Category Archives: Standard of review

Duty of the court, Jury trial, Standard of review

Case 000829

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant’s jury trial waiver was invalid as it was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

First Holding:

A criminal defendant has the constitutional right to a jury trial. The defendant may waive the constitutional right to a jury trial, provided the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. A waiver is knowing and intelligent if it is made with full awareness of the nature of the right and the consequences of abandoning it. It is voluntary if it was the product of a free and deliberate choice, rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 6th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 16

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166

Second Holding:

Whether a defendant satisfies that standard must depend upon the unique circumstances of each case. Our Supreme Court has persistently declined to mandate any specific admonitions describing aspects of the jury trial right.

Authority:

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166-167 [Our precedent has not mandated any specific method for determining whether a defendant has made a knowing and intelligent waiver of a jury trial in favor of a bench trial. We instead examine the totality of circumstances.]

People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 992

Third Holding:

A reviewing court’s task is to independently examine the record to determine whether the defendant’s jury waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. We will uphold the validity of a jury waiver if the record affirmatively shows that it is voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances.

We do not start with a presumption of validity that may only be rebutted by signs of a defendant’s confusion or unwillingness in entering a waiver. Instead, a reviewing court satisfies itself of a legitimate waiver only when the record affirmatively demonstrates it was knowing and intelligent.

Authority:

People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 453

People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 991

Fourth Holding:

Our Supreme Court has eschewed any rigid formula or particular form of words that a trial court must use in taking a jury waiver. That said, it has emphasized the value of a robust oral colloquy in evincing a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of a jury trial.

The Supreme Court has recommended that trial courts advise a defendant of the basic mechanics of a jury trial in a waiver colloquy, including but not necessarily limited to the facts that (1) a jury is made up of 12 members of the community; (2) a defendant through his or her counsel may participate in jury selection; (3) all 12 jurors must unanimously agree in order to render a verdict; and (4) if a defendant waives the right to a jury trial, a judge alone will make the decision.

Authority:

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 169-170

Fifth Holding:

The Supreme Court has also recommended that the trial judge take additional steps as appropriate to ensure, on the record, that the defendant comprehends what the jury trial right entails.

A trial judge may do so in any number of ways—among them, by asking whether the defendant had an adequate opportunity to discuss the decision with his or her attorney, by asking whether counsel explained to the defendant the fundamental differences between a jury trial and a bench trial, or by asking the defendant directly if he or she understands or has any questions about the right being waived.

Ultimately, a court must consider the defendant’s individual circumstances and exercise judgment in deciding how best to ensure that a particular defendant who purports to waive a jury trial does so knowingly and intelligently.

(Gary note: The court then analyzed record in this case and concluded that the jury trial waiver was not knowing and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. The court’s advisement addressed only one and a half of the four basic mechanics of a jury trial described in Sivongxxay–that a judge alone would decide guilt if the defendant forwent a jury trial, and that the jury would be composed of people who live in the county.)

Authority:

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 169-170

People v. Jones (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 420, 428

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

Case 000828

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The Trial Court Erred by Failing to Instruct on the Lesser Included Offense of Nonforcible Lewd Acts as to Count 8.

First Holding:

A trial court must instruct on lesser included offenses, even in the absence of a request, whenever there is substantial evidence raising a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense are present. Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury, that is, evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 645

Second Holding:

On appeal, we review independently the question whether the trial court failed to instruct on a lesser included offense. Where a trial court has erred in failing to instruct on a lesser included offense, we review for prejudice under the standard set forth in Watson. Under this standard, the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense is not subject to reversal unless it is reasonably probable a more favorable result would have been obtained absent the error.

Authority:

People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 705

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818

People v. Beltran (2013) 56 Cal.4th 935, 955

Third Holding:

Nonforcible lewd act under section 288(a), is a lesser included offense of forcible lewd act under section 288(b)(1). The crimes are distinguishable in that forcible lewd act requires the defendant to have committed the crime by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear.

Authority:

People v. Chan (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 408, 421

People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1015, 1026

Fourth Holding:

In this context, force means physical force substantially different from or substantially greater than that necessary to accomplish the act itself. Fear has been defined as (1) A feeling of alarm or disquiet caused by the expectation of danger, pain, disaster, or the like; terror; dread; apprehension and (2) Extreme reverence or awe, as toward a supreme power.

And duress as used in this context means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, hardship or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to (1) perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed or, (2) acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted.

Authority:

People v. Cochran (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 8, 13, disapproved on another ground in People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229, 248, fn. 12

People v. Cardenas (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 927, 939–940

Fifth Holding:

On this record, there is simply no evidence that the defendant employed the requisite force, duress, or fear to commit the forcible lewd act charged in count 8.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1319–1321

Sixth Holding:

Consequently, we must reverse the judgment and conviction for forcible lewd act under section 288(b)(1), as charged in count 8. Under settled law, the judgment will be modified to reflect a conviction for nonforcible lewd act under section 288(a), unless the People elect to retry the defendant on the greater charge and are successful.

Authority:

People v. Edwards (1985) 39 Cal.3d 107, 118

Seventh Holding:

The federal and state prohibitions against ex post facto laws apply to any statute that punishes as a crime an act previously committed which was not a crime when done or that inflicts greater punishment than the applicable law when the crime was committed.

It is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove to the jury that the charged offenses occurred on or after the effective date of the statute providing for the defendant’s punishment. When the evidence at trial does not establish that fact, the defendant is entitled to be sentenced under the formerly applicable statutes even if he raised no objection in the trial court.

And, where the prosecutor failed to establish at trial when the charged acts occurred, it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to review the record and select among acts that occurred before and after that date, or to infer that certain acts probably occurred after that date.

In sum, as to counts 8 and 10, the prosecution failed to present unambiguous evidence that the acts underlying these counts occurred after the law increasing the sentence range took effect. Given the ambiguity, the trial court was not permitted to impose the harsher penalty under the revised law as to these counts.

The defendant’s 10-year sentences on counts 8 and 10 therefore violate the ex post facto clause and resentencing is required on these counts. At resentencing, as to counts 8 and 10, the court must apply the sentencing provisions applicable before the statute was amended to increase the sentence range.

Authority:

People v. Hiscox (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 253, 256, 261

Eighth Holding:

Because we conclude that the judgment must be reversed in part and this action must be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, the defendant will ultimately be entitled to full resentencing.

Authority:

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

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681 [Although the Court of Appeal’s prior remand order was for resentencing on the modified convictions only, we believe a remand for a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.]

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000825

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude the finding of unreasonable risk to public safety is not supported by substantial evidence and the trial court abused its discretion in finding the defendant unsuitable for diversion.

(Gary note: I have set out the various holdings and authorities below that represent the applicable law and principles, but I have not recited the court’s analysis of the facts in this case on which it based there was no substantial evidence to support the court’s conclusion that the defendant was a danger to the community. Suffice it to say, the appellate court found the court’s reasoning inadequate to support denial of the request for mental health diversion.)

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 authorizes courts to grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendants who meet six qualifying requirements. The stated purpose of the diversion statute is to promote all of the following: (a) Increased diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety. (b) Allowing local discretion and flexibility for counties in the development and implementation of diversion for individuals with mental disorders across a continuum of care settings. (c) Providing diversion that meets the unique mental health treatment and support needs of individuals with mental disorders.

If the defendant successfully completes diversion, including having in place a plan for long-term mental health care, the criminal charges shall be dismissed. However, if after diversion is granted, a qualified mental health expert concludes the defendant is performing unsatisfactorily in the assigned program, the court shall, after notice to the defendant, hold a hearing to determine whether criminal proceedings should be reinstated or treatment modified.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

PEN 1001.35

People v. Williams (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 990, 995

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

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1149–1150

Second Holding:

Effective January 1, 2023, mental health diversion requires the trial court to find that the defendant is both eligible for diversion and suitable for the program. A defendant is eligible if they meet two criteria: first, the defendant must have been diagnosed with a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, within the last five years, by a qualified mental health expert.

Second, the disorder must be a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense. The court shall find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

Third Holding:

This presumption cannot be overcome by the mere absence of evidence demonstrating the defendant’s mental illness was a factor in the alleged offenses. If a mere absence of evidence were sufficient, the court would effectively be impermissibly shifting the burden to the defendant to affirmatively prove that his mental disorder contributed to the offenses.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 404

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 688–689

Fourth Holding:

If the defendant satisfies the statutory eligibility requirements, the court must then consider whether the defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion. The four criteria to assess suitability are grouped in section 1001.36, subdivision (c). As with the diagnosis eligibility requirement, the first of these relies on input from a medical professional, in this instance the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, that the symptoms of defendant’s mental disorder would respond to mental health treatment.

The second and third requirements are satisfied if the defendant agrees to waive their speedy trial rights and to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion. Only the fourth requirement necessitates a trial court finding, to wit, that the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892–894

Fifth Holding:

Even here, however, the Legislature has narrowly defined the applicable criteria. Borrowing from sections 1170.18(c) and 667(e)(2)(C)(iv), an unreasonable risk to public safety means a likelihood that the defendant will commit one of the violent felonies specifically enumerated in the statute.

The listed felonies are colloquially known as “super strikes.” Super strikes are a narrowly drawn subset of violent felonies involving extreme violence. We note that the lack of a criminal record is strong evidence that a defendant is unlikely to commit a future super strike offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

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

People v. Williams (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 990, 1001

People v. Moine (2011) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 450

People v. Hoffman (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1304, 1310

Sixth Holding:

Assuming the defendant is both eligible and suitable, the trial court must also be satisfied that the recommended inpatient or outpatient program of mental health treatment will meet the specialized mental health treatment needs of the defendant. This is not an additional eligibility or suitability requirement the defendant must meet. Rather, section 1001.36(f)(1) read as a whole appears to contemplate an ongoing assessment to assure that defendant will receive appropriate treatment for their particular conditions as part of the diversion program.

Authority:

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

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1079

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

Seventh Holding:

Finally, even if a defendant has made a prima facie showing that all the express statutory eligibility and suitability requirements are met, the court may still exercise its discretion to deny diversion. But this residual discretion is not unfettered; it must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law. Where the court chooses to exercise that 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 these goals.

Authority:

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 891

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

Eighth Holding:

We review the trial court’s factual findings as to the enumerated statutory criteria for substantial evidence. Under this deferential standard of review, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. Although we must ensure the evidence is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, nonetheless it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts on which that determination depends.

Authority:

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1079

Ninth Holding:

We review the trial court’s ultimate decision whether to grant mental health diversion for an abuse of discretion. By its terms, section 1001.36 is designed to encourage trial courts to broadly authorize pretrial mental health diversion, providing treatment for qualifying mental disorders that result in criminal behavior. As with any principled exercise of discretion, the court must utilize the appropriate criteria consistent with the principles and purposes of the governing law, only drawing conclusions supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1080

Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000819

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(Gary note: This opinion actually contained no relief for the defendant because there was no harm, therefore no foul. I.e., Harmless error. But I have included for some important principles that the defendant prevailed on, save the need to show prejudice.)

The firearm and great bodily injury findings on the defendant’s murder convictions must be reversed, though it does not affect his sentence because the court did not impose sentence on those enhancements. His counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the dual use of facts at sentencing, but the error was harmless because the court cited and relied on several other properly established factors in aggravation and made it clear that the court intended to impose the upper term.

First Holding:

The jury found the defendant personally inflicted great bodily harm within the meaning of section 12022.7(a) when he committed each of the counts of murder. But section 12022.7 specifically states that it does not apply to the crime of murder. We reverse those findings, but the sentence remains unaffected because the court did not impose punishment for those enhancements.

Authority:

PEN 12022.7(g)

Second Holding:

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. On direct appeal, a finding of deficient performance is warranted where (1) the record affirmatively discloses counsel had no rational tactical purpose for the challenged act or omission, (2) counsel was asked for a reason and failed to provide one, or (3) there simply could be no satisfactory explanation.

Where counsel’s trial tactics or strategic reasons for challenged decisions do not appear on the record, we will not find ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal unless there could be no conceivable reason for counsel’s acts or omissions.

Authority:

People v. Johnsen (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1116, 1165

Third Holding:

A trial court may not impose an upper term by using the fact of any enhancement upon which sentence is imposed under any provision of law.

We agree with the defendant that there is no conceivable reason for his counsel to have failed to raise this point in the trial court.

The law prohibiting the dual use of facts for an enhancement and to aggravate a sentence is clear, and the People do not dispute that it barred the court from relying on the firearm and great bodily injury aggravating circumstances to impose the upper term on count 10. The defendant had nothing to lose by raising this point and could only face a longer sentence by allowing the court to consider more aggravating circumstances than were proper.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(5)

Rules of Court, rule 4.420(g)

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 350

Fourth Holding:

Establishing prejudice for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a defendant to demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

The defendant fails to establish prejudice because the record clearly indicates that the trial court could and would have imposed the same sentence even without the additional aggravating circumstances. A trial court may impose an upper-term sentence based on even a single aggravating factor.

Because the trial court made every possible choice to lengthen the term of the defendant’s sentence, well beyond the limit of what the defendant could be physically capable of serving [more than 200 years], the trial court left no doubt that it would have imposed the same upper term on count 10 even without two of the aggravating circumstances.circumstance.

Authority:

In re Gay (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1059, 1086

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 764

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000818

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court impermissibly and prejudicially relied on aggravating factors not found true by a jury to sentence the defendant to the upper term on the assault count. The defendant is also entitled to conduct credts in addition to his actual presentence time in custody.

First Holding:

The People presented certified documents of five prior felony convictions. The certified documents showed that appellant had served a prison term for the 2002 convictions. The trial court found the People proved two aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt: that appellant’s prior convictions were numerous or of increasing seriousness, and that appellant had served a prior prison term. At sentencing, the trial court relied on these two factors in imposing the upper term on the assault count.

This was error, as the proposed aggravating factors should have been presented to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, if not stipulated to by the defendant.

Under the federal constitution, 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.

When the constitutional right to jury trial is involved, there must be an express waiver. It is undisputed that appellant made no such express waiver in this case. 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, 1086, 1087

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

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

Second Holding:

With respect to numerosity, appellant was convicted of five offenses over a period of 18 years, with an additional 22 years elapsing between the most recent prior offense and the instant offense. Appellant was [more than 60] years old at the time of trial. We cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found appellant’s prior crimes numerous.

While the evidence may have been sufficient to support a finding that the aggravating factor was true, that is not the proper inquiry when assessing prejudice under Chapman. Instead, we must ask whether any rational fact finder could have come to the opposite conclusion.

Authority:

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 848 [Three robberies in the course of 49 years of life may strike some jurors as an obviously numerous number of convictions, but we are unsure 12 people unanimously would agree with this evaluation beyond a reasonable doubt]

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

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

Third Holding:

As for increasing seriousness, under current case law, the determination that a defendant’s prior convictions are of increasing seriousness may be made by reference to the range of punishment provided by statute for each offense. Or it may be determined by a comparison of the offenses respective elements.

While a jury certainly could find increasing seriousness, we are not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that they would have, particularly in light of our Supreme Court’s recent caution regarding increasing seriousness that the determination is a comparative and qualitative one. These realities make it difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

The defendant is entitled to 166 days of presentence conduct credit in addition to the 167 days of actual credit awarded by the trial court.

Authority:

PEN 4019(f)

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000815

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to impose a condition of probation that the defendant must submit to chemical testing for the use of alcohol at any time as directed by probation officer or other law enforcement officer.

First Holding:

As an initial matter, we address and reject the Attorney General’s argument that the defendant’s failure to object to the alcohol testing condition forfeited the issue on appeal. Neither forfeiture nor application of the forfeiture rule is automatic, and appellate courts have discretion to review otherwise forfeited challenges. Here, we exercise our right to decide the appeal on its merits, in order to eliminate the need to address the defendant’s alternative ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We now turn to the reasonableness of condition

Authority:

People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 928

Second Holding:

The defendant challenges the imposition of probation condition 13, which required him to submit to alcohol testing, as unreasonable under Lent. He contends the condition does not make sense because the trial court struck condition 12 that prohibited him from consuming or possessing alcohol.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

We review conditions of probation for abuse of discretion. That is, a reviewing court will disturb the trial court’s decision to impose a particular condition of probation only if, under all the circumstances, that choice is arbitrary and capricious and is wholly unreasonable.

Authority:

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

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

Fourth Holding:

A condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it ‘(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. The Lent test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term.

The conditions of probation aimed at rehabilitating the offender need not be so strictly tied to the offender’s precise crime as long as they are reasonably directed at curbing an offender’s future criminality. But there must be a strong connection between the burdens imposed by the challenged condition and a probationer’s criminal conduct or personal history.

Authority:

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

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

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1120

Fifth Holding:

Notably, when asked to strike the condition requiring the defendant to abstain from drinking alcohol, the sentencing court freely did so without any apparent reservation. This striking shows the court was not concerned that the defendant’s alcohol consumption had the potential for abuse or was likely to lead to future criminality.

As such, because the defendant was allowed to possess and consume alcohol, there was no rational need to test the defendant for alcohol consumption as a condition of probation. Therefore, we conclude the testing condition here has no deterrent effect on the defendant’s future criminality and is unreasonable.

Authority:

People v. Kiddoo (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 922, 928, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 236–237 [court struck a probation condition that appellant not possess or consume alcohol or frequent places where alcohol was sold because there was no factual indication in the record that the proscribed behavior is reasonably related to future criminal behavior]

Sixth Holding:

Because the court’s imposition of condition 13 was therefore an abuse of discretion, we order it stricken.

Authority:

In re Malik J. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 896, 901 [In an appropriate case, a probation condition that is not sufficiently precise or narrowly drawn may be modified in this court and affirmed as modified]

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000814

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred in imposing the upper term based on the aggravating circumstance that the defendant’s prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings are numerous or of increasing seriousness, without either a true finding by a jury or the defendant’s admission.

First Holding:

Section 1170(b)(2) provides that the trial court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when aggravating circumstances justify imposition of an upper term sentence, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(2)

Second Holding:

This trial right is not merely a state law entitlement, but is constitutionally required. Under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by a jury, not a judge, and established beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence.

Authority:

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 755-767

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).]

Third Holding:

The only exception to this rule is the fact of a prior conviction. A 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. Allegations of prior convictions may be tried by the court alone and proven by certified records of conviction. However, this exception is narrow. A judge may do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1079, 1083, 1084 [any fact, beyond the bare fact of a prior conviction, that exposes a defendant to harsher punishment, must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, unless the defendant stipulates to its truth or waives a jury trial]

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 742, 757 [Excluding properly proven prior convictions or a defense stipulation, a jury finding is now required for all facts actually relied on to impose an upper term.]

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 838

Fourth Holding:

Two aggravating factors under the rules of court—the increasing seriousness of a defendant’s prior convictions (rule 4.421(b)(2)) and unsatisfactory performance on probation (rule 4.421(b)(5))—involve something more than a narrow factual finding that the convictions were sustained and what elements were required to prove them. Accordingly, a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on those two factors before the factors can be used to justify an upper term sentence.

Authority:

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

Fifth 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 standard of review under Chapman. 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.

Lack of a jury trial is not harmless under Chapman if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.

Authority:

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

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

Sixth Holding:

The facts supporting every aggravating circumstance upon which the trial court relies to justify imposition of the upper term must be properly proven.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 757

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000813

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In imposing the upper term the trial court erroneously relied on circumstances in aggravation that were not stipulated to nor submitted to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

In support of the upper term, the court identified several circumstances in aggravation that it concluded did not need to be submitted to the jury. The trial court proceeded to find true that the defendant’s prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings were numerous or of increasing seriousness; that the defendant has served a prior term in prison or county jail under section 1170(h); and that the defendant was on probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole when the crime was committed.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court also mentioned finding true a fourth aggravating factor, that the defendant’s prior performance on probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole was unsatisfactory. This was error.

In Wiley, the Supreme Court recognized that, under the Sixth Amendment and section 1170(b), 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. This right to a jury trial extends to the aggravating factor that a defendant’s prior convictions were of increasing seriousness. It also extends to the aggravating factor that a defendant’s prior performance on probation or parole was unsatisfactory.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1076, 1083, 1086

Second Holding:

We apply the Chapman standard of review to determine if the error was prejudicial. A defendant is entitled to a reversal and remand for resentencing unless, after examining the entire cause, including the evidence as to all relevant circumstances, we can conclude that the omission of a jury trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to every aggravating fact the trial court used to justify an upper term sentence.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1076, 1087

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

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000812

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Intro The defendant pled guilty to felon in possession of a firearm, and unlawfully carrying a firearm with intent to commit a felony. The trial court sentenced defendant to two years state prison on each count, with the terms to be run concurrently. The sentence violates Penal Code section 654, as both counts arise from the same act of possessing and carrying a firearm. On resentencing, the abstract of judgment needs to be corrected to reflect the actual oral pronouncement of judgment.
blurb here

First Holding:

Section 654(a) provides that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.

Authority:

PEN 654

Second Holding:

Both Count 1 and Count 2 are premised on the same act by defendant of owning, possessing, and carrying a firearm on or about [the date in question] and a single possession or carrying of a single firearm on a single occasion may be punished only once under section 654.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 357

Third Holding:

Where, as here, the facts are undisputed, we review de novo the application of section 654 as a question of law.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

The record is inadequate for us to determine which sentence the trial court would have stayed if it considered section 654, making section 1260 relief inappropriate. We will remand to the trial court so that it may exercise its discretion to determine which sentence to stay.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Braxton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 798, 818–819 [A limited remand is appropriate under section 1260 for the exercise of any discretion that is vested by law in the trial court]

Fifth Holding:

Section 1260 provides in relevant part that the appellate court may reverse, affirm, or modify a judgment or order appealed from and may set aside, affirm, or modify any or all of the proceedings subsequent to, or dependent upon, such judgment or order. Although section 1260 provides this court with the broad ability to modify judgments or proceedings, we exercise this power sparingly for the trial court’s articulated discretion is, generally speaking, controlling.

Authority:

People v. Humphrey (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 809, 813

Sixth Holding:

Where the reviewing court finds an error in the exercise of sentencing discretion, the ordinary remedy is to reverse and remand to the trial court for resentencing, during which the trial court will have a new opportunity to exercise its discretion. The law respects the substantial discretion vested in the trial court to determine the appropriate sentence in light of the facts and circumstances of the individual case. Modification of the judgment instead of remand for resentencing matters would be appropriate when a trial court’s intention is clear.

Authority:

People v. Dain (2025) 18 Cal.5th 246, 261

People v. Mendoza (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 535, 539

Seventh Holding:

Although the previous version of section 654 provided that an act or omission shall be punished under the longest potential term of imprisonment, effective January 1, 2022, section 654 was revised to provide the trial court with discretion to impose and execute the sentence of either term. Thus, where section 654 applies, “after determining which sentence to execute, courts must impose a sentence on the other count to which Penal Code section 654 applies and then stay execution of that sentence.

[Gary note, of marginal historical interest: Prior to 1998, Penal Code section 654 had exactly the same language as it currently has, and a court was free to impose sentence on any one of the counts to which section 654 applied. See People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1. In response to that Supreme Court decision, the Legislature amended section 654 to require that the court impose sentence on the count containing the longest potential term. Through AB 518, effective 1/1/2022, the Legislature restored section 654 to its former language, restoring to the court the discretion to choose on which count punishment should be imposed and executed.]

Authority:

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379-380

Eighth Holding:

In this instance, the record does not present any indication as to which sentence the trial court would have stayed if it had considered the effect of section 654. It is true, as the People note, that the [date of original sentence], minute order states “Principal Count Deemed to be Count 01.” The [date probation was revoked and sentence was executed] minute order states the same, as does the abstract of judgment. The reporter’s transcript, however, contains no record of such a designation of a principal count by the trial court. Where a conflict exists between the court’s oral pronouncement and the minute order or abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Following resentencing, the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the actual oral judgment.

Authority:

People v. Walz (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1367, fn. 3

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000811

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to order a stay-away order upon sentencing the defendant. Otherwise, we affirm the court’s sentencing choices.

First Holding:

Under section 136.2, when the court has a good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur, the court is authorized to issue a restraining order. Orders made under section 136.2 are operative only during the pendency of criminal proceedings and as prejudgment orders. The only purpose of a section 136.2 protective order is to protect victims and witnesses in connection with the criminal proceeding in which the restraining order is issued in order to allow participation without fear of reprisal.

Authority:

PEN 136.2

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324–1325

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 383, 384 [Where the Legislature authorizes a specific variety of available procedures, the courts should use them and should normally refrain from exercising their inherent powers to invent alternatives.]

Second Holding:

We also observe that courts must, at the time of sentencing for certain crimes, consider issuing a protective order prohibiting a defendant from contacting a victim. None of these other statutes are applicable in this matter. The order issued against the defendant therefore transcended the authorization of section 136.2 and must be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 136.2(i)(1)

PEN 273.5

PEN 646.9(k)

People v. Stone (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 153, 160
We review the trial court’s sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. Under this standard of review, the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.

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

Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711–712

Third Holding:

To prove an abuse of discretion, the burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on review

Authority:

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 988

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377 [a sentencing court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it]

Fourth Holding:

Section 1170(b)(6) does not mandate a presumption in favor of the lower term in every case in which the defendant generally falls under one of the categories enumerated in the subdivision. Rather, the statute is clear that childhood trauma (or one of the other two categories in subdivision (b)(6)) must be a contributing factor to the offense in order to qualify for a presumption of the low term in sentencing. On this record, we cannot say that the court failed to consider section 1170(b)(6), or that its decision to impose the middle term notwithstanding the provision was so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.

Authority:

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 988, 991 [In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on review.]

People v. Hilburn (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 189, 204, fn. 6

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

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377

Abstracts and Minutes, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000810

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court violated section 654 by imposing consecutive prison terms for the vandalism and burglary convictions because they arose from the same course of conduct. The vandalism consisted of using a drill drill and crowbar to take the door off its hinges to gain entry as part of the burglary.

First Holding:

Section 654(a) provides that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. Thus, the statute bars multiple punishments for a single act that violates more than one criminal statute, and for multiple acts where those acts comprise an indivisible course of conduct incidental to a single criminal objective and intent.

Authority:

People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1208

Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19

Second Holding:

When multiple offenses are committed during a course of criminal conduct deemed indivisible, the offenses are treated as only one punishable act. Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible depends on the intent and objective of the actor.

If all of the offenses were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, the defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once.

If, however, 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:

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

People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 637, 639

Third Holding:

Whether the defendant harbored separate objectives during a course of criminal conduct is primarily a question of fact for the trial court. We review a challenge under section 654 for substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination. We review the trial court’s determination in the light most favorable to the respondent and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the evidence.

Authority:

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

People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 162

People v. Avalos (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1583

People v. Racy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1336–1337

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

Fourth Holding:

However, a decision supported by a mere scintilla of evidence need not be affirmed on appeal. Although substantial evidence may consist of inferences, those inferences must be products of logic and reason and must be based on the evidence. Inferences that are the result of mere speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding. The ultimate test is whether a reasonable trier of fact would make the challenged ruling considering the whole record.

Authority:

In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 135

Fifth Holding:

The failure of defense counsel to object to the court’s decision not to stay the punishment does not forfeit. the issue. The waiver doctrine does not apply to questions involving the applicability of section 654. Errors in the applicability of section 654 are corrected on appeal regardless of whether the point was raised by objection in the trial court or assigned as error on appeal. This is because a sentence that is not authorized by law exceeds the jurisdiction of the court.

Authority:

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 550, fn. 3

People v. Neal (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1120

Sixth Holding:

There was no evidence that the defendant harbored separated objectives.

Authority:

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335 [We have traditionally observed that if all of the offenses were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once.]

Seventh Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it fails to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment in several respects. In a criminal case, it is the oral pronouncement of sentence that constitutes the judgment. Where, as here, a discrepancy exists between the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order and the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 893

People v. El (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 963, 967

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000807

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court’s finding that the People overcame the statutory presumption that the defendant’s mental health diagnosis was a significant factor in the commission of the offenses was not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, its denial of his application on that basis was an abuse of discretion.

As a result, we conditionally reverse the judgment and remand with instructions for the trial court to find the defendant eligible for diversion and hold a hearing to determine the defendant’s suitability for diversion.

If the court determines the defendant is suitable for diversion, it may grant his application. If the court determines the defendant is not suitable, the defendant’s convictions and sentence shall be reinstated.

First Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on an application for mental health diversion for an abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. A court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. By definition, substantial evidence’ requires evidence and not mere speculation.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401

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

People v. Ramon (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 843, 851

Second Holding:

In reviewing a trial court’s finding that a fact has been proven by clear and convincing evidence, the question before us is whether the record contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the [disputed] fact was true. To answer that question, we review the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401

Third Holding:

The Legislature enacted sections 1001.35 and 1001.36 to authorize trial courts to grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendants diagnosed with qualifying mental disorders. To be eligible for mental health diversion, a defendant must meet two requirements. First, the defendant must have been diagnosed within the past five years with a mental disorder identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Second, the defendant’s mental disorder must be a significant factor in the commission of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 677

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400

Fourth Holding:

To ensure that diversion applies as broadly as possible, the Legislature amended section 1001.36 to include a presumption that a defendant’s mental disorder diagnosis was a significant factor in the commission of the offense if the diagnosis occurred within the past five years. Once the presumption is established, to overcome it, the People must prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor in defendant’s commission of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)(2)

Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 67, 80

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 688

Fifth Holding:

Even if a defendant meets the eligibility requirements, before the court can grant a defendant diversion, the court must also find the defendant suitable for diversion using the four criteria outlined in section 1001.36(c). Specifically, the court must find that (1) a qualified mental health expert has determined the defendant’s symptoms would respond to mental health treatment; (2) the defendant has consented to diversion and waived the right to a speedy trial; (3) the defendant has agreed to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion, and (4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.26(c)

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400-401

Sixth Holding:

Even after finding a defendant eligible and suitable for diversion, however, a trial court may exercise its residual discretion to deny diversion. But this residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law. That purpose includes a strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders because of the benefits of such treatment to both the offending individual and the community.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896

Seventh Holding:

In 2024, a mental health professional diagnosed the defendant with PTSD, major depressive disorder with psychotic features, and alcohol use disorder. Defendant’s diagnosis established a presumption that his mental health disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the robberies.

In response, the People argued that that it was simply impossible to believe that PTSD or depression caused the defendant and his cohorts to plan the robberies, which were obviously coordinated and planned out. The People offered no evidence, and the trial court did not identify any, establishing by clear and convincing evidence, that defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to defendant’s commission of the offenses. Their speculation about the cause of the robberies is not substantial evidence.

The absence of evidence proving that the defendant’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the [robberies] is not substantial evidence supporting a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s mental disorder was not a factor in the commission of the offenses.

By finding the presumption was overcome even though the People offered no evidence that would establish that defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to defendant’s commission of the offenses, the trial court effectively shifted the burden to the defendant to affirmatively prove that his mental disorder contributed to the offenses. That is not the showing the statute requires.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)(2)

People v. Ramon (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 843, 851

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 688

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 404

Eighth Holding:

A court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. Because substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that the presumption was overcome, it abused its discretion in denying defendant diversion based on that finding.

Authority:

Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 67, 81

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

Ninth Holding:

We review the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence. A substantial evidence inquiry examines the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and upholds it if the record contains reasonable, credible evidence of solid value upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have relied in reaching the conclusion in question.

Once such evidence is found, the substantial evidence test is satisfied. The trial court found defendant would not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety as defined within the statute. Meaning that he was not likely to commit a super-strike offense if granted diversion. An appellate tribunal is neither authorized nor warranted in substituting its judgment for the judgment of the trial judge. Because the record contains substantial evidence to support that finding, we do not disturb it.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401

People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 Cal.5th 432, 450

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377