Category Archives: Standard of review

Fifth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000071

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to suppress his interrogation statements because he invoked his right to counsel under Miranda. His statements were involuntary and coerced. We conclude the admission of the interrogation was prejudicial. We therefore reverse his convictions and remand for retrial.

First Holding:

A custodial interrogation can come in various forms and does not require questions. The term interrogation under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. The Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent.

Authority:

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

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

Second Holding:

Miranda’s safeguards do not apply when police ask a suspect routine booking questions to secure the biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services. But there is an exception to that exception: courts have recognized the potential for abuse by law enforcement officers who might, under the guise of seeking objective or neutral information, deliberately elicit an incriminating statement from a suspect.

Authority:

Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990) 496 U.S. 582, 601

United States v. Zapien (9th Cir. 2017) 861 F.3d 971, 975

E

Third Holding:

When a police officer has reason to know that a suspect’s answer may incriminate him even routine questioning may amount to interrogation.

Authority:

United States v. Williams (9th Cir. 2016) 842 F.3d 1143, 1147

Fourth Holding:

Once a suspect states he wishes to consult with an attorney, the interrogation must stop until an attorney is present or the suspect reinitiates contact. This is a bright-line rule: it requires all questioning cease after a suspect requests counsel. This is a prophylactic rule designed to prevent police from badgering a defendant into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights. In the absence of such a bright-line prohibition, the authorities through badgering or overreaching—explicit or subtle, deliberate or unintentional—might otherwise wear down the accused and persuade him to incriminate himself notwithstanding his earlier request for counsel’s assistance. Once a suspect invokes the right to counsel, everything changes; that is, the police can no longer engage in efforts to convince the suspect to speak to them.

Authority:

Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477, 484–485

People v. Johnson (2022) 12 Cal.5th 544, 580

Michigan v. Harvey (1990) 494 U.S. 344, 350

People v. Henderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1013, 1022

People v. Avalos (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 926, 932

Fifth Holding:

The error requires reversal unless it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523

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

Sixth Holding:

We review Miranda claims under federal constitutional standards. We accept the trial court’s determination of disputed facts if supported by substantial evidence, but we independently decide whether the challenged statements were obtained in violation of Miranda. When an interview is recorded, the facts surrounding the admission or confession are undisputed and we may apply independent review.

Authority:

People v. Johnson (2022) 12 Cal.5th 544, 578

People v. Henderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1013, 1023

People v. Suarez (2020) 10 Cal.5th 116, 158

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Duty of counsel, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000069

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 on the ground he had failed to make a prima facie case for relief. Based on recent California Supreme Court authority, the defendant must be given an opportunity to file an amended petition with additional facts. We remand the matter to allow him to do so. Additionally, at the original sentencing hearing, the trial court stayed or struck the sentence on several of the counts to which he pled guilty, but failed to impose a sentence that could be stayed or struck. We therefore remand the matter to the court for the additional purpose of imposing sentence.

First Holding:

In a proceeding under Penal Code section 1172.6 for recall of sentence based on recent changes in homicide law, the preliminary hearing transcript may be considered in determining whether a prima facie showing has been made.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

We review de novo a trial court’s ruling whether a defendant has made a prima facie showing with respect to a section 1172.6 petition.

Authority:

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

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

Third Holding:

A trial court may rely on unchallenged, relief-foreclosing facts within a preliminary hearing transcript to refute conclusory, checkbox allegations, regardless of whether the defendant stipulated to the transcript as the factual basis of a plea.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, at pp. 564, 569, fn. 12

Fourth Holding:

Upon conviction it is the duty of the court to pass sentence on the defendant and impose the punishment prescribed. Pursuant to this duty the court must either sentence the defendant or grant probation in a lawful manner; it has no other discretion. A sentence must be imposed on each count, otherwise if the nonstayed sentence is vacated, either on appeal or in a collateral attack on the judgment, no valid sentence will remain. Where the trial court fails to pronounce sentence on all counts, the appellate court may remand the matter to correct the unauthorized sentence on the defendant’s appeal, even if the People did not appeal.

Authority:

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468–1469

People v. Irvin (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 180, 192

Evidence, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000059

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We find there is insufficient evidence to support one of the convictions for sexual penetration. We find no other errors. Thus, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for resentencing.

First Holding:

When considering a challenge to 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—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27

Second Holding:

In deciding the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court resolves neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts. Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact.

Authority:

People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181

Third Holding:

The reviewing court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably deduce from the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1208

Fourth Holding:

Evidence of a defendant’s state of mind is almost inevitably circumstantial, but circumstantial evidence is as sufficient as direct evidence to support a conviction.

Authority:

People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1208

Probation Parole PRCS, Standard of review

Case 000045

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal, the minor contends that the electronics search conditions should be stricken as unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 or, at a minimum, modified as unconstitutionally overbroad. He also maintains that the association condition should be modified due to its overbreadth. We find the electronics search conditions reasonable under Lent, but we accept the People’s concession that they are unconstitutionally overbroad. We see no constitutional infirmity in the association condition. We therefore remand the matter to the trial court to strike or modify the electronics search condition. Remanded to modify terms 9 and 16

First Holding:

Under Lent, 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. We find dispositive the first element of Lent’s test, which asks whether the probation condition has no relationship to the conviction. Here, the record supports an implied finding that there was a relationship between the offense and minor’s use of an electronic device and the internet.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934, 945

Second Holding:

The failure to object to a probation condition as unreasonable under Lent generally forfeits the contention on appeal. Only facial constitutional challenges to a probation condition that are capable of correction without reference to the particular sentencing record are exempt from the general forfeiture rule.

Authority:

People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 234-235, 237

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887

Third Holding:

The court may nevertheless exercise its discretion to consider the merits of both his Lent and constitutional claims in light of the People’s concession and the minor’s alternative contention that his trial counsel’s failure to make an adequate objection constituted ineffective assistance.

Authority:

People v. Mattson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 826, 854 [considering issues not raised in trial court to forestall later claim of constitutionally inadequate representation]

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [appellate courts may reach unpreserved questions]

Fourth Holding:

In applying the Lent test, we review the conditions imposed for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

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

People v. Salvador (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 57, 62, 64

Fifth Holding:

We review constitutional overbreadth questions de novo

Authority:

In re P.O. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 288, 297

Sixth Holding:

The electronic search conditions here were overly broad.

Authority:

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1355 [If a probation condition serves to rehabilitate and protect public safety, the condition may impinge upon a constitutional right otherwise enjoyed by the probationer, who is not entitled to the same degree of constitutional protection as other citizens.]

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

In re E.O. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153 [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]

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000034

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s imposition of probation conditions regarding association with minors, completion of a sex offender treatment program, polygraph examinations, possession of pornography, electronic search, and electronic monitoring. We conclude the association with minors and pornography conditions are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad and will remand the case to the trial court to modify them

First Holding:

Regarding the conditions of probation. we conclude the association with minors and pornography conditions are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad and will remand the case to the trial court to modify them.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

Second Holding:

A probation condition is valid under the statutory scheme if it relates to the crime for which the defendant was convicted, relates to other criminal conduct, or requires or forbids conduct that is reasonably related to future criminality.

Authority:

People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 498

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

Third Holding:

The Lent test is conjunctive—all three factors must be found in order to invalidate a probation condition.

Authority:

People v. Balestra (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 57, 65, fn. 3

Fourth Holding:

A trial court abuses its discretion only when the probation conditions imposed are arbitrary, capricious, or exceed the bounds of reason.

Authority:

People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 233-234

Fifth Holding:

Even valid probation conditions must not be unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Vagueness considers whether a condition is sufficiently precise to give the probationer fair warning of what conduct is required or prohibited; overbreadth considers the closeness of fit between the state’s interest in reformation and rehabilitation and the burden imposed on the [probationer’s] constitutional rights.

Authority:

People v. Rhinehart (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1123, 1126-1127

In re I.V. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 249, 260

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

Sixth Holding:

A probation condition must be sufficiently definite for the probationer to know what conduct is required or prohibited, and to allow the court to determine when that condition has been violated.

Authority:

People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 500

Seventh Holding:

A probation condition also must be closely tailored to its legitimate objective to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad

Authority:

People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934, 946

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

People v. Garcia (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 101-102 [such conditions must be narrowly drawn]

Eighth Holding:

We review de novo constitutional challenges to probation conditions.

Authority:

People v. Mendez (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1172