Category Archives: Statutory interpretation

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 001150

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court had no jurisdiction to issue a post-sentence protective order on a person who was neither a victim nor a percipient witness.

First Holding:

Although the defendant did not object to the protective orders, sentences entered in excess of a trial court’s jurisdiction may be challenged for the first time on appeal. We therefore address the defendant’s objection to the protective orders issued under section 136.2.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 381-382

Second Holding:

Section 136.2 does not authorize post-sentence protective orders based on his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. Section 136.2(a) provides that, upon a good cause belief that a victim or witness was harmed, intimidated, or dissuaded, a court with jurisdiction over a criminal matter may issue an order restraining the defendant from, among other things, communicating with a specified witness or a victim except through an attorney under reasonable restrictions that the court may impose.

Section 136.2(i) also provides that when a criminal defendant has been convicted of certain specified offenses, at the time of sentencing a trial court shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with a victim that may extend up to 10 years. Subdivision (i)(2) also permits similar orders concerning percipient witnesses that have been harassed.

Authority:

PEN 136.2

Third Holding:

Prior to 2011, section 136.2 permitted protective orders only during the pendency of the criminal proceedings and did not authorize such orders after the defendant was sentenced.

Authority:

People v. Stone (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 153, 159

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 382

People v. Selga (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 113, 118

Fourth Holding:

The legislative history reveals that the Legislature added subdivision (i) to section 136.2 in express reliance on the decisions holding that subdivision (a) does not authorize post-sentencing restraining orders. Thus, it is clear that the Legislature understood that subdivision (a) of section 136.2 does not authorize post-sentence protective orders and that the section authorizes such orders only under subdivision (i).

Authority:

Sen. Com. on Public Safety, Rep. on Sen. Bill 723 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.) Feb. 18, 2011, p. 6

Assem. Com. on Public Safety, Rep. on Sen. Bill 723 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 2, 2011, p. 2

Fifth Holding:

Section 136.2(i) authorizes post-sentence protective orders when a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence, as defined in section 13700 or in section 6211 of the Family Code; a violation of section 236.1(a), (b), or (c) prohibiting human trafficking; section 261; section 261.5; former section 262; section 266h(a); section 266i(a); a violation of section 186.22; or a crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to section 290(c).

The defendant’s conviction does not fall within any of those categories, and the protective order was unauthorized. The protective orders against the defendant are stricken.

Authority:

PEN 136.2(i)

Jurisdiction, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 001105

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in staying the greater firearm enhancement under section 654 in order to impose a lesser firearm enhancement, rather than striking it under section 1385.

First Holding:

After considering the defendant’s youth as a mitigating factor, the court chose to sentence the defendant on the firearm enhancement under section 12022.5(a) (for 10 years) instead of under section 12022.53(c) (punishable by 20 years). The court purported to stay the 12022.53(c) enhancement under section 654.

Authority:

PEN 12022.5(a)

PEN 12022.53(c)

Second Holding:

Section 654(a) provides that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. An acquittal or conviction and sentence under any one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.

Authority:

PEN 654

Third Holding:

In general, we review for abuse of discretion the trial court’s decision not to strike a sentence enhancement under section 1385(a). However, the trial court purported to stay the 20-year enhancement pursuant to section 654. Under Corpening, at step one, courts examine the facts of the case to determine whether multiple convictions are based upon a single physical act. When those facts are undisputed—as they are here—the application of section 654 raises a question of law we review de novo.

In Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that section 654 did not apply to whether the trial court properly stayed the punishment for the firearm enhancement at issue in that case. Although the trial court correctly stayed all of the prohibited firearm enhancements, it incorrectly issued those stays under section 654, which applies only to offenses punishable in different ways, not to prohibited enhancements committed in the commission of an unstayed offense.

Thus, the issue we resolve is one of statutory interpretation regarding the trial court’s interpretation of its authority to impose, stay, or strike firearm enhancements under sections 12022.53(c), 12022.5(a), and 1385.

Authority:

People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 298

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

People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1123, fn. 5

Fourth Holding:

The court acts in excess of its jurisdiction and imposes an unauthorized sentence when it erroneously stays or fails to stay execution of a sentence under section 654. Under the unauthorized sentence rule, a party does not forfeit the right to argue that a sentence is unlawful by failing to object in the trial court.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354, fn. 17

People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 635

Fifth Holding:

The court may, in the interest of justice pursuant to section 1385 and at the time of sentencing, strike or dismiss an enhancement otherwise required to be imposed by section 12022.53.

(Gary note: The appellate court cited several passages from section 12022.53 that reflect that a LESSER enhancement may be stayed (rather than stricken) when both the lesser and the greater are found true, as only one can be imposed. It reviewed the language the trial court used in sentencing the defendant to the lesser firearm enhancement, and concluded that the intention of the trial court could only be carried out by striking the greater enhancement under section 1385, which is permitted by section 12022.53(h).)

Authority:

PEN 12022.53(h)

PEN 1385

Amelioration, Discretion, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 001102

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred when it found the defendant unsuitable for Proposition 36 rehabilitation when it had not ordered and considered an evaluation by a drug addiction expert as required by Penal Code section 11395,(d)(1)(B).

First Holding:

Section 11395, known as the “Treatment-Mandated Felony Act,” was enacted as part of Proposition 36, which was approved by voters in November 2024. The statute gives repeat hard drug possession offenders the option of participating in drug and mental health treatment.

The individual must plead guilty or no contest to again possessing a hard drug, admit the alleged prior qualifying convictions, waive time for sentencing or judgment, and agree to participate in treatment.

If he or she successfully completes treatment, the defendant’s plea shall not constitute a conviction for any purpose. Such individuals are not to be sentenced to jail or prison unless a court determines that the person is not eligible or suitable for treatment.

Authority:

HSC 11395

Second Holding:

The statute further states that, upon or subsequent to arraignment for a violation of the section, and at the request or with the consent of the defendant or their attorney, the court shall order a drug addiction expert to conduct a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of the defendant. The evaluation may be based on an interview of the defendant or others with relevant knowledge, and can include “medical records, criminal history, prior treatment history, and records pertaining to the current offense. The expert shall submit a report of the evaluation to the court and the parties.

Authority:

HSC 11395(d)(1)(B)

Third Holding:

We review de novo the trial court’s interpretation of the statute as allowing it to find defendant unsuitable for treatment without first obtaining the drug addiction expert report. Our task is to determine the electorate’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose. We turn first to the language of the provision, giving the words their ordinary meaning.

We construe the language in the context of the statute as a whole and the overall statutory scheme in light of the electorate’s intent. If the statutory language is unambiguous, the plain meaning controls and consideration of extrinsic sources to determine the electorate’s intent is unnecessary.

Authority:

People v. Fouse (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 1131, 1145

Robert L. v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 894, 900-901 [a reviewing court applies the same principles that govern statutory construction when interpreting a voter initiative]

Smith v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 77, 83

Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 911, 919

Fourth Holding:

Given section 11395’s clear language, we need not look beyond the statute itself to discern the electorate’s intent. As the statute makes clear, immediately upon or after arraignment for violating the statute, and either at the request or with the consent of the defendant or their attorney, the trial court “shall” order a drug addiction expert evaluation, and that report “shall” be submitted to the court and the parties. While the trial court has the discretion ultimately to decide that a defendant is unsuitable for treatment once the court considers the drug addiction expert’s evaluation, the expert’s evaluation must come first.

The trial court abused its discretion when it decided, notwithstanding the statutory provisions, that defendant was unsuitable for treatment before obtaining the necessary report.

Authority:

HSC 11395(d)(1)(B)

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Evidence, Racial Justice Act, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 001094

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the defendant’s oral motion for relief under the Racial Justice Act (RJA).

First Holding:

It is a violation of the RJA for the judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or a juror to exhibit bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin or, during the defendant’s trial, in court and during the proceedings, to use racially discriminatory language about the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, or otherwise exhibit bias or animus toward the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful.

A defendant may file a motion alleging a violation of subdivision (a). If a motion is filed in the trial court and the defendant makes a prima facie showing of a violation of subdivision (a), the trial court shall hold a hearing, at which the defendant bears the burden of proving an RJA violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Subject to exceptions inapplicable in this case, if the court finds an RJA violation by a preponderance of evidence, the court shall impose an enumerated remedy specific to the violation. If judgment has yet to be entered, one remedy is to reduce one or more charges. After judgment has been entered, the court shall vacate the conviction and sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and order new proceedings consistent with subdivision (a).

Authority:

PEN 745

Second Holding:

The defendant argues that the trial court erred to the extent it denied his RJA motion because it was brought orally rather than by written, noticed motion. Addressing this issue of statutory interpretation de novo, we conclude the RJA does not preclude the possibility of making an oral motion. Accordingly, the court erred to the extent it denied the motion for being brought orally.

Authority:

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 41

Third Holding:

In interpreting a statute, our goal is to ascertain the Legislature’s intent to effectuate the statute’s purpose. We begin by examining the statute’s words, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning. If the language is unambiguous, the plain meaning controls. The words, however, must be construed in context, so we look to the entire section as well as the statutory framework as a whole in deciding what a word or provision means, and we attempt to harmonize terms where possible. We may reject a literal construction that is contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the statute or that would lead to absurd results.

Authority:

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

People v. Murphy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 136, 142

Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 499, 519

Moyer v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230

Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore (2010) 49 Cal.4th 12, 27

Fourth Holding:

The statutory language here is ambiguous. Section 745 does not say a defendant “must file” a motion; instead, it is permissive. But nor does the statute say that a defendant “may make” an oral motion. We therefore look to legislative findings made in support of the RJA to discern the Legislature’s intent.

When statutory language is ambiguous, we look to a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, and contemporaneous administrative construction. Because uncodified findings of legislative intent are voted upon by the entire legislative body, enrolled and signed by the Governor, they may be entitled to somewhat greater weight than traditional legislative history materials.

(Gary note: Regarding the reference to “uncodified findings” in the last sentence above, Assembly Bill 2542 (2019-2020 legislative session), which enacted the Racial Justice Act, contains a few sections in the bill that were not codified, meaning they do not appear in any of California’s codes, such as the Penal Code.

(Depending on the wording, the uncodified language may or may not have the force of law. For example, section 7 of the bill directs that certain portions of the bill are effective only if a different specified bill is enacted and becomes effective by a specified date. Section 7 thus carries the force of law.

(But section 2 of the bill contains 10 findings made by the Legislature that led to its passage of the RJA. In roughly 1,329 words. Some of the findings relate the existence and effects of racism–intentional or otherwise–and others state something like “It is the intent of the Legislature that ….” Those findings and statements of intent probably do not technically carry the force of law, but may be considered by the courts in interpreting the statutes that were enacted.

(The trial court then discussed the various aspects of the findings that led it to conclude that “Given the expansiveness of the Legislature’s purpose in enacting the RJA, it is appropriate to construe the legislation liberally in favor of affording defendants an opportunity to raise potential RJA violations through an oral motion.” It cautioned, however, that it may not be the best practice to raise the motion orally, as it may create confusion over what, exactly, is being asserted.)

Authority:

People v. Woodhead (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1002, 1008

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 157

Fifth Holding:

In the course of the hearing, counsel appeared to concur that the proper standard was proof by preponderance of the evidence, rather than the much lower standard at the prima facie stage. Though it is not clear what standard the court applied, it erred in excluding hearsay evidence. Hearsay is not per se excludable under the RJA. The court should have considered whether the proffered hearsay “trustworthy and reliable” before excluding it.

By concluding the evidence before it was double hearsay, the court failed to consider the totality of the proffered facts in assessing whether the defendant made a prima facie showing. On this record, we conclude the defendant made such a sufficient showing at the prima facie stage. We thus reverse and remand with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing under the RJA.

Authority:

PEN 745(c)(1)

Hernandez v. Superior Court (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1120, 1130

Sixth Holding:

The people argue that application of the higher standard was invited error, as counsel concurred. The doctrine of invited error is designed to prevent an accused from gaining a reversal on appeal because of an error made by the trial court at defense counsel’s behest. If defense counsel intentionally caused the trial court to err, the appellant cannot be heard to complain on appeal.

But for the doctrine to apply, it also must be clear that counsel acted for tactical reasons and not out of ignorance or mistake. In cases involving an action affirmatively taken by defense counsel, courts have found a clearly implied tactical purpose to be sufficient to invoke the doctrine.

It is not sufficiently clear on this record that counsel had a tactical purpose. It supports the conclusion that counsel simply misunderstood certain details of the RJA when he brought the oral motion. For example, he characterized the motion as a post-judgment motion. But it was prejudgment, though it was presented after the jury verdict. In a criminal case, judgment is rendered when the trial court orally pronounces sentence. Here, the sentencing had not yet happened when the RJA motion was made, so no judgment had been entered.

In light of counsel’s apparent misunderstandings, we conclude that the invited error doctrine is inapplicable. In any event, its application is discretionary, not automatic.

Authority:

People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 49

People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344, fn. 9

Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2025) para. 8:248.13

Seventh Holding:

We review de novo a determination that an RJA movant has failed to make a prima facie showing. A defendant makes a prima facie showing if the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that an RJA violation] occurred.

A substantial likelihood requires more than a mere possibility, but less than a standard of more likely than not. The court should should not make credibility determinations at the prima facie stage. It should accept the truth of the defendant’s allegations unless they are conclusory, unsupported by the evidence presented in support of the claim, or demonstrably contradicted by the court’s own records.

On this record—with these principles in mind and considering the totality of the proffered facts—we conclude that there is more than a mere possibility that an RJA violation occurred. The defendant has therefore made a prima facie showing of one or more RJA violations and is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

PEN 745(h)(2)

PEN 745(c)

People v. Howard (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 625, 650

Finley v. Superior Court (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 12, 23

Hernandez v. Superior Court (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1120, 1130

Gary Musings, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 001093

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to impose a sentence under the One Strike law, because the date of the offense was prior to the amendment in 2006 that added the section violated by the defendant to the list of crimes that may be prosecuted under the One Strike law.

First Holding:

In 1994, the Legislature enacted the “One Strike” law requiring indeterminate life sentences for certain sex offenses committed under particular circumstances. Prior to 2006, section 288.5 did not qualify as a One Strike offense. Consequently in 2006, the Legislature amended section 667.61 to encompass continuous sexual abuse under section 288.5(a), as a One Strike offense.

Authority:

PEN 667.61

People v. Valenti (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1173–1174

Second Holding:

At sentencing, the trial court sentenced the defendant under the One Strike law for his count 7 conviction. However, the 2006 amendment to the One Strike law was inapplicable the defendant’s crime of continuous sexual abuse conviction because the crime took place from 1997 to 2001. Consequently, the trial court improperly applied the One Strike law retroactively. As a result, we vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand for a full resentencing hearing at which defendant has a right to be present with counsel.

Authority:

Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 42–43

(Gary note: This case demonstrates the importance of reviewing the statutes in effect at the time of the commission of the crime. Counsel should not just assume that the version of the statute in existence today applied at the time the crime was committed. While I firmly believe counsel should always check, it just cries out with red flags when the crime in question occurred decades earlier. Where was counsel? Yes, I’m Monday Morning Quarterbacking here, but I just cannot fathom representing someone facing serious sex charges decades old and not checking to see if the very complex provisions of the One Strike law even apply.

(I am not embarrassed to soapbox here. Attorneys do not have easy jobs, and criminal defense attorneys need to understand that they are critical in how much life and liberty remain for their criminal clients. We cannot take it for granted that the probation department and the prosecution and the judge got it right. We have to examine every detail and ethically exploit every possibility to ensure that our clients, if convicted, do not serve one minute in custody longer than legally permitted by law and under their circumstances.

(Our clients are real people, and they have to count on us to do our best, and they deserve our best. No one who thinks otherwise should even consider being a criminal defense attorney. Raise your hand if you think a day in jail or a day in prison is like a day in the park with the kids or pets. Raise your hand if you have no problem paying the level of fines and fees imposed, particularly when assessments are piled on top of the stated fine. Raise your hand if you don’t think these penalties mean anything to your clients, or at least that they don’t care whether you are able to minimize the custody or the financial burdens.)