Category Archives: Standard of review

Elements of crime, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000736

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There is insufficient evidence proving the defendant burned forest land as that term is defined by section 450(b).

First Holding:

Section 451 provides that a person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned any structure, forest land, or property. Section 451 identifies four types of felonious arson: (1) arson causing great bodily injury; (2) arson causing an inhabited structure or property to burn; (3) arson of a structure or forest land; and (4) arson of property. Section 450(b) defines forest land as any brush covered land, cut-over land, forest, grasslands, or woods.

By contrast, property means real property or personal property, other than a structure or forest land. The maximum sentence for arson of a structure or forest land is double that of the maximum sentence for arson of uninhabited property.

Authority:

PEN 451

PEN 450

Second Holding:

At the heart of this case lies a question of statutory interpretation—the meaning of forest land—which we consider de novo. Our primary task in interpreting the statute is to determine the lawmakers’ intent. We begin with the words of the statute and their usual and ordinary meaning, which would typically be their dictionary definition. Their plain meaning controls, unless the words are ambiguous. If the statute is ambiguous, we may consider a variety of extrinsic aids, including legislative history, the statute’s purpose, and public policy.

Authority:

People v. Costella (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1, 5-6

People v. Prunty (2015) 62 Cal.4th 59, 71

Third Holding:

To the extent we must determine whether there was sufficient evidence of forest land, we consider whether the record discloses substantial evidence—evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment and we do not reweigh evidence. In the end, the only evidentiary question before us is whether the prosecution—consistent with the theory it advanced regarding what constituted forest land—presented sufficient proof in this case.

Authority:

People v. Costella (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1, 5

People v. Prunty (2015) 62 Cal.4th 59, 71

People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756, 820

Fourth Holding:

It appears undisputed that the site here does not fall within the statutory definition of forest land as cut-over land, forest, or woods. The People argue it constitutes forest land as grasslands or brush covered land. We disagree. Merriam-Webster defines grassland as farmland occupied chiefly by forage plants and especially grasses, or land on which the natural dominant plant forms are grasses and forbs, or an ecological community in which the characteristic plants are grasses. Based on these definitions and the language of sections 450 and 451, we agree with the defendant that the mere presence of grass is insufficient to make an area a grassland.

The statutes distinguish between arson of forest land, including grasslands, and arson of other types of uninhabited property, suggesting that the Legislature intended forest land to mean something other than any land on which grass grows. The definitions suggest a grassland is an open land or prairie, occupied largely by grasses, rather than just any land with grass on it, such as a lawn or park. The 1979 amendment to the statute from “any grass” to “grasslands” suggests the Legislature intended to narrow the types of grassy areas giving rise to heightened punishment for arson.

Authority:

PEN 450

Fifth Holding:

Based on the definitions and the discussion in Costella, we believe the definition of “brush covered land” requires that at least some portion of the land in question be densely populated with brush, even if it is not continuously covered with brush. Here, there was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the area affected was forest land or grassland or brush covered land. In sum, there is insufficient evidence that the land at issue constituted forest land under sections 450, subdivision (b), and 451, subdivision (c). Therefore, the arson conviction must be reversed.

Authority:

PEN 450

PEN 451

People v. Costella (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1, 7

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000735

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support the jury’s true findings on gang enhancements attached to counts 1 and 2, and a gang-murder special circumstance attached to count 1.

First Holding:

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support an enhancement, 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. Such evidence must be reasonable, credible and of solid value.

Authority:

People v. Renteria (2022) 13 Cal.5th 951, 970

Second Holding:

To establish a gang enhancement, the prosecution was required to prove the defendant committed the offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang and did so with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members. The statute requires proof of a common benefit to members of a gang where the common benefit is more than reputational. Examples of qualifying nonreputational benefits include financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting rivals, or witness intimidation.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

Third Holding:

The gang-murder special circumstance required the prosecution to prove that the defendant intentionally killed the victim while the defendant was an active participant in a criminal street gang and the murder was carried out to further the activities of the criminal street gang. Thus, the special-circumstance allegation depended upon the same gang-related findings underlying the section 186.22 enhancements, including the “more than reputational” requirement in section 186.22(g).

Authority:

PEN 190.2

PEN 186.22

People v. Campbell (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 350, 378

Fourth Holding:

Substantial evidence does not support the jury’s true findings on the gang enhancements attached to counts 1 and 2 or the gang-murder special circumstance attached to count 1. In short, the requirements of section 186.22(g) were not met. Consequently, these findings must be stricken. Based on the principle of double jeopardy, retrial is barred.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(g)

Lockhart v. Nelson (1988) 488 U.S. 33, 39

People v. Garcia (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 519, 526 [a gang enhancement reversed for insufficient evidence may not be retried]

Fifth Holding:

Because these findings formed part of the overall sentencing package, remand for full resentencing is required.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [when part of a sentence is stricken, a full resentencing is appropriate so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances]

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000726

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court ordered appellant participate and complete general education/counseling and mental health counseling at the discretion of and as directed by probation. We find that delegating unfettered discretion to the probation department to determine whether appellant shall participate and complete education and counseling is impermissible and violates the separation of powers doctrine.

As such, we strike this probation condition and remand the matter to the trial court to consider whether or not appellant shall participate in and complete education and counseling as a condition of his probation, consistent with this opinion.

First Holding:

The People argue that appellant forfeited his probation-condition challenge by failing to object to it at the sentencing hearing. The forfeiture doctrine is a well-established principle that, with certain exceptions, an appellate court will not consider claims of error that could have been—but were not—raised in the trial court.

Strong policy reasons support this rule: It is both unfair and inefficient to permit a claim of error on appeal that, if timely brought to the attention of the trial court, could have been easily corrected or avoided.

The law casts upon the party the duty of looking after his legal rights and of calling the judge’s attention to any infringement of them. If any other rule were to obtain, the party would in most cases be careful to be silent as to his objections until it would be too late to obviate them, and the result would be that few judgments would stand the test of an appeal.

Authority:

People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880–881

Second Holding:

One exception to the forfeiture doctrine includes a facial constitutional challenge—one that does not require scrutiny of individual facts and circumstances but instead requires the review of abstract and generalized legal concepts—a task that is well suited to the role of an appellate court.

Appellant presents a facial challenge: the issue is whether the trial court may, under the separation of powers doctrine, delegate to the probation officer the determination of whether appellant must participate and complete education/counseling and mental health counseling.

Such a claim is not predicated on the factual details about the specific education and counseling ordered, appellant’s specific rehabilitative needs, or on the details of the programming the probation officer could determine under this condition. The forfeiture doctrine does not apply in this circumstance.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 885, 887-888

Third Holding:

The California Constitution separates the state government’s power into legislative, executive, and judicial branches and prohibits persons charged with the exercise of one power to exercise either of the others except as permitted by the California Constitution. The separation of powers doctrine is violated when the actions of one branch defeat or materially impair the inherent functions of another. Under the separation of powers doctrine, judicial powers may not be delegated to nonjudicial officers.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. III, sec. 3

In re D.N. (2022) 14 Cal.5th 202, 212

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902

Fourth Holding:

A trial court has broad discretion to impose probation conditions to promote rehabilitation of the defendant and to protect the public. The court also has authority to empower the probation department with authority to supervise the probation conditions.

The court may leave to the discretion of the probation officer the specification of the many details that invariably are necessary to implement the terms of probation. However, the court’s order cannot be entirely open-ended. While the probation officer may properly specify the details necessary to effectuate the court’s probation conditions, it is the court’s duty to determine the nature of the requirements imposed on the probationer.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1(j)

PEN 1202.7

People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120

People v. Kwizera (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1240

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358–1359

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902

Fifth Holding:

We review a constitutional challenge to a probation condition de novo.

Authority:

In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143

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

Sixth Holding:

Imposing a probation condition that subjects the defendant to the approval or direction of the probation officer is a permissible delegation. But delegating to a probation officer the decision of whether a defendant will participate in a specific form of treatment is an improper delegation of judicial authority.

Authority:

People v. Penoli (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 298, 307–309

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 901, 903 [probation condition violates separation of powers doctrine by delegating to probation officer whether the defendant would be required to attend residential treatment/therapy/counseling program]

Seventh Holding:

Here, the court’s order for appellant to submit to education and counseling was much broader than simply leaving the details of that programming to the probation department, it gave the probation department the unlimited discretion to decide whether appellant is required to participate and complete general education and counseling at all.

Specifically, the court ordered appellant to participate and complete education/counseling and mental health counseling at the discretion of and as directed by the probation department.

This is an invalid delegation of judicial authority: although the court may delegate to probation the determinations of when and where a condition will be satisfied, the court may not delegate the decision of whether counseling or education shall be completed.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 901, 903

Amelioration, Gary Musings, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000723

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court was required to revisit whether the gang enhancement attached to the felony assault charge was still valid in light of changes to the gang criminal activity statutes under AB 333. When asked to strike the enhancement, the trial court stated that it did not have discretion to relitigate the facts underlying the gang enhancement. This was error.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 rendered legally invalid any prior prison term enhancement imposed before January 1, 2020 (unless the enhancement was imposed for a prior sexually violent conviction), and it created a resentencing procedure for defendants who are currently serving sentences that include such an enhancement. Section 1172.75(c) requires a court to strike any now-invalid prior prison term enhancement and recall the defendant’s sentence.

Section 1172.75(d) provides instructions for resentencing. Among other things, the provision requires the court to resentence the defendant under current law, including any changes in law that reduce sentences.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily and capriciously, relies on improper matters, or is unaware of the scope of its discretion such that it does not exercise its discretion at all. We independently review questions of statutory interpretation implicated by the trial court’s decisions.

Authority:

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

People v. Mathis (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 359, 366

Third Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 333 made several changes to the law governing the gang enhancement.

First, AB 333 narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons.

Second, it changed the requirement that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity to now require that any such pattern be collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, it narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal gang activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date of the currently charged offense; (2) the pattern offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the pattern offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) none of the pattern offenses is the same as the currently charged offense.

Finally, AB 333 narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational. Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational, under the amended provision, include, but are not limited to, financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting a perceived or actual gang rival, or intimidation or silencing of a potential current or previous witness or informant.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

Fourth Holding:

AB 333’s amendments to section 186.22 apply retroactively to the defendant’s case because they are ameliorative changes and the defendant’s case became nonfinal when the court vacated and recalled his sentence under section 1172.75.

Authority:

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

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 163

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 396–400

Fifth Holding:

In Stamps, the Supreme Court held that a trial court may not modify a plea agreement because a plea agreement is, in essence, a contract between the defendant and the prosecutor to which the court consents to be bound. But, as the Supreme Court explained in Doe v. Harris, the terms of the plea agreement can be affected by changes in the law. By implementing such changes, the trial court is not altering the terms of the plea bargain.

Thus, under Doe, the defendant’s 2016 plea agreement is deemed to incorporate the Legislature’s subsequent enactment of AB 333. Consequently, requiring the parties compliance with changes to section 186.22 made retroactive to the defendant does not violate the terms of the plea agreement. We therefore conclude that the gang-related enhancement findings must be vacated and the matter remanded to give the People the opportunity to prove the applicability of the enhancements under the amendments to section 186.22.

Authority:

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 701

Doe v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 64, 73-74

People v. Harrell (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 161, 168

People v. Lopez (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 327, 346

Extensive Gary Note, NOT In The Opinion:

Gary note: I think I first noted this in my summary for Case 000532. But effective 1/1/2025, section 1171 provides that a resentencing under any ameliorative provisions cannot result in an order to set aside a plea bargain in which the sentence was specified. In other words, section 1171 appears to have overturned the Stamps decision with respect to allowing the lower court or the prosecution to set aside a plea bargain if the ameliorative provisions apply to change the sentence in a way that the prosecutor or court do not like.

This question was granted review in a case that originally issued a published opinion in 2024 (100 Cal.App.5th 768), where it defined the issue as “Is the prosecution entitled to rescind a plea agreement when a defendant receives a full resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728) and the trial court intends to reduce the sentence beyond eliminating the prior prison term enhancements?”

On 12/18/2024, the Supreme Court transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal on the People’s motion for the Court of Appeal to vacate its earlier decision [which, in fact, concluded that the prosecutor could NOT rescind the agreement] and reconsider its opinion in light of the passage of AB 2483, which enacted section 1171. It also ordered the Court of Appeal’s original opinion to be depublished.

On remand, the Court of Appeal set aside its earlier opinion and issued a new opinion in which it said, “At the hearing, Montgomery may seek relief under any provision of section 1172.75, and neither the prosecutor nor the court may rescind the plea agreement due to a resulting sentence reduction.”

The original Court of Appeal opinion was published, and it provides an analysis of why a review of the legislative history of AB 483 (which enacted section 1172.75)–including uncodified portions of AB 483– compelled it to conclude that Stamps did not apply. But the subsequent opinion following the Supreme Court’s transfer relied solely on section 1171, and the opinion was not published.  As I stated, the “published” opinion also was wiped off the books when the Supreme Court ordered it depublished.

In the recent decision People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, the Supreme Court indicated its awareness of section 1171–as it obviously did when it transferred the Montgomery case–but declined to apply it where the case was a direct appeal from the judgment itself, in which the appellant challenged the stipulated sentence–in which he agreed to and received an upper term before section 1170 was amended to require jury findings for upper terms.

See Mitchell’s footnote 9. Keep in mind that section 1171 was created to guide courts in the handling of newly enacted ameliorative legislation. The Supreme Court in Mitchell seems to have left open the question where the appeal is from the original judgment itself, rather than an appeal from an attempt at securing relief from ameliorative statutes. Its footnote 9 ends, “We decline to consider this argument because we have concluded that Mitchell is entitled to a remand under our established precedent in Stamps. We express no view on the applicability of section 1171 to this case or how it might affect the options described above. Mitchell may raise this issue in the Court of Appeal or the trial court in the first instance.”

And for the rest of the story, the Court of Appeal has since, in an unpublished sentence, remanded the matter to the trial court to permit the defendant to seek relief under the ameliorative provisions.  At that time, the defendant may present the argument that section 1171 bars the prosecution or the court from seeking that the plea agreement be set aside if either the prosecutor or the court is not satisfied with any resulting modification of the sentence.

Authority:

Gary has no authority, just musings.

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Racial Justice Act, Standard of review

Case 000720

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant’s petition for writ of mandate is granted. Filed as a habeas corpus petition, the People aver that the instant petition should be treated as a petition for writ of mandate from the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s discovery motion and concede that the defendant established a plausible factual foundation for discovery.

The People assert, and the defendant agrees, the matter should be remanded for development of the record on the relevant factors governing Racial Justice Act [RJA] discovery and for the trial court to consider those factors in the first instance.

We conclude the trial court misapplied the applicable legal standards and erred by denying the defendant’s motion. We therefore grant the petition, direct the trial court to vacate its denial of the defendant’s discovery motion, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

First Holding:

We have the discretion to treat a petition for writ of habeas corpus as a petition for writ of mandate. Writ review is appropriate where a petition raises novel legal issues of widespread interest. The RJA remains fairly new legislation and has been amended several times since its inception. Though laudable in its purposes, the Act has proven challenging to the courts in its implementation. Given there are few appellate decisions interpreting the Act thus far, several appellate courts have found writ review appropriate in addressing issues raised under the RJA.

Authority:

People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 340

Escamilla v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 498, 509

Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1612

Brandt v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 813, 816

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 147, 156 [the RJA’s command is simple, but the implementation is somewhat complex; writ review appropriate to address questions of first impression including how to interpret the RJA’s discovery provision]]

Jackson v. Superior Court (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 372, 382

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 46 [writ of mandate issued and matter remanded for the trial court to determine if the defendant was entitled to the appointment of counsel]

Mosby v. Superior Court (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 106, 133 [writ of mandate issued, and the trial court’s order denying the petitioner a hearing vacated after the appellate court determined the petitioner met his burden and could proceed to an evidentiary hearing]

Second Holding:

Here, the parties agree without objection that the defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus should be treated as a petition for writ of mandate. We therefore exercise our discretion to construe the petition as a petition for writ of mandate of the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s RJA discovery motion and address the court’s order on the merits.

Authority:

People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 335

People v. Payne (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 933, 937 [appeal from nonappealable order treated as application for writ of mandate and addressed on the merits]

Third Holding:

Two courts of appeal have concluded, albeit with different reasoning, that a trial court’s order denying a request for discovery under the RJA is not appealable. Both courts recognized, however, that such an order may be challenged by a petition for writ of mandate.

Authority:

In re Montgomery (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1071–1072, 1076 review dism. Dec. 30, 2025, S287339

People v. Serrano (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 276, 292, 293, review dism. Dec. 30, 2025, S288202

In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682, 692 [denial of a sec. 1054.9 discovery motion may be challenged by a petition for writ of mandate]

Fourth Holding:

A discovery order is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion because management of discovery lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. We review the factual underpinnings of a discretionary determination for substantial evidence, but where such a determination rests on incorrect legal premises, our review is de novo.

The scope of discretion always resides in the particular law being applied. If the court’s decision is influenced by an erroneous understanding of applicable law or reflects an unawareness of the full scope of its discretion, the court has not properly exercised its discretion under the law. Therefore, a discretionary order based on an application of improper criteria or incorrect legal assumptions is not an exercise of informed discretion and is subject to reversal.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 156

City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1297

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 36, 55

Sargon Enterprises Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 773

Fifth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2021, the Legislature enacted the RJA (Assembly Bill No. 2542 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) to eliminate racial bias from California’s criminal justice system; to ensure that race plays no role at all in seeking or obtaining convictions or in sentencing; and to ensure that individuals have access to all relevant evidence, including statistical evidence, regarding potential discrimination in seeking or obtaining convictions or imposing sentences. To achieve these objectives, the RJA added section 745 to the Penal Code and amended sections 1473 and 1473.7.

Authority:

AB 2542

PEN 745

PEN 1473

PEN 1473.7

Sixth Holding:

Section 745(a) proclaims that the state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. It specifies four categories which, if proven by a preponderance of the evidence, constitute a violation of the RJA.

As relevant here, a violation occurs under section 745 (a)(3) where the defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the evidence establishes that the prosecution more frequently sought or obtained convictions for more serious offenses against people who share the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin in the county where the convictions were sought or obtained.

Also relevant here, a violation occurs under section 745(a)(4)(A) where a longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for that offense on people that share the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin than on defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins in the county where the sentence was imposed.

Authority:

PEN 745

Seventh Holding:

A defendant in custody may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging a violation of the RJA. Specifically, section 745(b) provides that a defendant may file a motion pursuant to this section, or a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion under Section 1473.7, in a court of competent jurisdiction, alleging a violation of subdivision (a). The RJA also amended section 1473, which identifies bases for prosecuting a petition for writ of habeas corpus, to add a subdivision governing the litigation of RJA claims.

Authority:

People v. Wilson (2024) 16 Cal.5th 874, 945

Eighth Holding:

If a habeas petition makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief under the RJA, the trial court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing. If, after a hearing, the court finds a violation of section 745(a) by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall impose a remedy specific to the violation pursuant to section 745(e).

Authority:

PEN 1473(e)

Ninth Holding:

If a court finds after judgment has been entered that a conviction was sought or obtained in violation of section 745(a), the court shall vacate the conviction and sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and order new proceedings consistent with section 745(a). If the court finds that the only violation of section 745(a) that occurred is based on paragraph (3) of section 745(a), the court may modify the judgment to a lesser included or lesser related offense.

If a court finds after judgment has been entered that only the sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed in violation of section 745(a), the court shall vacate the sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and impose a new sentence. On resentencing, the court shall not impose a new sentence greater than that previously imposed.

Authority:

PEN 745(e)

Tenth Holding:

The RJA contains a discovery provision in section 745(d). If a defendant believes a violation of the RJA has occurred, he or she may file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of subdivision (a) in the possession or control of the state. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall order the records to be released.

Authority:

PEN 745(d)

Eleventh Holding:

In Young, the Court of Appeal addressed what constitutes good cause for purposes of discovery under section 745(d). The court conducted a comprehensive analysis of the RJA’s enactment, as well as general provisions governing discovery in criminal cases.

Drawing on the Pitchess standard for discovery of law enforcement personnel records, the Young court held that in order to establish good cause for discovery under the RJA, a defendant is required only to advance a plausible factual foundation, based on specific facts, that a violation of the RJA could or might have occurred in his case.

This standard for discovery under section 745(d) is even more relaxed than the Pitchess standard in two respects. First, while a Pitchess motion must be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth a reasonable belief that the requested discovery is material to the subject matter of the case, there is no comparable affidavit requirement for discovery under the RJA. Second, unlike in a Pitchess motion, an RJA discovery motion has no materiality requirement, at least not in the sense that the defendant must show a logical link between some defense and a pending charge.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 149-160

Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531

Twelfth Holding:

The RJA’s counterpart to Pitchess materiality is relevance to a potential violation of section 745(a). Since a section 745(a) violation may be proved up in several different ways based on a variety of direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination under subdivision (a)(1)–(4), the threshold showing for good cause must be commensurately broad and flexible.

The limiting factor is relevance in the discovery sense—that is, each request for disclosure must be reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence probative of a section 745(a) violation. This subject matter limitation on the scope of discoverable material creates an outer boundary that, if crossed, may justify an order narrowing or otherwise limiting the obligation to respond. And as always in the context of discovery, the trial court has ample discretion to manage where the discovery-relevance boundary lies.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 160

Thirteenth Holding:

The Young court found support for its articulated good cause standard for discovery in the escalating burdens of proof within section 745. The burden at the discovery stage is a good cause showing, the burden at the prima facie stage is higher, and the burden at the evidentiary hearing is higher still—proof of an RJA violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

As the least onerous of the statute’s burdens of proof, the plausible justification standard should not be difficult to meet. Accordingly, where the defendant makes a showing of plausible justification that there was or could have been a violation of the RJA, thus triggering access to all relevant evidence concerning a potential violation of section 745(a), it will likely be an abuse of discretion to totally foreclose discovery.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 160-161, 168-169

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 36, 61

Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000715

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and of being a felon in possession of ammunition. The trial court should have stayed punishment of the ammunition possession count under section 654 and the defendant deserves one more day of custody credit.

First Holding:

The trial court erred in imposing punishments for both counts 2 (felon in possession of a firearm) and 3 (felon in possession of ammunition). The only ammunition was that in the pistol, so possessing the firearm and possessing the ammunition inside were one act within the meaning of section 654. The trial court therefore should have imposed and then stayed the defendant’s sentence on count 3.

There is no indication that the court would exercise its overall sentencing discretion any differently had it stayed sentence on one of the counts. To correct the sentence and avoid the unnecessary expense of producing the defendant for a sentencing hearing that will not change his actual prison time, we exercise our authority to modify the judgment by staying the execution of the defendant’s sentence on count 3.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 846

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 132, 138

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

Second Holding:

The defendant asserts his due process and jury trial rights were violated when the trial court, rather than the jury, determined that counts 2 and 3 involved discrete acts under section 654. The defendant’s claim raises a question of law, which we independently review.

Authority:

People v. Scott (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1265, 1271

Third Holding:

Section 654 precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct punishable under more than one criminal statute. When a trial court determines that section 654 applies to a particular count, the trial court must impose sentence on that count and then stay execution of that sentence.

Authority:

People v. Cleveland (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 263, 267

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1466

Fourth Holding:

The defendant relies on the principal that 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. While that is a correct statement of a principle, that principle is inapplicable to the statutory prohibition on double punishment described in section 654.

Section 654 is not a sentencing enhancement. On the contrary, it is a sentencing reduction statute which, therefore, does not implicate the Sixth Amendment prohibition against judicial fact finding to increase criminal sentences.

Authority:

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 742

People v. Carter (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 831, 846

Fifth Holding:

A court’s failure to dismiss or strike a prior conviction allegation is subject to review under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. The circumstances justifying departure from the Three Strikes law must be extraordinary, and an abuse of discretion in this regard is even more extraordinary.

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 374

People v. Vargas (2014) 59 Cal.4th 635, 641

Sixth Holding:

The defendant is entitled to one additional day of custody credit because the trial court did not award the defendant any credit for the day of sentencing. The abstract of judgment must therefore be amended to reflect that the defendant has two days of custody credits.

(Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for this order, most likely because it seems so obvious. But there is statutory and case authority the credit for time served includes the day of arrest and the day of sentencing, some of which I have provided below.)

Authority:

PEN 2900.5(a)

People v. Cardenas (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 220, 235-236

People v. Morgain (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 454, 469 [defendant is entitled to credit for the date of his arrest and the date of sentencing]

People v. Taylor (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 628, 647

People v. Heard (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1027 [appellant is entitled to credit for both the date of his arrest and date of sentencing]

People v. Browning (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1410, 1412 [day of sentencing counted for presentence custody credits even though it was only partial day]

In re Jackson (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 439 [a partial day in custody counts as a day in custody]

Seventh Holding:

The defendant did not assert his Second Amendment claims in the trial court. Nonetheless, a defendant may raise a facial constitutional challenge for the first time on appeal, which we independently review.

Authority:

People v. Gomez (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 419, 437

Eighth Holding:

The defendant’s as-applied constitutional challenge is forfeited. However, we will assess the defendant’s claim that the failure to raise the issue constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and (2) resulting prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.

(Gary note: the court went on to conclude that the firearm and ammunition possession charges were not unconstitutional as applied to him. I have not included the detailed discussion as it was basically a recitation of historical treatment of persons who were deemed “disarmed” by their prior conduct.)

Authority:

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

People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 958

Ninth Holding:

When firearm regulation is challenged under the Second Amendment, the Government must show that the restriction is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. A court must ascertain whether the new law is relevantly similar to laws that our tradition is understood to permit, applying faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances.

Applying that standard in Anderson, the First District Court of Appeal found that sections 29800(a)(1) and 30305(a)(1) are facially valid under the Second Amendment. Several California courts of appeal have come to the same conclusion. We agree with the reasoning of these cases, and we reject the defendant’s claim that they were wrongly decided. Accordingly, the defendant’s facial challenge fails.

Authority:

United States v. Rahimi (2024) 602 U.S. 680, 681

People v. Anderson (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 577, 586–600

People v. Richardson (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1203, 1212

People v. Gomez (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 419, 439

People v. Bey (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 144, 162

Tenth Holding:

The defendant asserts his due process and jury trial rights were violated when the trial court, rather than the jury, determined that counts 2 and 3 involved discrete acts under section 654. The defendant’s claim raises a question of law, which we independently review.

Authority:

People v. Scott (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1265, 1271

Fourth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000712

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This was an appeal by the prosecutor from the grant of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5. It is considered a victory here because the Court of Appeal affirmed the order granting the motion to suppress.

First Holding:

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, consensual encounters do not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny. Unlike detentions, they require no articulable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime.

Authority:

People v. McWilliams (2023) 14 Cal.5th 429, 437

In re Manuel G. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 805, 821

Second Holding:

Consensual encounters are those police-individual interactions that result in no restraint of an individual’s liberty whatsoever—i.e., no seizure, however minimal—and which may properly be initiated by police officers even if they lack any objective justification. The Fourth Amendment permits police officers to approach individuals at random in airport lobbies and other public places to ask them questions, so long as a reasonable person would understand that he or she could refuse to cooperate.

The citizen participant in a consensual encounter may leave, refuse to answer questions or decline to act in the manner requested by the authorities. Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, in some manner restrains the individual’s liberty, does a seizure occur.

Authority:

People v. Paul (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 832, 838

Third Holding:

In order to determine whether a particular encounter constitutes a seizure, a court must consider all the circumstances surrounding the encounter to determine whether the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that the person was not free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter. This test assesses the coercive effect of police conduct as a whole, rather than emphasizing particular details of that conduct in isolation.

Authority:

People v. Paul (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 832, 838

Fourth Holding:

The test for the existence of a show of authority is an objective one and does not take into account the perceptions of the particular person involved. The test is not whether the citizen perceived that he was being ordered to restrict his movement, but whether the officer’s words and actions would have conveyed that to a reasonable person. This includes an examination of both an officer’s verbal and nonverbal actions in order to assess the coercive effect of police conduct as a whole, rather than emphasizing particular details of that conduct in isolation.

Authority:

People v. Paul (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 832, 838–839

Fifth Holding:

In ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court must find the historical facts, select the rule of law, and apply it to the facts in order to determine whether the law as applied has been violated. We review the court’s resolution of the factual inquiry under the deferential substantial evidence standard. The ruling on whether the applicable law applies to the facts is a mixed question of law and fact that is subject to independent review.

Authority:

People v. Ramos (2004) 34 Cal.4th 494, 505

Sixth Holding:

Given that the officer had just woken defendant from his slumber in his legally parked vehicle, and that defendant did not place the call for service the the officer testified he told the defendant he was responding to, the officer’s statement would have placed an objectively reasonable person on alert that the officer might be investigating him specifically, which would lead that reasonable person to conclude that the officer required his attention and he could not simply depart.

Given the deferential standard of review we apply to the trial court’s factual findings, that the officer woke defendant from his slumber while he was legally parked with his window up, that the officer was blocking the vehicle’s door when he woke defendant, and that the officer’s statement would have placed an objectively reasonable person on alert that the officer might be investigating him specifically, we affirm the trial court’s ruling.

Authority:

Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 777, 790–791

People v. Linn (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 46, 58, 65

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

Case 000711

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There is insufficient evidence that the defendant sent harmful material to the minor with the required intent to engage in sexual conduct or intimate touching with him. We therefore reverse the conviction and eight-month consecutive sentence for count one, and remand for full resentencing.

First Holding:

We apply the substantial evidence standard in reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence. We must examine the record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value from which a trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In doing so, we presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Zaragoza (2016) 1 Cal.5th 21, 44

Second Holding:

The relevant question for purposes of substantial evidence review is whether, in light of all the evidence, any reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Reversal based on insufficient evidence is warranted only if it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conviction.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. We presume every reasonable inference from the evidence to support the judgment.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 943

People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 890

Fourth Holding:

While it is the jury, not the appellate court that must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt, in order to affirm, we must be able to conclude the evidence is sufficient to have convinced that jury of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In making this determination, we must necessarily take into account the prosecution’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. The question is whether a reasonable trier of fact could have regarded the evidence as satisfying this standard of proof.

Authority:

People v. Lara (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 296, 320

Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 317–320 [conviction based on insufficient evidence violates due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment]

People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 167

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1009

Fifth Holding:

The officer gave testimony that 75 percent of adults who send explicit images to undercover law enforcement agents posing as children online will arrange a meeting and show up with the intent to have a sexual relationship. Although this testimony was admitted without objection, we caution that California courts have excluded other similar forms of probability evidence.

Statistical odds are not a substitute for admissible evidence to decide the guilt or innocence of the defendant. We will not decide the admissibility of this probability evidence, however, because we must consider all admitted evidence in our sufficiency of evidence review. Incompetent testimony received without objection takes on the attributes of competent proof when considered on the sufficiency of evidence to support a finding.

Authority:

People v. Collins (1968) 68 Cal.2d 319, 327–332

People v. Julian (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 878, 880, 885–889

People v. Wilson (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 559, 568–572

People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 476

Sixth Holding:

Although there was ample evidence of the defendant’s sexual attraction to children and child pornography, there was no evidence that he had ever engaged or attempted to engage in any sexual conduct or intimate touching with a minor, or that he had expressed an intent to do so, or that he had made any arrangements to meet a minor in person for such a purpose. The record is devoid of evidence of the type offered to prove intent in other cases of this nature.

Authority:

Cf. People v. Nakai (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 499, 509–510

Cf. People v. Hsu (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 976, 981

Seventh Holding:

Although we must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution, a reasonable inference is one that is supported by a chain of logic, rather than, as in this case, mere speculation dressed up in the guise of evidence. A jury must avoid unreasonable inferences and not resort to imagination or suspicion. Mere conjecture, surmise, or suspicion is not the equivalent of reasonable inference and does not constitute proof.

The defendant’s conduct with the victim was unquestionably harmful, but on this record, the evidence of his specific intent to commit a sexual or intimate act with the victim does not rise to a level beyond bare suspicion or conjecture. We therefore reverse the defendant’s conviction on count one and the eight-month consecutive sentence imposed for that count. This also requires us to remand the matter for full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Lara (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 296, 324

People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 307–308

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [remand for full resentencing required where part of sentence is stricken on review]

Eighth Holding:

We review any express or implied factual findings underlying the trial court’s ruling for substantial evidence. We must review the record in a light most favorable to the trial court’s decision and assume any facts the trial court could have reasonably deduced from the evidence presented at trial.

Authority:

People v. Brents (2012) 53 Cal.4th 599, 618

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

Ninth Holding:

Further, the abstract of judgment and the minute order incorrectly indicate that the out-on-bail enhancement (sec. 12022.1) was attached to the misdemeanor count. The enhancement applies only to felonies. The abstract of judgment and the minute order must be corrected accordingly upon resentencing.

(Gary note: The opinion was modified a few weeks later regarding the 12022.1 enhancement. It recognized that if the primary offense (i.e., the felony on which the defendant had been released on bail,to which the 12022.1 enhancement attaches) is reversed on appeal, the enhancement must be suspended pending retrial and reimposed only upon retrial and reconviction of the primary offense.)

(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for the order for correction. Given that the case was being remanded for resentencing, the court’s comments were more for guidance of the trial court rather than an actual order correcting the documents. But there is much authority regarding the need for the abstract of judgment and the minute order to conform to the oral pronouncement of judgment, and I have set forth some below.)

Authority:

(Regarding section 12022.1 on reversal of primary count:)

PEN 12022.1(g)

(Regarding authority of court to direct the correction of abstracts of judgments and minute orders:)

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

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

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–388

People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Tenth Holding:

Gary note: The court declined to find that section 654 applied, but the opinion contains several principles important to know about section 654, so I’ve laid them out below.)

Section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law. This restriction applies not only to a single act or omission, but also an indivisible course of conduct violating multiple provisions.

Authority:

People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1207–1209

Eleventh Holding:

Whether a course of conduct is divisible for purposes of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the defendant. If multiple offenses were incident to a single objective, the defendant may be punished for no more than one. However, a course of conduct divisible in time, though directed to only one objective, may give rise to multiple violations and punishment, particularly when the offenses are temporally separated in such a way as to afford the defendant opportunity to reflect and renew his 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. Andra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 638, 640

Twelfth Holding:

When section 654 applies, it does not allow any multiple punishment, including either concurrent or consecutive sentences. If punishment for multiple offenses is prohibited by section 654, the court must impose sentence for one of the offenses and stay sentence on the others.

Authority:

People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 591-592

Thirteenth Holding:

If the defendant had multiple or simultaneous objectives, independent of and not merely incidental to each other, the defendant may be punished for each violation committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations share common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.

Authority:

People v. Cleveland (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 263, 267–268

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000706

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At a resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.1(a)(1) for the defendant, the trial court reduced defendant’s prison term by striking certain enhancements and re-imposing a restitution fine under section 1202.4(b). In considering the gang enhancements that were imposed in 2006, the court should have examined them to determine whether the elements met the current requirements under the amendments by AB 333 to section 186.22. Also, the restitution fine is more than 10 years old and must be vacated.

First Holding:

When defendant admitted to the enhancement in 2006, former section 186.22(b)(1) provided a sentencing enhancement for a person who committed a felony for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members. As the defendant was convicted of attempted murder, carrying a sentence of a life term, the enhancement imposed a minimum of 15 years before release on parole. Without the enhancement, the defendant’s minimum eligibility would have been after seven years.

Authority:

FORMER PEN 186.22

Second Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature passed AB 333, effective January 1, 2022, which added new elements to gang enhancements in section 186.22. It narrowed the definition of criminal street gang and pattern of criminal activity, as well as what it means for an offense to have commonly benefited a street gang.

Under the new legislation, imposition of a gang enhancement requires proof of the following additional requirements with respect to predicate offenses: (1) the offenses must have commonly benefited a criminal street gang where the common benefit is more than reputational; (2) the last predicate offense must have occurred within three years of the date of the currently charged offense; (3) the predicate offenses must be committed on separate occasions or by two or more gang members, as opposed to persons; and (4) the charged offense cannot be used as a predicate offense.

These changes benefit defendants by raising the threshold for a true finding on a gang enhancement.

Authority:

CURRENT PEN 186.22

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

People v. Perez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 192, 206

Third Holding:

The defendant and the People agree that defendant’s 2006 admission to the gang enhancement on count 1 does not satisfy all the elements for a gang enhancement under the new legislation. Under our independent standard of review, we find no reason to disagree.

Authority:

People v. Rosbury (1997) 15 Cal.4th 206, 209 [de novo review applies when legality of sentence is purely a legal question]

Fourth Holding:

Because the defendant’s admission in 2006 would not satisfy the elements for a gang enhancement under current law, his past admission cannot now support beyond a reasonable doubt the additional punishment allowed by the enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Miles (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1074, 1082 [elements of an alleged sentence enhancement must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt]

People v. Rodriguez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 451, 458 [guilty plea admits of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to every element of crime charged]

Fifth Holding:

AB 333’s substantive changes apply retroactively to all cases not yet final. When a sentence is recalled for resentencing, the matter is non-final and subject to application of ameliorative amendments, like AB 333. The record plainly supports that the defendant’s case was not final because his sentence was recalled under section 1172.1. He was therefore entitled to the benefits of AB 333. Accordingly, we reverse the true findings on the gang enhancement.

Authority:

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

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 396, 398–399 [recognizing a judgment becomes nonfinal when sentence is vacated and new sentence is imposed]

People v. Lopez (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 835, 845–846 [recalled sentence not final]

Sixth Holding:

The restitution fine imposed in 2006 must be vacated, as it was imposed more than 10 years ago.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Defenses, Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Fifth Amendment, Jury instructions, Standard of review

Case 000691

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court gave an erroneous instruction on involuntary manslaughter requiring reversal. Based on the findings of the jury that the defendant was not guilty under any valid theory, we do not order retrial on the involuntary manslaughter.

First Holding:

(Gary note: I provide the following as context for the results in this opinion. These summaries are intended and designed to highlight principles of law, not so much the specific factual situation in which the error occurred. In this jury instruction error case, though, a little more factual specificity may aid the reader in understanding the more universal principles.

(In this case, the judge modified the standard instruction on involuntary manslaughter in such a way that the jury first had to find that the defendant acted in complete self-defense, and then had to determine whether he did so in a negligent matter. But that is not the law. Complete self-defense ends the question. Had the defendant acted in any way that was NOT complete self-defense, then he would not have been acting lawfully. And the jury necessarily found that he acted in complete self-defense, so it was misled by the instruction that allowed the jury to find him guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

(The opinion summarizes the context: “Here, the jury found defendant not guilty of first degree and second degree murder based on the finding that defendant acted in lawful self-defense in shooting defendant. It further found defendant not guilty of voluntary manslaughter rejecting that unreasonable self-defense was applicable. It found defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter, finding, as recognized by the trial court, that defendant, ‘in a lawful act of self-defense, was criminally negligent in how he did it, and in his criminally negligent manner resulting in an involuntary manslaughter.’ As we have concluded, such determination was not a valid theory of involuntary manslaughter. There was no other theory of involuntary manslaughter presented to the jury. Here, the only question for the jury was whether defendant acted in reasonable self-defense in shooting [the victim] one time in the face. Once it concluded that such use of force was reasonable, it found lawful self-defense, which was a complete defense to involuntary manslaughter. The jury necessarily relied on the erroneous instruction to convict defendant of involuntary manslaughter after finding the complete defense of justifiable homicide. The error was prejudicial.”)

It is settled that in criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, a trial court must instruct on general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case. It is also well settled that this duty to instruct extends to defenses if it appears … the defendant is relying on such a defense, or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.

Authority:

People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 73

Second Holding:

In reviewing a claim that the court’s instructions were incorrect or misleading, we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury understood the instructions as asserted by the defendant. We consider the instructions as a whole and assume the jurors are intelligent persons capable of understanding and correlating all the instructions.

Authority:

People v. Butler (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 998, 1013

Third Holding:

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. A defendant lacks malice and is guilty of voluntary manslaughter in limited, explicitly defined circumstances: either when the defendant acts in a sudden quarrel or heat of passion, or when the defendant kills in unreasonable self-defense—the unreasonable but good faith belief in having to act in self-defense.

Authority:

PEN 192

People v. Elmore (2014) 59 Cal.4th 121, 132

People v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 87-88

Fourth Holding:

A defendant commits involuntary manslaughter by committing a homicide with the mens rea of criminal negligence. The offense must be based on one of three predicate acts: (1) killing in the commission of a misdemeanor ; (2) killing in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection; or (3) killing in the commission of a noninherently dangerous felony committed without due caution and circumspection.

The performance of an act with criminal negligence supplies the criminal intent for involuntary manslaughter, regardless whether the conduct underlying the offense is a misdemeanor, a lawful act, or a noninherently dangerous felony.

Authority:

People v. Sevilla (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 618, 626

Fifth Holding:

A killing in perfect self-defense is justifiable homicide. Perfect self-defense requires that one must actually and reasonably believe in the necessity of defending oneself from imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. Imperfect self-defense reduces an intentional and unlawful killing to voluntary manslaughter. Imperfect self-defense occurs when defendants act in the actual but unreasonable belief they are in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death.

Authority:

People v. Odell (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 307, 321

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

Sixth Holding:

In determining whether error has been committed in giving or not giving jury instructions, we must consider the instructions as a whole and assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.

Authority:

People v. Jo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1172

Immigration, Plea bargains, Standard of review

Case 000688

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to section 1473.7. We reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter an order granting the motion.

First Holding:

Section 1473.7 allows noncitizens who have served their sentences to vacate their convictions if they can establish that their convictions are invalid due to prejudicial error impairing their ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential immigration consequences of their conviction. To show prejudicial error, the noncitizen must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the noncitizen would have rejected the plea if the noncitizen had correctly understood the immigration consequences.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7(a)(1)

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316

Second Holding:

In making this determination, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Those circumstances include the noncitizen’s ties to the United States, the importance the noncitizen placed on avoiding deportation, the noncitizen’s priorities in negotiating a plea bargain, and whether the noncitizen had reason to believe an immigration-neutral disposition was available.

However, this list is not exhaustive, and no single type of evidence is necessary for relief. Any assertions by the noncitizen must be corroborated with objective evidence. Objective evidence can include facts in declarations, contemporaneous documentation of the noncitizen’s immigration concerns, and the charges the noncitizen faced.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316, 320-321

Third Holding:

We review independently whether noncitizens have demonstrated a reasonable probability they would have rejected a plea offer had they understood its immigration consequences. Where the trial court has based its rulings on a cold record, or, in other words, only documentary evidence, we need not defer to trial court fact finding.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319-320

Fourth Holding:

While the judge who took the plea in 1995 declared her practice was to ensure defendants received sufficient immigration advisements, she mentions only possible consequences. She does not state she or the district attorney made the mandatory consequences explicit. Because the defendant’s plea predated Padilla, the requirement making this advisement mandatory for defense counsel did not yet exist. Without an explicit statement about the mandatory consequences, the immigration advisement was inadequate.

Authority:

Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356

People v. Manzanilla (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 891, 905–906 [where immigration consequences are clear and virtually certain, after 2010 counsel now must advise client of those consequences]

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 523 [failure to advise of certain immigration consequences of plea rendered representation constitutionally deficient]

Fifth Holding:

To determine prejudice, we focus on whether there is a reasonable probability the defendant would have turned down the plea agreement had he understood the immigration consequences. [The court then described his ties to the United states.] We also determine whether there was reason for the defendant to believe an immigration-neutral disposition was possible. His attorney testified to several other crimes to which the defendant could have pleaded that would have been better for his immigration prospects. Although his exposure was eight years, his plea agreement was for less than a year of prison time. He may have needed to accept a longer prison time to obtain a lesser conviction, but he averred this willingness.

The sparse record we have does not provide reason to believe the prosecutor would have rejected such a proposal automatically. Moreover, though the trial court stated, and the prosecutor argues, it would have been irrational to roll the dice on a longer sentence with such an offer in hand, the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that someone in the defendant’s position might indeed rationally make such a decision, as the defendant affirmed he would have.

Authority:

Lee v. United States (2017) 582 U.S. 357, 371

Jurisdiction, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000682

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The evidence is insufficient to establish that one of the charged counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child based on sexual penetration took place within the jurisdiction of the superior court, and reverse the conviction on that count.

Holding:

There was insufficient evidence that more than one of the two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child by sexual penetration occurred in a city in California, as opposed to Mexico.

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment and determine whether there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

The victim’s answers to the questions indicated that at least one of the incidents occurred in California, but did not exclude the possibility that the other occurred in Mexico, outside the superior court’s jurisdiction.

Authority:

People v. Maciel (2013) 57 Cal.4th 482, 514–515

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