Category Archives: Statutory interpretation

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

Case: 000175

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred in considering grand jury testimony at the evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motion to recall his sentence under Penal Code section 1172.6.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 narrowed the scope of the felony-murder rule and eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a basis for murder liability. Among other things, the enactment amended section 188 to require that a principal convicted of murder act with malice aforethought. It further provided that malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime. It also added a procedure to permit individuals convicted of murder under prior law to seek vacatur of their convictions and resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448-450

Second Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature adopted SB 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) to expressly allow those convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or manslaughter to seek resentencing. The Legislature enacted the provision to clarify that persons who were convicted of attempted murder or manslaughter under a theory of felony murder and the natural and probable consequences doctrine are permitted the same relief as those persons convicted of murder under the same theories.

Authority:

People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 544, 548

Third Holding:

A trial court’s denial of a section 1172.6 petition following an evidentiary hearing is ordinarily reviewed for substantial evidence. Under this standard, an appellate court reviews the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The meaning of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 988

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 885

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1032

Fourth Holding:

A panel of this court concluded that testimony from a grand jury proceeding is admissible in an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6(d)(3) as evidence previously admitted at any prior hearing or trial.

Authority:

People v. Robinson (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 854, 872, review granted February 26, 2025, S288606

Fifth Holding:

Pending our state high court’s decision, we conclude that testimony adduced at a grand jury proceeding is not admissible in a section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing. The context in which section 1172.6 uses the word “hearing,” precludes a broad reading of the term. With limited exception, the Legislature’s statutory scheme for grand jury proceedings does not label a grand jury proceeding a “hearing.” Instead, the Legislature provided that grand juries convene in “sessions” (Pen. Code, secs. 934, 935, 938, 939, 939.1) or “proceedings” (Pen. Code, secs. 891, 939.21; see Pen. Code, pt. 2, tit. 4, chs. 1-3, sec. 888 et seq. [entitled “Grand Jury Proceedings”]).

Authority:

Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1249 [looking to context to construe term “hearing”]

Sixth Holding:

Grand jury proceedings are different in kind from the hearings and trials that are undisputedly covered by section 1172.6(d)(3), such as preliminary hearings or criminal trials. A grand jury proceeding serves as part of the charging process of criminal procedure, not the adjudicative process that is the province of the courts or trial jury. The grand jury’s charge is to investigate and inquire. (Pen. Code, secs. 888, 917, 918, 939.6.) The proceeding is investigatory, not adversarial. Unlike a preliminary hearing or trial, a grand jury session is not the same proceeding as a subsequent criminal prosecution.

Authority:

People v. Davenport (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1158 [preliminary hearing testimony]

People v. Cody (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 87, 101-104 [testimony at jury trial]

Cummiskey v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1018, 1026

People v. Ocobachi (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1174, 1182

People v. Petrilli (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 814, 825

Probation Parole PRCS, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000153

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After petitioner admitted to parole violations, the superior court revoked petitioner’s parole and remanded him to the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) pursuant to section 3000.08(h). He should not have been remanded to state prison under section 3000.08(h), but instead confined to county jail for no more than 180 days pursuant to section 3000.08(f) and (g)

First Holding:

For all inmates released from prison on parole on or after July 1, 2020, notwithstanding any other law, any inmate sentenced to a life term shall be released on parole for a period of three years. Therefore, it is section 3000.01 and not section 3000.1 that applies to convicted murderers who, like petitioner, are paroled after July 1, 2020. Because section 3000.1 does not apply to petitioner, he is not subject to section 3000.08(h), remanding him to the custody of CDCR. The trial court is directed to vacate its order remanding petitioner to the custody of the CDCR and hold further proceedings to determine what penalties to impose for petitioner’s parole violation, as provided by section 3000.08(f) and (g

Authority:

PEN 3000.01(b)(2) [subject to two exceptions not relevant here, under subdivision (d)]

Second Holding:

By using the phrase “notwithstanding any other law,” the Legislature signaled its intent for the later-enacted statute–section 3000.01–to preempt the conflicting, preexisting statute in section 3000.1

Authority:

APeople v. Reed (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 43, 53

Discretion, Juveniles, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000133

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2000, appellant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after being tried as an adult for two murders he committed when he was 17. In 2021, his sentence was recalled under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). The prosecution filed a motion to again transfer appellant’s case from juvenile court to criminal court. The court granted the motion, and appellant challenges that ruling on appeal. We conclude that the court misapprehended one aspect of its discretion, reverse the order transferring appellant to criminal court, and remand for reconsideration of the issue.

First Holding:

In determining at a transfer hearing whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult, the court must consider five statutory factors, one of which is whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. The court stated that juvenile jurisdiction would have ended when appellant turned 25 years old. The court was quite clear that its consideration of the relevant factor was always directed at determining whether appellant would have been rehabilitated by the age of 25.

However, the court was incorrect. The juvenile court may retain jurisdiction over a person who is 25 years of age or older for a period not to exceed two years from the date of disposition if the person is found to be a person described in Section 602 by reason of the commission of an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 707. In this instance, the defendant would have been in his 40s two years after disposition hearing held in this case.

Authority:

WIC 707(d)

Second Holding:

When the appellant presents an issue of statutory interpretation, we review it de novo.

Authority:

In re Noah S. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 410, 414

Third Holding:

Reversal is required unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion. Here, the court did not express how it would have ruled had it known juvenile jurisdiction could have lasted longer. One of the few comments the court made about the defendant’s post-age 25 conduct cuts against a finding of harmlessness. Paraphrased, the court stated that there was no question before it that the defendant has grown as an adult, but that the question was whether or not that growth would have occurred before age 25. It stated that the evidence it considered at the hearing indicates his growth occurred well past the age of 25.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 139

Fourth Holding:

In order to transfer a minor from juvenile court to criminal court, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(3)

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000132

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We shall reduce one conviction to reflect a lesser included offense, remand for resentencing, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

In considering the sufficiency of evidence, we must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, presuming in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. We also accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence. We do not resolve credibility issues or evidentiary conflicts.

Authority:

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690

People v. Baker (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1044, 1103

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

Second Holding:

In considering the substantiality of generic testimony regarding multiple indistinguishable instances of child sexual abuse, a victim of child molestation need not specify precisely the date, time, or circumstances of each crime. Rather, the victim must describe the kind of act or acts committed with sufficient specificity, both to assure that unlawful conduct indeed has occurred and to differentiate between the various types of proscribed conduct (e.g., lewd conduct, intercourse, oral copulation or sodomy). Moreover, the victim must describe the number of acts committed with sufficient certainty to support each of the counts alleged in the information or indictment, a requirement that can be met with such testimony as “twice a month” or “every time we went camping.”

Authority:

People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 299–300, 315–316

Third Holding:

The jury was instructed pursuant to CALCRIM No. 1015 that duress means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, hardship, or retribution that causes a reasonable person to do or submit to something that he or she would not otherwise do or submit to, and that in making its determination the jury should consider all the circumstances, including the age of the other person and his relationship to the defendant.

As to fear, the jury was told, “[a]n act is accomplished by fear if the other person is actually and reasonably afraid.” The existence of duress is an objective inquiry, and it is not dependent on the response exhibited by a particular victim.

We consider the totality of the circumstances, including the victim’s relationship to the perpetrator, whether the perpetrator physically controlled the victim when the victim attempted to resist, and the relative physical vulnerability of the victim. Duress may arise in a variety of ways related to psychological and/or situational factors between the perpetrator and victim, including an uneven power dynamic between a victim and perpetrator inhabiting a position of authority. Not all forms of coercion necessarily constitute duress, however.

Authority:

People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229, 246

People v. Guenther (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 483, 518 [courts apply reasonable person standard to inquiry into duress]

People v. Thomas (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1063, 1072–1073

People v. Veale (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 40, 44, 47

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

Fourth Holding:

A variance between the crime charged and proved is not material unless it is of such a substantive character as to mislead the accused in preparing his defense, or is likely to place him in second jeopardy for the same offense.

Authority:

PEN 960 [No accusatory pleading is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment, or other proceeding thereon be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter of form which does not prejudice a substantial right of the defendant upon the merits]

People v. Williams (1945) 27 Cal.2d 220, 226

People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342

Fifth Holding:

A lesser offense is necessarily included in a charged offense if one of two tests is met: either all the legal ingredients of the corpus delicti of the lesser offense are included in the elements of the greater offense (the “elements test”) or the charging allegations of the accusatory pleading include language describing the offense in such a way that if committed as specified the lesser offense is necessarily committed (the “accusatory pleading test”). We do not consider the evidence presented at trial to determine whether one offense is necessarily included in the other.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 282, 288–289

People v. Cheaves (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 445, 454

People v. Ortega (1998) 19 Cal.4th 686, 698

Sixth Holding:

Despite the constitutional prohibition of a second trial if a conviction is reversed for insufficient evidence, when a trial or appellate court concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction of a greater offense, it can reduce the conviction to a lesser included offense that is supported by the evidence.

Authority:

PEN 1181

PEN 1260

People v. Goolsby (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1225

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 677

People v. Espinoza (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1321–1322, 1324 [reducing conviction to reflect lesser included offense where there was no evidence defendant used direct or implied threat to commit a lewd act]

Seventh Holding:

We review a court’s award of restitution to a victim for abuse of discretion, reversing only if it is arbitrary or capricious. An abuse of discretion exists when there is no rational and factual basis for the amount of restitution ordered. The court must demonstrate a rational basis for its award, and ensure that the record is sufficient to permit meaningful review. The burden is on the party seeking restitution to provide an adequate factual basis for the claim.

Authority:

People v. Gomez (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 111, 116

Amelioration, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000119

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because punishments on his prison priors were stricken, the trial court ruled that the defendant was ineligible for relief under section 1172.75. We reverse and remand for resentencing.

Holding:

A pre-Rhodius case on point convincingly concluded that section 1172.75 applies to enhancements that were stricken at sentencing, not just those that are imposed but stayed at sentencing. We agree with the Espino majority that there is no sound reason to differentiate between section 667.5 enhancements that have been stayed and those that have been stricken for purposes of sentencing. In each of these cases, the judgment still contains a now-invalid enhancement for a prior prison term.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050

People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 193, review granted Oct. 23, 2024, S286987 [Gary note: The case on review in the Supreme Court was argued and deemed submitted on May 6, 2026. The opinion will likely be rendered within 90 days of that date, or by August 4, 2026]

People v. Cota (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1133

Amelioration, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000116

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant petitioned for recall and resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75. The question before us is whether section 1172.75 entitles the defendant to a resentencing hearing even though the prior prison term enhancements were stricken for the purposes of sentencing. We agree with defendant that he is entitled to resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 applies to enhancements that were stricken at sentencing, not just those that are imposed but stayed at sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050

People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 193, review granted Oct. 23, 2024, S286987 [Gary note: The case on review in the Supreme Court was argued and deemed submitted on May 6, 2026. The opinion will likely be rendered within 90 days of that date, or by August 4, 2026]

People v. Cota (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1133

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000106

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court modified the defendant’s sentence only to the extent required under sections 1172.75 and 1170.18, but otherwise left the balance intact, finding that the defendant remained a danger to the public. The case is remanded for the trial court to calculate the days of actual custody and to correct the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

Because the sentence was modified under PC 1172.75, the trial court erred in not calculating the actual days in custody.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37

Second Holding:

We review the trial court’s finding that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety under the clear and convincing evidence standard.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(1)

Third Holding:

The clear and convincing evidence standard requires the party with the burden of proof to convince the trier of fact that it is highly probable the facts which he asserts are true.

Authority:

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998

Fourth Holding:

The narrow definition of danger to public safety under PC 1170.18 does not apply to the undefined term of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. [GARY NOTE: after the opinion in this case 000106 was filed, the Supreme Court ruled in Guevara that it was constitutionally necessary to apply the Three Strikes Reform Act’s understanding of the term “unreasonable risk to public safety” within the meaning of section 1170.126 (enacted by initiative) in order to reconcile the application of section 1172.75 (enacted by the Legislature) to those who would otherwise qualify but are serving a sentence under the Three Strikes Law (an initiative provision).]

Authority:

People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 374, 374-375

[People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838]

Fifth Holding:

The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects a determinate term of 14 years instead of 10 years, and it must be corrected. [GARY NOTE: The court did not cite authority, most likely because the error and solution are obvious. There are many relevant cases supporting this holding, some of which I have set out below.]

Authority:

People v. Hamed (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 928, 937–938

People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 242

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

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000095

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the superior court applied an incorrect legal standard in deciding whether to dismiss the five-year enhancement, we reverse the judgment and direct the court to exercise its discretion whether to strike that enhancement and to resentence the defendant.

First Holding:

By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements.

Authority:

People v. Dixon (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 236, 243, review granted Oct. 22, 2025, S292223

Second Holding:

We conclude the superior court erred by applying an incorrect legal standard in denying the defendant’s request to dismiss the five-year enhancement for the prior serious felony. Section 1385 provides that the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so. It also provides that, in exercising its discretion, the court must consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove any of nine listed mitigating factors, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. If the court does not find dismissing an enhancement would endanger public safety, the court must consider whether the defendant has presented evidence of one or more of the mitigating factors listed in section 1385. If so, the court must engage in a holistic balancing with special emphasis on the [nine] enumerated mitigating factors and must dismiss the enhancement unless the court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1033, 1036

Third Holding:

Without the benefit of Walker, decided several months after the resentencing, the superior court did not apply the correct legal standard. It did not find that reducing the sentence by five years would endanger public safety. Nor did it consider dismissing the prior conviction that was more than five years old, instead relying on the fact that the original court found the prior conviction to be true. By deferring to the original trial court on whether to strike the serious felony conviction enhancement, the superior court ignored section 1172.75’s mandate to apply changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion. In 2015 the trial court had to impose the five-year prior serious felony enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), but effective 2019, SB 1393 gave trial courts discretion to strike that enhancement under section 1385. In addition, section 1172.75 authorized the superior court to consider postconviction factors, such as the defendant’s disciplinary record and rehabilitation while in prison, his age, and his physical condition—factors not available to the trial court in 2015.

Authority:

People v. Carter (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 960, 968 [simply striking the one-year enhancement imposed under the repealed portion of former section 667.5(b) deprived the defendant of his right to full resentencing under the changes in the law]

People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562, 567 [court erred by failing to provide the defendant with a full resentencing hearing, meaning a hearing in which he could have sought further sentencing relief under at least two other statutes that were enacted after his conviction]

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 361

Fourth Holding:

The superior court’s error was prejudicial because the record does not clearly indicate the court would have reached the same conclusion had it applied the correct legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424 [where the trial court fails to exercise informed discretion, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion]

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 [same]

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402 [remand was required where the defendant was entitled to, but did not receive, a full resentencing under the terms of section 1172.75, including the application of any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion]

Fifth Holding:

On remand, the superior court should consider whether dismissing the prior serious felony enhancement and reducing the defendant’s sentence from 25 years six months to 20 years six months would endanger public safety. If the court does not make that finding, it should dismiss the enhancement, unless it finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that neutralize the great weight of any applicable mitigating circumstance enumerated in section 1385(c)(2), including that the enhancement was based on a prior conviction that was more than five years old.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 230-231 [in assessing whether dismissing an enhancement would endanger public safety, the trial court should have considered the date on which the defendant could be released if the enhancement was dismissed, not only whether the defendant currently posed a danger to the public]

Sixth Holding:

We review a trial court’s sentencing decisions in a section 1172.75 resentencing proceeding for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Moseley (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 870, 874

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 855-856

Seventh Holding:

In reviewing matters of statutory interpretation we review the trial court’s decision de novo.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 323

People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 804 [The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law that this court reviews de novo]

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Evidence, Jury trial, Racial Justice Act, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000081

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

[Gary note: Grabba cuppa. This case rivaled Fort Knox for gold.]

We agree with the parties that the gang offense must be reversed and the gang-related allegations must be vacated, and that the sentences on several witness dissuasion counts may be readdressed upon remand. We further agree with the defendant that the prosecution should not have been permitted to play and introduce two rap music videos under Evidence Code section 352, although we conclude that the error was harmless given our reversal of the gang offense and the vacation of the gang-related allegations. In addition, we find that the defendant has established a prima facie case that the prosecution violated the California Racial Justice Act by playing and using the rap music videos at trial, and we remand this matter to the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine if a violation of the California Racial Justice Act has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

First Holding:

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

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

Second, whereas section 186.22, former subdivision (f) required only that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang, AB 333 requires that any such pattern have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

AB 333 also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

Fourth, 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.

Authority:

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

Fifth Holding:

We determine whether substantial evidence supports a jury’s finding by inquiring whether evidence was presented from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the prosecution sustained its burden of proof. Although we assess whether the evidence is inherently credible and of solid value, we must also view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict and presume the existence of every fact that the jury could reasonably have deduced from that evidence.

Authority:

People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 488

Sixth Holding:

Speculative testimony by a gang expert does not constitute substantial evidence to support a gang enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Soriano (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 278, 288

People v. Renteria (2022) 13 Cal.5th 951, 964 [Where there is no proof the defendant acted in association with or at the direction of the gang, the prosecution cannot rely on the joint nature of the offense to establish either the requisite benefit to the gang or the specific intent to promote the criminal activity of gang members]

Seventh Holding:

We also will vacate the gang-related firearm allegations under section 12022.53(b) and (e)(1).

Authority:

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 746 [reversing affirmance of firearm enhancement because the firearm enhancement alleged under section 12022.53(e)(1) is contingent on a true finding on the gang enhancement under section 186.22]

People v. Campbell (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 350, 376 [the amendments AB 333 made apply retroactively to the gang-related gun use enhancement under section 12022.53(e)]

Eighth Holding:

Because we conclude that substantial evidence does not support the conviction on the gang offense and the true findings on the gang-related allegations under the law at the time of the defendant’s trial, the defendant may not be retried concerning these matters.

Authority:

United States v. DiFrancesco (1980) 449 U.S. 117, 131

Ninth Holding:

The California Supreme Court recently held that Evidence Code section 352.2 [rap video evidence] does not apply retroactively to cases not yet final on appeal. Evidence Code section 352.2 has at best an attenuated and inconsistent connection to reduced punishment and there is good reason why the Legislature might not have intended for its approach toward the admissibility of creative expressions to apply retroactively, and thus the inference of retroactive application does not attach to the statute. However, the court noted that Evidence Code section 352.2, by providing additional direction for evaluating the admissibility of creative expressions, sets forth several factors that trial courts already might have folded into an evaluation of whether this type of material was admissible under Evidence Code sections 352 and 1101.

Authority:

People v. Aguirre (2025) 18 Cal.5th 629, 692, 693

Tenth Holding:

While the Supreme Court’s decision in Aguirre dictates that Evidence Code section 352.2 does not apply retroactively to the defendant’s case, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 by permitting the prosecutor to play the videos in his opening statement and by admitting evidence of the videos. A Racial Justice Act [RJA] violation occurs when an attorney in the case exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, among other circumstances. A central premise of the RJA is that bias can be unconscious and implied as well as conscious and express.

Authority:

PEN 745

Bonds v. Superior Court (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 821, 824

Eleventh Holding:

To forestall the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits of his’s RJA claim. This approach is particularly appropriate here, where we can discern no rational tactical reason for the defendant’s counsel not raising the RJA issue when counsel already filed a motion for a new trial concerning the playing and use of the rap music videos.

Authority:

People v. Torres (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 88, 92 [reviewing court may reach forfeited claim where ineffective assistance of counsel claimed]

People v. Quintero (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1060, 1074 [addressing merits of forfeited RJA claim because defendant alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object]

Twelfth Holding:

The fact that the prosecutor did not utter the words in the video does not foreclose an RJA claim. The RJA expressly includes in its description of qualifying acts an attorney using racially discriminatory language, but it also includes an attorney otherwise exhibiting bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful.

Authority:

PEN 745(a)(2)

Thirteenth Holding:

The RJA does not define racial bias or animus, but it specifies that the moving party is not required to prove intentional discrimination. Indeed, the statement of Legislative intent behind the RJA’s enactment states that the act was aimed at addressing the use of racially incendiary or racially coded language, images, and racial stereotypes in criminal trials. Based on the lack of probative value the videos had, the danger of racial bias that the “A Day in the Life” video particularly presented, and the manner in which the prosecutor used the videos at trial, we conclude that the defendant has satisfied his initial minimal burden to produce facts that, if true, establish that there is more than a mere possibility of an RJA violation.

Authority:

PEN 745(c)(2)

People v. Howard (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 625, 656

Fourteenth Holding:

Challenges for cause are constitutionally guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. Our state Constitution provides the same general right to a fair trial and an impartial jury. In California, criminal defendants are allowed an unlimited number of challenges to prospective jurors for cause, which the defendants must use before exercising any peremptory challenges.

Authority:

People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 916

Fifteenth Holding:

On forfeiture of jury challenge because defendant still had peremptory challenges available, the defense was afforded 30 total peremptory challenges, with 20 of the challenges being joint challenges and the remaining 10 split between the two defendants. The defense had peremptory challenges available when it accepted the jury as seated. The California Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected requests to abandon the forfeiture rule concerning denials of juror challenges for cause in analogous situations where the three requirements to preserve the issue for appeal were not met.

Authority:

People v. Suarez (2020) 10 Cal.5th 116, 143

People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 425-426

People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1209-1210

People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 61

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 45-46

People v. Mills (2010) 48 Cal.4th 158, 186

People v. Carasi (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1263, 1290

Sixteenth Holding:

Evidence is substantially more prejudicial than probative if, broadly stated, it poses an intolerable risk to the fairness of the proceedings or the reliability of the outcome. In applying this statute we evaluate the risk of undue prejudice, that is, evidence that uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues, not the prejudice that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.

Authority:

People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 724

People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 148

Seventeenth Holding:

A trial court’s discretionary ruling under Evidence Code section 352 will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Under Evidence Code section 352, the trial court enjoys broad discretion in assessing whether the probative value of particular evidence is outweighed by concerns of undue prejudice, confusion or consumption of time.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 372-373

People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1124

Eighteenth Holding:

The weighing process under Evidence Code section 352 depends upon the trial court’s consideration of the unique facts and issues of each case, rather than upon the mechanical application of automatic rules. The record must affirmatively show that the trial judge did in fact weigh prejudice against probative value, but no more is required. We review the trial court’s exercise of discretion in admitting evidence under Evidence Code section 352 for abuse and will not disturb the court’s ruling except on a showing the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.

Authority:

People v. Megown (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 157, 164

Nineteenth Holding:

A trial court’s admission of evidence, including gang testimony, is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Coneal (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 951, 964

Twentieth Holding:

When evaluating the admission of rap music, courts have recognized it has minimal probative value to the extent that it depends on construing the lyrics as literal statements of fact or intent without a persuasive basis to do so. We have also held that the relevance of rap lyrics is further diminished when they lack foundation. These foundational components include whether the defendant authored the lyrics. Thus, absent some meaningful method to determine which lyrics represent real versus made up events, or some persuasive basis to construe specific lyrics literally, the probative value of lyrics as evidence of their literal truth is minimal.

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 477, 478

Twenty-first Holding:

We do not mean to suggest that lyrics are never probative of their literal truth. For example, where lyrics are written within a reasonable period of time before or after the charged crime and bear a sufficient level of similarity to the charged crime, their probative value as a statement of fact is increased. It may also be that lyrics with sufficient corroboration from other evidence will have increased probative value. However, corroborating evidence may also render the lyrics cumulative.

Authority:

People v. Coneal (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 951, 96

Twenty-second Holding:

Section 29800(a)(1) states that any person who has been convicted of a felony, who has been convicted of an enumerated offense, or who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony. As relevant here: This offense has three elements: (1) the defendant possessed a firearm, (2) the defendant knew that he possessed the firearm, and (3) the defendant had previously been convicted of a felony.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 939, 958

Twenty-third Holding:

Where a defendant will stipulate to ex-felon status, evidence of the nature of his prior convictions still may and should be withheld from the jury, since such evidence is irrelevant to the ex-felon issue. Thus, to prove the third element of a violation of section 29800(a)(1), one of two alternatives may be used: (1) The prosecution can prove the conviction in open court, and that proof can include both the fact that the defendant has previously been convicted of a felony offense as well as the nature of the felony involved; or (2) the defendant can stipulate to having a felony conviction and thereby keep from the jury the nature of the particular felony. When the defendant stipulates to a prior conviction, “the court ‘sanitizes’ the prior by telling the jury that the defendant has a prior felony conviction, without specifying the nature of the felony committed.

Authority:

People v. Valentine (1986) 42 Cal.3d 170, 173

People v. Sapp (2003) 31 Cal.4th 240, 261, 262

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Statutory interpretation

Case 000078

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was improperly prosecuted under Penal Code section 594, rather than Penal Code section 4600, for damaging two safety cells while on special watch. Section 594 generally prohibits malicious damage to property not one’s own in cases other than those specified by state law. In contrast, section 4600 specifically addresses the destruction or injury of jail or prison property by an inmate. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including any retrial the People may elect to pursue.

First Holding:

The defendant’s conviction for felony vandalism under section 594 was improper, as a more specific statute was available.

Authority:

PEN 594

PEN 4600

Second Holding:

When a general statute includes conduct covered by a more specific statute, prosecution must proceed under the specific statute. This principle, known as the Williamson rule, prevents the government from circumventing legislative intent by charging a defendant under a broader statute carrying a harsher penalty.

Authority:

In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651, 654

People v. Murphy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 81, 86

Third Holding:

The Legislature’s intent was to exclude from section 594’s scope conduct addressed by other, more specific statutes, such as section 4600’s prohibition against damaging jail property. Reading the two provisions together gives effect to both and avoids rendering section 4600 superfluous, consistent with well-settled rules of statutory construction.

Authority:

Imperial Merchant Services Inc. v. Hunt (2009) 47 Cal.4th 381, 390 [statutes must be interpreted, if possible, to give each word some operative effect, meaning that we should not construe statutory provisions so as to render them superfluous]

Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 22 [We do not presume that the Legislature performs idle acts, nor do construe statutory provisions so as to render them superfluous]

River’s Side at Washington Square Homeowners Assn. v. Superior Court (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1209, 1228

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000005

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief:

Section 1172.75 affords relief when the sentence enhancement was imposed but the punishment on the enhancement was stricken. Because the defendant was eligible for relief, the judgment is reversed and remanded to the lower court.

First Holding:

Penal Code 1172.75 affords relief when the sentence enhancement was imposed but the punishment on the enhancement was stricken. Any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid. If a court determines the current judgment includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a), the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 194, review granted Oct. 23, 2024, S286987 [the majority concluded section 1172.75 applies when the punishment for the section 667.5(b) enhancement was imposed but stricken]

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1054

People v. Cota (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1118

Second Holding:

The court reviews de novo interpretations of statutes.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961

Third Holding:

The court’s fundamental task in construing statutes is to interpret them in a way that gives effect to the Legislature’s intent.

Authority:

Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 837

Fourth Holding:

Because the statutory language is generally the most reliable indicator of that intent, the court looks first at the words themselves, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning.

Authority:

People v. Ruiz (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1100, 1105

Fifth Holding:

If the statute’s language is unambiguous then its plain meaning controls. If the statute’s language is unclear, ambiguous, or susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, we may look at extrinsic sources, including legislative history, as a guide to construing the statute.

Authority:

People v. Scott (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1415, 1421