be granted in the interests of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1203.4

Third Holding:

Section 1203.4a authorizes dismissal of charges against defendants who are convicted of misdemeanors but were not granted probation.
Authority:

Authority:

PEN 1203.4a

Fourth Holding:

Section 1203.41 allows an individual convicted of a felony, under certain circumstances, to withdraw a guilty or nolo contendere plea, or set aside a guilty verdict in the interests of justice, in the court’s discretion. The crime to which the defendant pleaded guilty is a wobbler. In this case, because the defendant was sentenced to probation with 364 days in county jail, it is a misdemeanor offense.

Authority:

PEN 1203.41

People v. McElroy (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 874, 880

Fifth Holding:

it appears the trial court may have been confused by the defendant’s petition, which sought relief under all three statutes. Relief was not authorized to the defendant under sections 1203.4a and 1203.41, and the court did not err in denying relief under section 1203.41. When a trial court evaluates a petition under the incorrect statute or misunderstands the scope of its discretion, this is an abuse of discretion and the case must be reversed and remanded for an exercise of informed discretion, unless the record clearly indicates the same result would follow.

Authority:

People v. Fuhrman (1997) 16 Cal.4th 930, 944 [where the record affirmatively discloses that the trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion, remand to the trial court is required]

People v. Parker (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 498, 501–502 [case remanded because trial court mistakenly believed an imposed but suspended sentence is a bar to section 1203.4 relief]

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000302

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendants are entitled to retrial on the counts for active participation in a criminal street gang in light of AB 333’s retroactive changes to section 186.22. It was error to order Defendant’s 2 and 3 to be jointly responsible for the funeral expenses of the victim killed by Defendant 1. In addition there were several errors in Defendant 1’s consolidated abstract of judgment that need correction.

First Holding:

During the appeal, the Legislature amended section 186.22’s defendant of a criminal street gang. 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; it requires that the pattern of criminal activity foundational to a criminal street gang have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang; it also imposed further requirements limiting the offenses on which a pattern of criminal gang activity could be predicated; and it required that for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, any common benefit be more than reputational.

Authority:

AB 333

PEN 186.22

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

Second Holding:

The ameliorative amendments apply retroactively to all cases not yet final as of its effective date.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

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

Third Holding:

The trial court instructed the jury on the then-applicable definition of a criminal street gang, omitting several of the requirements that have now been imposed by AB 333. The jury instruction thus relieved the prosecution of its burden to prove all elements of the crime as now defined.

Authority:

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 742

Fourth Holding:

We apply the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard articulated in Chapman. When a jury instruction has omitted an element of an offense, our task is to determine whether the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the omitted element. The question is not whether there is evidence in the record that would support a jury finding of the missing element, but whether we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same had the jury been instructed on the missing element.

Authority:

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

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 742-743

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 449

Fifth Holding:

All three defendants will be entitled to a full resentencing upon remand, independent of the prosecution’s election whether to pursue the gang charge or enhancements on remand. The full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant.

Authority:

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

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424–425

Sixth Holding:

We observe, however, that neither Defendant 2 nor Defendant 3 can be ordered to pay restitution for any losses attributable to Defendant 1’s murder of the deceased. Neither of them were charged with any offense involving the deceased, and nothing in the evidence before the jury or the court at sentencing implicated them in his murder. It was accordingly error to make them jointly and severally liable for the deceased’s funeral expenses.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f) [authorizing restitution where a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct]

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [unauthorized sentence cannot be lawfully imposed]

Seventh Holding:

Defendant 1’s consolidated abstract of judgment requires correction. First, in case number A, the abstract of judgment erroneously lists as stayed count 2’s multiple-murder special circumstance when the trial court vacated this finding. In case number B, Defendant 1’s conviction for assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of section 245(a)(4) is described on the abstract as “Asslt w/deadly wpn/force likely to prod GBI.” We agree that an amended abstract should be reworded to avoid confusion between assault with a deadly weapon (sec. 245(a)(1), (2), or (3))—a serious felony under section 1192.7—and assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (sec. 245(a)(4)).

(GARY NOTE–the appellate court did not cite case authority for the correction of the abstract, but it is abundantly clear the court has that authority. I have set forth some below)

Authority:

PEN 1192.7(c) [listing serious felonies]

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1065

[on correction of abstracts]

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

Defenses, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000300

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We order the protective order modified to strike [person x] as a protected person. We reject the defendant’s claim that the trial erred in not sua sponte instruction on the defense of unconsciousness.

First Holding:

Unconsciousness, if not induced by voluntary intoxication, is a complete defense to a criminal charge. For purposes of the defense, unconsciousness need not rise to the level of coma or inability to walk or perform manual movements; it can exist where the subject physically acts but is not, at the time, conscious of acting. The law presumes that a person who appears to be acting in a state of consciousness is conscious. Accordingly, the burden is on a criminal defendant to produce evidence rebutting this presumption of consciousness. If a defendant produces substantial evidence that he or she was unconscious, the trial court is obligated to instruct the jury on the theory; the failure to do so is error. In this case, the defendant did not rebut the presumption of his consciousness, and it was therefore not error for the trial court to fail to instruct the jury on unconsciousness sua sponte.

Authority:

PEN 26

People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 417

People v. James (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 794, 804

Second Holding:

Unconsciousness caused by voluntary intoxication may negate specific intent, but it is not a defense to a general intent crime. Assault with a deadly weapon is a general intent crime. Reckless evasion of a peace officer is a specific intent crime.

Authority:

People v. James (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 794, 805

People v. Rocha (1971) 3 Cal.3d 893, 899

People v. Williams (2001) 26 Cal.4th 779, 788

People v. Taylor (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1195, 1203-1206

Third Holding:

We review de novo whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury.

Authority:

People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 78

Fourth Holding:

A case is not authority for propositions not considered.

Authority:

People v. Chavez (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 477, 480

Fifth Holding:

Where a defendant is convicted of certain defined crimes of domestic violence, the trial may issue a protective order restraining the defendant from any contact with a victim of the crime. Such orders are limited to defendants convicted of crimes that qualify as domestic violence and where the protected person qualifies as a victim of said crimes. The trial court does not have authority to restrain a defendant from contacting a person who was not present during or otherwise suffered harm from the crime.

For instance, a protective order covering children who were present but asleep during a domestic violence incident was found to be improper in Lopez. With respect to the issuance of a legally authorized criminal protective order, we imply all findings necessary to support the judgment, and our review is limited to whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support these implied findings.

The record here contains no substantial evidence from which the trial court reasonably could conclude that [person x] was a victim of the crime subject to protection under section 136.2(i)(1).

Authority:

PEN 136.2,(i)(1)

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 237

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 648

People v. Race (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 211, 217

People v. Delarosarauda (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 205, 212 [absent evidence from which the trial court could reasonably conclude that appellant had harmed or attempted to harm two children, the court lacked authority to issue the no-contact protective order as to the children]

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000298

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Although a trial court has broad discretion in imposing terms and conditions when sentencing a criminal defendant to probation instead of imprisonment, any conditions imposed must have some relationship to the crime and be designed to prevent future criminality. In this case, one of the probation conditions imposed required defendant to participate in mental health and substance abuse testing and treatment. Not only was this unconnected to the underlying crime, any suggestion in the probation and sentencing report that defendant suffered from mental health or substance abuse issues was wholly unsupported. Therefore, that probation condition must be stricken.

Holding:

A sentencing court has broad discretion to impose probation conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.1. But such discretion is not unlimited: A condition of probation must serve a purpose specified in the statute and conditions regulating noncriminal conduct must be reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality. A probation condition will be upheld unless all of the following are true: it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. We review a challenge to the conditions of probation for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

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

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