Category Archives: Standard of review

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000253

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Insufficient evidence supported the defendant’s perjury conviction. We reverse the perjury conviction. His excess presentence custody credits must be applied to reduce his parole period. The record does not permit a determination of the precise number of excess custody credits. Because we are remanding for resentencing, we direct the trial court to calculate and determine the appropriate application of those credits.

First Holding:

A conviction under section 118(a) requires proof that the challenged statement was made under penalty of perjury, and that the sex offender registration form signed by the defendant did not contain such a declaration. Because the statutory element was not established, reversal is required.

Authority:

PEN 118(a)

Second Holding:

When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In conducting that review, we presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence. Reversal for insufficient evidence is warranted only where it appears that, under no hypothesis whatsoever, is there sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

Authority:

People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053

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

Third Holding:

Section 118(a) provides that a person commits perjury when he or she certifies under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter that he or she knows to be false. Proof that the false statement was made under penalty of perjury is therefore an essential element of the offense. Here, the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) Form 8102S signed by the defendant states: “I certify the information provided is true and accurate. I understand failure to comply with the registration requirements, providing false information on the form, or failing to provide accurate information is punishable as a criminal offense.” The form does not state that the certification is made under penalty of perjury. Because the prosecution failed to establish this essential statutory element, the evidence is insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for perjury under section 118(a). Accordingly, the conviction on that count must be reversed, and the matter remanded for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Tafoya (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 868, 902

Fourth Holding:

Section 2900.5 requires that all days a defendant spends in custody—including time in jail or a rehabilitation facility—be credited against the defendant’s term of imprisonment, which expressly includes any period of parole prior to discharge. By the time the defendant was sentenced, he had already served enough days in custody to qualify for release on parole.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

In re Ballard (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 647, 650

Fifth Holding:

The parties and trial court disagreed on how to calculate the time expected to complete a 16-month term against which the known number of days in custody would apply, but approaches proposed are flawed. Section 7(b)(13) defines a “month” as a “calendar month.” A calendar month is not a fixed number of days, but rather the space of time from any day of any such month to the corresponding day of the next, and may therefore vary in length. Consequently, a sentence expressed in months cannot be converted into a predetermined number of days by multiplying months by 30, nor by fractionalizing a year into parts. Instead, the proper calculation depends on the defendant’s actual dates of incarceration and release. Because the record does not disclose the precise date of the defendant’s incarceration, we cannot determine the exact number of days constituting his 16-month term. Accordingly, this issue must be remanded for the trial court to calculate his sentence based on his actual custodial dates and to apply any excess custody credits to reduce his parole period as required by section 2900.5

Authority:

PEN 7(b)(13)

In re Kemper (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 434, 439, fn. 2

People v. Superior Court (J.C. Penney Corp., Inc.) (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 376, 414, fn. 23 [a three-month statutory period may range from 89 to 92 days depending on the specific dates involved]

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000252

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court violated the defendant’s right to a jury trial by imposing the upper term without an express waiver of his right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors. The trial court’s finding that the defendant had consistently violated the law is a decision that goes beyond the bare fact of the prior conviction and its elements and therefore exceeds the scope of the statutory exception to the jury trial right for prior conviction that appears in section 1170(b)(3). Absent a waiver the defendant was entitled to a jury trial on the aggravating factors. The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

We review questions about whether a defendant’s constitutional rights were violated de novo. If we determine that a defendant’s right to a jury trial has been violated, we apply the harmless error standard in Chapman. Under the Chapman standard, we must reverse and remand a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) unless we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts relied upon by the court to justify an upper term sentence, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Authority:

People v. Palmer (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 268, 280

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

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

Second Holding:

In 2022, the Legislature amended section 1170, subdivision (b) to limit a trial court’s discretion to impose the upper term of a sentencing triad. Under the current version of the statute, trial courts may impose a sentence that exceeds the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances 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. However, the 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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 773

Third Holding:

In Erlinger, the United States Supreme Court clarified that the court in Almendarez-Torres v. United States permitted a judge to undertake the job of finding the fact of a prior conviction—and that job alone. The question before the Erlinger court was whether a judge may decide that a defendant’s past offenses were committed on separate occasions or whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments required a jury to make that determination beyond a reasonable doubt. In holding that Erlinger was entitled to a jury determination on the issue, the court stated that deciding whether those past offenses occurred on three or more different occasions is a fact-laden task, and judges may not assume the jury’s factfinding function for themselves.

Authority:

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 825, 834, 837

Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998) 523 U.S. 224

Fourth Holding:

The California Supreme Court confirmed that virtually any fact that increases a defendant’s exposure to punishment must be submitted to a jury and found unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless the defendant waives the right to a jury trial or stipulates that the aggravating factors are true, the People must prove to a jury the facts relied on to justify an upper term sentence beyond a reasonable doubt. This jury trial guarantee retains its vitality even if the inquiry is straightforward.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 761-762

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

Fifth Holding:

The Wiley court held that an inquiry of whether a defendant’s prior convictions are of increasing seriousness requires a comparison and evaluation of the relationship among a defendant’s prior convictions, and a determination as to their relative seriousness. As a result, it involves something more than a narrow factual finding that the convictions were sustained and what elements were required to prove them. A defendant is entitled to a jury determination 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. The was entitled to have a jury determine whether his prior convictions were of increasing seriousness and whether he had performed unsatisfactorily on probation before the court could rely on those aggravating facts to find justification for an upper term sentence.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069,1082, 1085

Sixth Holding:

Based on our review of the defendant’s prior record—including his CLETS certified rap sheet, certified records of his convictions, and the probation officer’s report—the sentences imposed for his conviction, the age of his felony convictions, and the nature of his recent offenses could lead a jury to conclude that the defendant’s convictions were not of increasing seriousness. On this record, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a properly instructed jury would have found these aggravating factors true. Because it is possible a jury could reach the opposite conclusion on one of the aggravating factors the court may have relied on to impose the upper term, the omission of the defendant’s right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We, therefore, reverse his sentence and remand for a trial on the aggravating factors.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090

 

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000251

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though the trial court did not err in concluding that the defendant’s bare assertions of eligibility for relief in his petition to recall his sentence under section 1172.6 were belied by the record of conviction, the matter was remanded to the trial court to give the defendant the opportunity to file an amended petition.

First Holding:

Senate Bill No. 1437 amended the statutes defining malice (section 188) and felony murder (section 189, subd. (e)) to eliminate natural and probable consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting, and limit the scope of the felony-murder rule. It also added former section 1170.95, which creates a procedure for convicted murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief. Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 775 amended section 1170.95 to extend the resentencing procedures to a person convicted under any other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime. Former section 1170.95 has since been renumbered as section 1172.6, with no substantive changes.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

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

Second Holding:

If a section 1172.6 petition contains all required information (e.g., declaration of eligibility, case information, any request for appointed counsel), the trial court must review the petition and determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the petitioner falls within the provisions of section 1172.6. If the petitioner has made this initial prima facie showing, he or she is entitled to appointed counsel, if requested, and the prosecutor must file a response, and the petitioner may file a reply. The court then reviews the petition a second time. If it concludes in light of this briefing that the petitioner has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, it must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to vacate the murder conviction and recall the sentence and resentence the petitioner on any remaining counts.

Authority:

People v. Roldan (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 997, 1003

Third Holding:

When conducting the prima facie review, the trial court must assume the truth of the petition’s allegations unless they are refuted by the record of conviction. If a petition is supported only by conclusory, checkbox allegations and the preliminary hearing transcript contains unchallenged, relief-foreclosing facts, then the trial court may deny the petition at the prima facie stage. This is because a section 1172.6 petitioner who, despite having access to counsel upon submission of a facially sufficient petition, offers only conclusory allegations of entitlement to relief, in response to a record of conviction that demonstrates the petitioner’s conviction was under a still-valid theory, has not, thereby, made a prima facie showing.

Authority:

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

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 564-566

Fourth Holding:

However, petitioners need not, at the prima facie stage, meet an evidentiary burden of proof to establish entitlement to relief, such as the burden of proof applicable to the People if trying to defeat relief at the later section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3) evidentiary hearing. Rather, petitioners confronting a record of conviction that demonstrates relief is unavailable have the burden of coming forward with nonconclusory allegations to alert the prosecution and the court to what issues an evidentiary hearing would entail.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 566-567

Fifth Holding:

We review de novo whether the record of conviction establishes that the petitioner is ineligible for resentencing relief.

Authority:

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

Sixth Holding:

The court properly considered the preliminary hearing transcript to make a prima facie determination that defendant was the actual killer and thus ineligible for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 563

Seventh Holding:

Defendant requests that, if we affirm, we should remand with directions to afford him 30 days to amend his petition to plead additional facts. Because defendant did not have the benefit of Patton’s guidance during the prima facie stage before the trial court, we grant his request.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 569-570

People v. Glass (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 922, 930

Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000245

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Section 654 required the court to stay the punishment for one of his two criminal threat convictions. The record is devoid of any evidence suggesting that the defendant had sufficient time to reflect and renew his intent between his act of sending the first set of text messages giving rise to count 2 and his act of sending the second set of text messages giving rise to count 3. Therefore, we modify the judgment to stay the punishment for one of the counts.

First Holding:

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. Section 654 protects against multiple punishment, not multiple conviction. To avoid double punishment, a sentencing court applying section 654 will impose the sentence for one offense while staying the imposition of the sentence on the other offense.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 336

People v. Mathis (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 359, 367

Second Holding:

Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an act or omission may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective. We first consider if the different crimes were completed by a single physical act. If so, the defendant may not be punished more than once for that act. Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single intent and objective or multiple intents and objectives.

Authority:

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311–312

People v. Mathis (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 359, 367

Third Holding:

Whether section 654 applies in a given case is a question of fact for the trial court, which is vested with broad latitude in making its determination. The court’s express or implied findings in support of its determination that section 654 does not apply will be upheld on appeal if substantial evidence supports them. The applicability of section 654 to settled facts presents a question of law.

Authority:

People v. Cruz (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 715, 737

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335

Fourth Holding:

Where there is a basis for identifying the specific factual basis for a verdict, a trial court cannot find otherwise in applying section 654. However, in the absence of some circumstance foreclosing its sentencing discretion a trial court may base its decision under section 654 on any of the facts that are in evidence at trial, without regard to the verdicts. Indeed, a court may even rely on facts underlying verdicts of acquittal in making sentencing choices.

Authority:

People v. McCoy (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1339-1340

Fifth Holding:

If multiple offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one. However, a course of conduct divisible in time, although directed to one objective, may give rise to multiple violations and punishment. This is particularly so where the offenses are temporally separated in such a way as to afford the defendant opportunity to reflect and to renew his or her intent before committing the next one, thereby aggravating the violation of public security or policy already undertaken.

Authority:

People v. Fuentes (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 670, 680

People v. Gaynor (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 794, 800 [even if a course of conduct is directed to one objective, it may give rise to multiple violations and punishment if it is divisible in time]

People v. Goode (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 484, 492 [If the offenses were committed on different occasions, they may be punished separately]

People v. Gaio (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 919, 935

People v. Louie (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 388, 399 [If the separation in time afforded the defendant an opportunity to reflect and to renew the defendant’s intent before committing the next crime, a new and separate crime is committed.]

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Standard of review

Case: 000244

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred by imposing a probation condition that required the defendant to submit to searches of her computers, recordable media, and electronic devices. The electronic search condition is not reasonably related to criminality. Because we conclude the electronic search condition is unreasonable under the Lent test, we do not consider whether it is unconstitutionally overbroad. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction in part and remand with instructions to strike the electronic search condition and consider whether a more narrowly tailored or alternative condition would be reasonable.

First Holding:

In Lent, the Supreme Court adopted a three-part test to determine whether a probation condition is reasonable and, therefore, statutorily valid. Generally, a condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. This test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term.

Authority:

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

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

Second Holding:

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

Authority:

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

People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717, 723

Third Holding:

We review conditions of probation for abuse of discretion. Specifically, we review a probation condition for an indication that the condition is arbitrary or capricious or otherwise exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances.

Authority:

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