Category Archives: Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000999

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court abused its discretion by denying the defendant’s request for mental health diversion because its finding that he is ineligible for diversion is not supported by substantial evidence.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted sections 1001.35 and 1001.36 to authorize trial courts to grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendants diagnosed with qualifying mental disorders. To be eligible for mental health diversion, a defendant must meet two requirements.

One, the defendant must have been diagnosed within the past five years with a mental disorder identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

And two, the defendant’s mental disorder must be a significant factor in the commission of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

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

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

Second Holding:

Among the express purposes of the diversion program is to increase diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety.

Under section 1001.36(b), the court must find a causal connection unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. Eligibility no longer turned on findings to the court’s satisfaction.

The statute requires the court to find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor unless clear and convincing evidence demonstrates otherwise. And it is the prosecution’s burden to provide clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption.

Authority:

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

People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485, 490

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891

People v. Cabalar (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 41, 52

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

Third Holding:

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

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

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

Fourth Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

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

Fifth Holding:

In reviewing a trial court’s finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before us is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the dispute] fact was true.

More specifically, in this context, we must determine whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. To answer that question, we review the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.

(Gary note: The balance of the decision discusses the conclusions drawn by the trial court that it relied on to conclude that the mental disorder did not contribute to the offense. The appellate court concluded that the inferences the trial court drew were not substantial evidence to overcome by clear and convincing the presumption that the mental disorder was a contributing factor, and reversed the denial. It remanded for the court to reconsider the defendant’s application for mental health diversion consistent with the appellate court’s opinion.)

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401-402

Duty of counsel, Duty of the court, Immigration, Plea bargains, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000994

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea conviction under section 1473.7, because the defendant demonstrated entitlement to relief.

First Holding:

In response to the absence of a legal remedy for individuals who are no longer in custody but find themselves facing unanticipated immigration consequences resulting from a guilty or no contest plea entered years earlier, the Legislature added section 1473.7 to the Penal Code, effective January 1, 2017. The statute was subsequently amended to broaden eligibility for relief beyond the entry of a plea.

In relevant part, the statute now provides that individuals may file a motion for relief from a conviction or sentence on the basis that the conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence. Relief is not contingent upon establishing ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7(a)

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 522-523

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 12-13

Second Holding:

A defendant must satisfy three statutory requirements to be eligible to seek relief from a legally invalid conviction or sentence under section 1473.7(a)(1). The movant must show he is no longer in criminal custody, and the conviction or sentence being challenged is currently causing or has the potential to cause removal or the denial of an application for an immigration benefit, lawful status, or naturalization. The motion must also be timely.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 13

Third Holding:

To prevail under section 1473.7, a defendant must demonstrate that his conviction is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging his or her ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence.

The defendant must first show that he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea.

Next, the defendant must show that his misunderstanding constituted prejudicial error.

Prejudical error means demonstrating a reasonable probability that the defendant would have rejected the plea if the defendant had correctly understood its actual or potential immigration consequences.

Authority:

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

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529

Fourth Holding:

We evaluate prejudicial error under the totality of the circumstances.

Factors particularly relevant to this inquiry include the defendant’s ties to the United States, the importance the defendant placed on avoiding deportation, the defendant’s priorities in seeking a plea bargain, and whether the defendant had reason to believe an immigration-neutral negotiated disposition was possible.

The defendant’s probability of obtaining a more favorable outcome if he had rejected the plea and the difference between the bargained-for term and the likely term if he were convicted at trial are also relevant.

These factors are not exhaustive, and no single type of evidence is a prerequisite to relief.

A defendant must provide objective evidence to corroborate factual assertions. Objective evidence includes facts provided by declarations, contemporaneous documentation of the defendant’s immigration concerns or interactions with counsel, and evidence of the charges the defendant faced.

Authority:

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

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529-530

People v. Martinez (2013) 57 Cal.4th 555, 564

Lee v. United States (2017) 582 U.S. 357, 358

Fifth Holding:

On appeal, we apply independent review to evaluate whether a defendant has demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea offer had he understood its immigration consequences.

We exercise independent judgment to determine whether the facts satisfy the rule of law, and defer to the trial court’s factual determinations if they are based on the credibility of witnesses the superior court heard and observed.

However, when, as in this case, the trial court’s findings derive entirely from written declarations and other documents, the trial court and the reviewing court are in the same position, and no deference is owed.

Authority:

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

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 527-528

Sixth Holding:

The focus of this inquiry is the defendant’s own error. Thus, the key is the mindset of the defendant and not what an objectively reasonable person would have understood under the circumstances.

The defendant is the only one with direct access to his state of mind, but a defendant’s assertion as to his or her state of mind is not accepted at face value by courts evaluating a section 1473.7 motion. Such assertions must be corroborated with objective evidence.

A party seeking relief under section 1473.7 is not required to provide the declaration of plea counsel.

Authority:

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 16-17

People v. Mejia (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 859, 871

People v. Alatorre (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 747, 769

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 325

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 962

Seventh Holding:

The standard section 1016.5 advisement—given to all criminal defendants in California who plead guilty to any offense other than an infraction—that his or her criminal conviction may have adverse immigration consequences does not bar a defendant from seeking relief from his plea on grounds of mistake or ignorance based on immigration consequences. Thus, the fact the superior court advised defendant pursuant to section 1016.5 does not resolve the matter against defendant.

Authority:

People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 889, 895

People v. Lopez (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 561, 577-578

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

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 962

Eighth Holding:

Prior to Padilla, there was no Sixth Amendment obligation on the part of defense counsel to affirmatively advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of a conviction. Rather, most courts had determined that no such duty existed.

As a general rule, a failure to anticipate changes in the law is not considered ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Gary note:  I think we all know what the court means by “Prior to Padilla, there was no Sixth Amendment obligation ….”  But I think a more accurate statement would be something like, “Padilla was the first pronouncement by the United States Supreme Court recognizing that the Sixth Amendment places an obligation on the part of defense counsel to ….”  The Sixth Amendment was certainly not amended to add any provision generating a new obligation.  The Sixth Amendment has been around for centuries, unchanged.  It was only its import that hadn’t been seen in the past, at least by the High Court.

(The court’s phrasing as I’ve set out in the Ninth Holding tracks what I’m saying.

(I mention this because I think sometimes it is important to argue that something is NOT new law, and that it has BEEN the law all along, notwithstanding that it had not previously been understood to be the law.  Why is that important?  It can make the difference in whether a court recognizes that your client’s rights were violated, even though it was only through a later appellate analysis that the nature of the violation was discovered.  We don’t want the court to assume that, because no court had seen it before, your client is not entitled to its benefit.

(There have been decisions, of course, that decline to revisit cases where, had the law been understood at the time, there would have been a different result.  But that is generally related to the principle of finality of judgment and the jurisdiction of the court to act on the case.  While not directly the same, think of the Estrada presumption of retroactivity of ameliorative changes in the law to those whose judgments are not final, in the absence of clear intent that the change was to be applied prospectively only.  

(Just sayin’.

(Of course, with respect to Padilla, the practical effect is that yes, the Sixth Amendment imposes the obligation on the attorney to provide the advice, but the failure to do so prior to Padilla is not tantamount to ineffective assistance of counsel as that principle has been described in the past.  As the court in this case said, relying on In re Grinder, “As a general rule, a failure to anticipate changes in the law is not considered ineffective assistance of counsel.”

(Was there a change in the law?  Or simply a change in the understanding of the Sixth Amendment?  Of course, the opposition might argue that court pronouncements dictate what is the law, and therefore they represent the law, and thererfore it wasn’t until Padilla that the Sixth Amendment created the obligation.  An interesting debate, or not, but for another time.)  

Authority:

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

Chaidez v. United States (2013) 568 U.S. 342, 353

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 17

In re Grinder (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 845, 872

Ninth Holding:

Here, defendant entered his plea 15 years before the United States Supreme Court held in Padilla that the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to provide affirmative and competent advice to noncitizen defendants regarding the potential immigration consequences of their criminal cases. As such, defendant’s attestation that his attorney did not advise him about the immigration consequences of his plea is consistent with the state of the law at that time.

(Gary note: The appellate court examined and analyzed extensively many facts in the record from which it concluded that, based primarily on the principles I have extracted in this summary, the defendant was entitled to relief because his plea was not entered knowingly and intelligently within the contemplation of section 1473.7. I have omitted those details, some of which included citations to other cases apparently relevant to those details. Since this was an unpublished decision and cannot be cited for comparison, and since this is supposed to be a summary and not a copy of the entire decision, I have to stop about here.)

Authority:

PEN 1016.2

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 18

People v. Rodriguez (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 301, 307–312

 

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

Case 000991

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Insufficient evidence supported the jury’s gang predicate offense findings, and we therefore reverse the true findings on the gang and gang firearm enhancements, as well as the gang special circumstance. We reject the defendant’s other arguments.

First Holding:

The role of the reviewing court in evaluating sufficiency of the evidence claims is a limited one. We review the whole 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 standard of review is the same in cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence. Although it is the duty of the jury to acquit a defendant if it finds that circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court, that must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.

When there are two possible grounds for the jury’s verdict, one unreasonable and the other reasonable, we will assume, absent a contrary indication in the record, that the jury based its verdict on the reasonable ground.

Authority:

People v. Ghobrial (2018) 5 Cal.5th 250, 277–278

Second Holding:

To prove the gang allegations true beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution had to show (1) the defendant committed the murder for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang, and (2) with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members.

A criminal street gang is defined as (1) an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, (2) having as one of its primary activities the commission of one or more of the enumerated criminal acts, (3) having a common name or common identifying sign or symbol, and (4) whose members collectively engage in, or have engaged in, a pattern of criminal gang activity.

A pattern of criminal gang activity means (1) the commission of or conviction of, two or more enumerated criminal acts, (2) provided at least one of these offenses occurred after September 26, 1988, and the last of those offenses occurred within three years of the prior offense and within three years of the date the current offense is alleged to have been committed, (3) the offenses were committed on separate occasions by two or more members, (4) the offenses commonly benefited a criminal street gang, and (5) the common benefit from the offenses is more than reputational.

The acts making up the pattern of gang activity are commonly referred to as predicate offenses.

Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational may 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. The charged offenses cannot be used to satisfy the gang allegation requirements.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(b)(1), (e)(1), (e)(2), (f)

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 460

People v. Shively (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 460, 465-466

(Gary note:

(Gary note: The balance of this aspect of the opinion deals with the specifics of the evidence and inferences to be drawn, and the appellate court determined that the evidence in support of two of the three predicate offenses alleged by the prosecution were not supported by sufficient evidence. The court then reversed the jury’s true finding on the special circumstance gang allegation under section 190.2(a)(22) and the true findings on the gang enhancements charged under sections 186.22 (b)(1)(C) and 12022.53(d) and (e). It remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing.

(The defendant unsuccessfully raised many other issues. I have included several as holdings (Third through Eighth) because they do state important legal principles even though unrelated to the sufficiency of evidence successful argument.)

Third Holding:

Advocates are given significant leeway in discussing the legal and factual merits of a case during argument. Prosecutors have wide latitude to present vigorous arguments so long as they are a fair comment on the evidence, including reasonable inferences and deductions from it. When attacking the prosecutor’s remarks to the jury, the defendant must show that, in the context of the whole argument and the instructions, there was a reasonable likelihood the jury understood or applied the complained-of comments in an improper or erroneous manner. In conducting this inquiry, we do not lightly infer that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor’s statements.

A prosecutor’s conduct violates a defendant’s constitutional rights when the behavior comprises a pattern of conduct so egregious that it infects ‘ “the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. Even if the behavior does not reach that level of egregiousness, it may still violate California law if it involves the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods when attempting to persuade either the trial court or the jury, and it is reasonably probable that without such misconduct, an outcome more favorable to the defendant would have resulted. he focus of the inquiry is on the effect of the prosecutor’s action on the defendant, not on the intent or bad faith of the prosecutor.

Authority:

People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 666

People v. Leon (2015) 61 Cal.4th 569, 606

People v. Sanchez (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528

Fourth Holding:

A claim of prosecutorial misconduct is ordinarily preserved for appeal only if the defendant made a timely and specific objection at trial and requested an admonition. The primary purpose of the requirement that a defendant object at trial to argument constituting prosecutorial misconduct is to give the trial court an opportunity, through admonition of the jury, to correct any error and mitigate any prejudice. Consistent with that purpose, a court will excuse a defendant’s failure to object only if an objection would have been futile, or if an admonition would not have mitigated the harm caused by the misconduct.

Authority:

People v. Daveggio and Michaud (2018) 4 Cal.5th 790, 853

Fifth Holding:

The trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the essential elements of the charged offense. 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. However, the trial court should only give instructions supported by substantial evidence.

Evidence is substantial’ for this purpose if it is sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury, that is, evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive. At the same time, instructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given. It is error to give an instruction which, while correctly stating a principle of law, has no application to the facts of the case.

Authority:

People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824

People v. Townsel (2016) 63 Cal.4th 25, 58

People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1049-1950

Sixth Holding:

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. A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. We independently review the wording of a jury instruction to assess whether the instruction accurately states the law. The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the charge in a manner that violated the defendant’s rights.

Further, the correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction. Moreover, any theoretical possibility of confusion may be diminished by the parties’ closing arguments. Jurors are presumed to be intelligent, capable of understanding instructions and applying them to the facts of the case.

Authority:

People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953

People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210

People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218

People v. Davison (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 206, 212

People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1220, overruled on another ground in People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192

Seventh Holding:

The Watson standard of prejudice (i.e., the error is reversible when there is a reasonable probability defendant would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of the error) applies to an instruction that misdirects the jury, including incorrect, ambiguous, conflicting, or wrongly omitted instructions. In contrast, the Chapman standard of review (i.e., error is harmless only when it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained) applies when an instruction improperly describes or omits an element of the offense.

Authority:

People v. Campbell (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 463, 493

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836

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

Eighth Holding:

When a trial court orally misstates instructions that are legally correct in written form, the jury is presumed to be guided by the written instructions based upon copies of the instructions received for deliberations.

Authority:

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 687

People v. Mills (2010) 48 Cal.4th 158, 200–201 [written instructions control over verbal instructions]

People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803 [same]

People v. Mills (2012) 55 Cal.4th 663, 680 [we view the record as a whole, and consider the instructions in context]

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

Case 000974

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Punishment for the defendant’s conviction of the false imprisonment count must be stayed under section 654.

First Holding:

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

Section 654 does not prevent multiple convictions for the same conduct, only multiple punishments for a single, indivisible course of action. A defendant can be punished for multiple offenses where a course of conduct is divisible, giving rise to more than one act.

Authority:

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 551

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311

Second Holding:

To determine whether a course of conduct involving more than a single act is divisible for purposes of section 654, we consider whether the course of conduct included multiple intents and objectives.

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

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

Authority:

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311

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

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

Third Holding:

However, even if there is but a single objective for a course of conduct, a temporal break between individual acts may subject them to multiple punishments. This is particularly so where the offenses are temporally separated in such a way as to afford the defendant opportunity to reflect and to renew his or her intent before committing the next one, thereby aggravating the violation of public security or policy already undertaken.

In assessing whether section 654 applies, the court may consider a number of factors, including whether the defendant had multiple sequential intents, as well as whether he had the opportunity to pause and reflect before continuing his course of action.

Authority:

People v. Andra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 638, 640

People v. Surdi (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 685, 689

Fourth Holding:

The question whether section 654 is factually applicable to a given series of offenses is for the trial court, and the law gives the trial court broad latitude in making this determination. Its findings on this question must be upheld on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them.

Thus, we review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and uphold it if the record contains reasonable, credible evidence of solid value upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have relied in reaching the conclusion in question.

Ultimately, if the trier of fact determines the crimes have different intents and motives, multiple punishments are appropriate.

Authority:

People v. Hutchins (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1312

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

People v. Saffle (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 434, 439

Fifth Holding:

We agree that defendant cannot be subjected to multiple punishments for the false imprisonment conviction and the second domestic violence conviction. In closing argument, the prosecutor clarified that defendant was charged with false imprisonment for grabbing the victim by her hair as she ran toward the door and pulling her back toward the stairs, where he committed an additional act of domestic violence.

The false imprisonment and second domestic violence offenses were both committed to facilitate one assaultive objective.

Authority:

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

Sixth Holding:

As a result, the facts here are distinguishable from those in the cases relied upon by the Attorney General, where courts determined that section 654 did not require staying sentences for offenses committed after the other offense had already been completed.

Authority:

People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 162-163 [the defendant had essentially completed the robbery before committing assault; court could reasonably conclude that the defendant committed the assault with the intent and objective of preventing the victim from sounding the alarm about the murder]

People v. Foster (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 20, 27 [false imprisonment not necessary or incidental to commission of robbery because the act of locking the victims in a store cooler occurred only after the robbers had obtained all the money]

Seventh Holding:

Therefore, we shall vacate the sentence and remand the matter for a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379 [sec. 654 previously required court to impose sentence that provided for longest term of imprisonment, but now provides the trial court with discretion to impose sentence of either term]

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate to allow court to exercise its discretion in light of changed circumstances]

Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000936

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court should have stayed the defendant’s eight-month sentence for count 4 under section 654. The sole objective in possessing the firearm (count 3) and the ammunition (count 4) was to have an operable firearm. Accordingly, the possession offenses were part of an indivisible course of conduct and cannot be separately punished. We otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

During the defendant’s sentencing hearing, the court concluded that because the .22-caliber ammunition was not loaded into the .22 rifle, section 654 does not prohibit a separate punishment. And because possession of ammunition increases the ability to use the firearms and the danger, the court imposed sentences of one-third the middle term, or eight months, for each of counts 3 and 4.

Section 654(a) protects against multiple punishment where the crimes arise from either (1) the same act or omission or (2) an indivisible course of conduct united by a single intent and objective. Whether a course of conduct is indivisible depends upon the intent and objective of the actor. If all the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

On the other hand, if the evidence discloses that a defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives that were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for the independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.

A trial court’s implied finding that a defendant harbored a separate intent and objective for each offense will be upheld on appeal if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

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

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 551

People v. Blake (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 509, 512

Second Holding:

Courts have found section 654 prohibits punishing a defendant for both being a felon in possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition when all of the ammunition in question was loaded into the firearm or had been fired from it.

Authority:

People v. Broadbent (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 917, 922

Third Holding:

Here, the .22-caliber rifle giving rise to count 3 and the same-caliber ammunition giving rise to count 4 were found in close proximity to each other. The defendant argues the only difference between this case and Broadbent and similar cases is that he safely stored the firearm separately, but in the same room as the ammunition. He contends that this difference is immaterial and does not demonstrate separate intents and objectives. We agree that drawing a distinction on this basis parses the objectives too finely.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

Because the record is devoid of evidence to support the court’s implicit finding that the defendant harbored two different objectives in possessing both a rifle and nearby compatible ammunition, we conclude on this record that section 654 precludes multiple punishment for the defendant’s possession of a firearm as well as several rounds of ammunition just feet away.

Although not raised by the parties, section 1170.1(a)’s one-third the middle term rule does not apply to a sentence stayed under section 654. We therefore modify the stayed 8-month consecutive sentence to a stayed middle term of two years.

Authority:

People v. Relkin (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1188, 1197-1198

Discretion, Juveniles, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000926

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude that the juvenile court erred when it found all five statutory criteria weigh in favor of transferring the minor to criminal court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(a)(3)(A)–(E)), and when it found him not amenable to rehabilitation.

(Gary note: After setting out the holdings I have listed below, the opinion goes into great detail analyzing the evidence in the case under the criteria required to be considered by the juvenile court in deciding whether to retain the minor in juvenile court or to transfer the minor to adult court. The analysis is quite extensive and completely fact-heavy. Since an unpublished opinion cannot be cited as authority, the court’s analysis could not be used in any briefing to compare and contrast with any other defendant’s scenario. So I have not included that portion of the opinion.)

First Holding:

With respect to whether the minor can be rehabilitated within the two-year period the juvenile court may exercise jurisdiction over him given his age and the success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor, the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving these criteria favor transfer to criminal court and, therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings in the prosecution’s favor on these issues.

Although the weight to be given each of the five criteria is within the juvenile court’s discretion, and the court has the discretion to conclude that one or more of the five criteria predominate so as to determine the result, even though some or all of the other criteria might point to a different result, the juvenile court’s ultimate finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 159

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 417

Second Holding:

Where, as here, the juvenile court has abused its discretion in evaluating the evidence and applying the operative legal standards, it is appropriate to remand the matter so the court may reconsider the evidence and its ultimate determination through the lens of amenability to rehabilitation.

Authority:

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 162

In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1288

J.N. v. Superior Court (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 706, 714–715 [exercises of discretion must be guided by applicable legal principles]

Third Holding:

When a minor age 16 or older is alleged to have committed a felony, the prosecution may move to transfer the minor to criminal court. Upon the motion, the juvenile court must order the probation officer to submit a report on the minor’s behavioral patterns and social history. The parties may submit other relevant evidence’ in connection with the transfer motion. In determining whether to transfer a minor to criminal court, the juvenile court shall consider the criteria specified in subparagraphs (A) to (E) of section 707, subdivision (a)(3).

These criteria are: (1) the degree of criminal sophistication by the minor; (2) whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction; (3)the minor’s previous delinquent history; (4) the success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor; and (5) the circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in the petition to have been committed by the minor.

Section 707 also sets forth a nonexhaustive list of factors relevant to each of the five criteria. And consideration of these factors is now mandatory rather than discretionary.

Authority:

WIC 707

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 158-159, 160

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 164-165

Fourth Holding:

As amended by AB 2361, section 707 now provides that in order to find that the minor should be transferred to a court of criminal jurisdiction, the court shall find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

This changed the finding a juvenile court must make before ordering a transfer in two ways: (1) raising the standard of proof; and (2) requiring a new specific finding regarding amenability to rehabilitation.

It also amended section 707 to require the court to recite the basis for its decision in an order that includes the reasons supporting the court’s finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1284

Fifth Holding:

The weight to be given to each of these criteria is within the court’s discretion. However, to transfer a minor to criminal court, the juvenile court must ultimately find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

The prosecution bears the burden of proof. Nothing in section 707 indicates that the court is required to give equal weight to each of the five criteria or that it would necessarily be an abuse of discretion to find that one criterion outweighed the other criteria.

This standard requires a finding of high probability The evidence must be so clear as to leave no substantial doubt; sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.

Authority:

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 186

D.W. v. Superior Court (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 109, 116

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 159, 161

C.S. v. Superior Court (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1009, 1035

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 167

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 417

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998, fn. 2

In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1286

Sixth Holding:

We review the juvenile court’s ruling on a transfer motion for abuse of discretion. The court’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.

A decision based on insufficient evidence or the court’s erroneous understanding of applicable law is subject to reversal. But we do not reweigh the evidence and we do not substitute our discretion for the discretion exercised by the trial court.

We draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court’s findings, not against them. We are concerned only with whether the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings. When evidence reasonably justifies the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.

Authority:

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165, 169

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 187

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 211

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000924

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that, in orally pronouncing sentence, the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three pursuant to section 654. Further, the court orally pronounced that count four is the principal determinate term, whereas the abstract lists count three.

First Holding:

In orally pronouncing judgment, the trial court ordered execution of the sentence imposed on count three stayed under section 654. The abstract of judgment, however, does not reflect this pronouncement. The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over any discrepancy with the minutes or the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 864

Second Holding:

Section 654 provides, in pertinent part 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. There is a multiple victim exception to section 654 which allows separate punishment for each crime of violence against a different victim, even though all crimes are part of an indivisible course of conduct with a single principal objective.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Felix (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1618, 1630-1631

Third Holding:

The People did not raise in the trial court their argument that the court could not stay execution of the sentence on count three based on the multiple victim exception. In any event, whether section 654 applies is a factual question, and we review the trial court’s decision for substantial evidence.

In analyzing whether section 654 bars the imposition of multiple sentences, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and affirm the trial court’s sentencing decision—whether express or implied—if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Under this standard, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the record.

Because the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three, we presume that the court implicitly found the multiple victim exception to section 654 inapplicable. The court’s implicit finding (that two others present at the shooting were not victims of the shooting) is supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

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

People v. Vasquez (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 732, 737

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042 [Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it]

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral judgment.

(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for this order, but there is plenty to be had. I have listed some that the court could have cited.)

Authority:

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

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

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

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that, in orally pronouncing sentence, the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three pursuant to section 654. Further, the court orally pronounced that count four is the principal determinate term, whereas the abstract lists count three.

First Holding:

In orally pronouncing judgment, the trial court ordered execution of the sentence imposed on count three stayed under section 654. The abstract of judgment, however, does not reflect this pronouncement. The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over any discrepancy with the minutes or the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 864

Second Holding:

Section 654 provides, in pertinent part 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. There is a multiple victim exception to … section 654 which allows separate punishment for each crime of violence against a different victim, even though all crimes are part of an indivisible course of conduct with a single principal objective.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Felix (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1618, 1630-1631

Third Holding:

The People did not raise in the trial court their argument that the court could not stay execution of the sentence on count three based on the multiple victim exception. In any event, whether section 654 applies is a factual question, and we review the trial court’s decision for substantial evidence.

In analyzing whether section 654 bars the imposition of multiple sentences, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and affirm the trial court’s sentencing decision—whether express or implied—if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Under this standard, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the record.

Because the trial court stayed execution of the sentence imposed on count three, we presume that the court implicitly found the multiple victim exception to section 654 inapplicable. The court’s implicit finding (that two others present at the shooting were not victims of the shooting) is supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

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

People v. Vasquez (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 732, 737

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042 [Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it]

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral judgment.

(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for this order, but there is plenty to be had. I have listed some that the court could have cited.)

Authority:

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

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

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

Fifth Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Sixth Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case 000923

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The instructional errors were prejudicial regarding the multiple-murder and lying-in-wait special circumstance findings attached to counts 1, 2 and 3.

We reverse those findings, but the prosecution may retry these special circumstance allegations.

The firearm enhancements found true as to counts 1, 2 and 3 must be reversed due to prejudicial error, including pleading deficiencies and insufficiency of the evidence. Retrial of the firearm enhancements is barred by principles of double jeopardy.

The trial court also erred by denying the defendant’s renewed motion for a transfer hearing in juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 as amended by AB 2361 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.).

Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the judgment and remand the matter with directions to refer the case to the juvenile court for a transfer hearing under current law.

First Holding:

In setting forth the relevant pertinent facts in an appellate opinion, we view the record in the light most favorable to the judgment.

Authority:

In re Jesus O. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 859, 861

People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578

Second Holding:

In counts 1 through 3, the jury convicted appellant of first degree murder. The jury found true four special circumstance allegations: (1) lying in wait; (2) multiple murders; (3) murder in the commission of robbery; and (4) murder in the commission of burglary. Because of the special circumstance findings, appellant was sentenced to three consecutive LWOP terms.

There were several instructional errors, but many we find to have been harmless error. The instructional errors were prejudicial regarding the multiple-murder and lying-in-wait special circumstance findings attached to counts 1, 2 and 3.

We reverse those findings, but the prosecution may retry these special circumstance allegations. Even if the People do not elect to do so, however, a full resentencing is required.

(Gary note: The opinion concluded that some of the instructions permitted finding guilt on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, which has been abolished. Cutting to the chase in this summary, the court stated in its analysis whether the instructional error was harmless, the court stated, that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that appellant acted as a major participant in these crimes and with his own reckless indifference to human life. It was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that any rational juror who convicted appellant of first degree murder would have necessarily found the facts required under section 189(e)(3).

(Also, the jury was erroneously told at times that, if appellant was not an actual killer, the lying-in-wait and the multiple-murder special-circumstance allegations could be found true merely if he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. This was legally incorrect. If appellant was not the actual killer, then the prosecution was required to prove that he acted with an intent to kill for each murder in order to establish these special circumstance allegations. The court did not find the error harmless on those instructions, and reversed those special circumstances, allowing the prosecution to retry them.)

Authority:

PEN 188(a)(3) [Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime]

PEN 190.2(c) and (d)

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 449

People v. Hallock (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 595, 607 [conviction reversed for instructional error may be retried if supported by sufficient evidence]

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

Third Holding:

We reject the prosecution’s contention that the defendant has forfeited claims of instructional error by failing to object. Trial courts have a sua sponte duty to correctly instruct on the elements of the charged offenses and on special circumstance allegations.

No objection is required to preserve a claim for appellate review when the jury instructions omit an essential element of a charge.

Moreover, a court may review any question of law involved in an instruction which affects the substantial rights of the defendant. As alleged, the instructional errors in this matter altered the mens rea and actus reus elements that the jury was required to find.

Accordingly, we decline to find forfeiture, and we will review this claim on its merits.

Authority:

PEN 1259

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 409

People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56, 91 [declining to rely on forfeiture doctrine where alleged instructional errors would have impacted defendant’s substantial rights].

Fourth Holding:

The instructional errors impacted appellant’s constitutional rights because they permitted the jury to convict him on an invalid legal theory. Accordingly, we must reverse the convictions unless, after examining the entire cause—including the evidence and considering all relevant circumstances—we determine the errors, including the disputed ones, were all harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

In re Ferrell (2023) 14 Cal.5th 593, 602

People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 13

Fifth Holding:

When a jury is instructed on both a legally valid theory and a legally invalid theory of guilt, harmlessness can be shown if the jury verdict on other points effectively embraces the valid theory or if, based on the evidence, it is impossible to have found what the verdict did find without also finding the facts underlying the valid theory.

To make this assessment, we must rigorously review the evidence to determine whether any rational juror who found the defendant guilty based on an invalid theory, and made the factual findings reflected in the jury’s verdict, would necessarily have found the defendant guilty based on a valid theory as well.

We must be convinced that the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and we must be satisfied that this standard is beyond serious debate.

We have rigorously reviewed the totality of the record to determine whether, based on the evidence, it is impossible for a rational juror to have found what the verdicts did find without also finding the facts underlying a valid theory.

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 443-444

In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562, 568

In re Ferrell (2023) 14 Cal.5th 593, 602

Sixth Holding:

Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court’s instructions.

Authority:

People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852

Seventh Holding:

Section 12022.53(d) requires personal discharge by the defendant; it does not impose vicarious liability for another principal’s firearm discharge. Vicarious firearm liability is available only when a gang enhancement is proven. Once the gang allegations were dismissed on motion of the prosecution, the vicarious theory was unavailable.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53(d) and (e)

PEN 186.22(b)(1)

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 746

Eighth Holding:

Because personal discharge by appellant was neither charged nor expressly found true by the jury in the verdict forms, the court could not supply that missing fact at sentencing. Any fact increasing punishment must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

The trial court lacked authority to stay the count 1 enhancement merely as an exercise of sentencing discretion. The court was only authorized to strike or dismiss the enhancement, not to stay it even based on its own discretionary sense of justice. Based on principles of double jeopardy, retrial is barred.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53(j)

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

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 355, 364

Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 132–133 [“Because the prosecution had a full opportunity to prove the facts necessary for a conviction but failed to do so, double jeopardy bars a second bite at the apple”]

Curry v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 712 [jeopardy attaches when a defendant is placed on trial in a court of competent jurisdiction on a valid accusatory pleading]

Ninth Holding:

In January 2011, appellant was 16 years old when he committed the present crimes. In 2012, he was charged directly in adult court. In 2016, appellant filed a motion for remand to the juvenile court and a transfer hearing under Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57). Proposition 57 was passed in November 2016, and it prohibited prosecutors from charging crimes against juveniles directly in adult court.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 303

Tenth Holding:

Before sentencing occurred in this matter, AB 2361 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. These changes were effective January 1, 2023.

AB 2361 increased the burden of proof the prosecution was required to establish in order for a juvenile to be prosecuted in adult criminal court.

Under the newer heightened standard, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that a juvenile should be transferred to adult criminal court.

These developments materially changed the requirements for transfer in effect when the defendant originally waived his right to a transfer hearing. AB 2361 applies retroactively to nonfinal cases.

Authority:

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 416

In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1284

Eleventh Holding:

A person who is eligible to have his case proceed in juvenile court may knowingly waive this statutory right. A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.

A criminal defendant cannot be deemed to have waived or forfeited a legal argument that was not recognized at the time of his trial. Even where a right may be waived, a waiver generally does not include protections that were not reasonably available or contemplated at the time.

The matter must be remanded to the juvenile court to conduct a transfer hearing.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1620

People v. Johnson (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 123, 132 [legal counsel may waive the right to a juvenile fitness hearing for an accused who has reached adulthood]

Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) 304 U.S. 458, 464

People v. Cardenas (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1468, 1479

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 48 [in a negotiated plea, waiver of right to jury trial on charged offenses does not extend to proof of aggravating circumstances when no such jury right was recognized at time of plea]

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 85 [general waiver of right to appeal from a negotiated plea agreement will not bar the appeal of sentencing errors occurring subsequent to the plea]
People v. Becerra (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 178, 188 [defendant cannot knowingly and intelligently waive right to appeal an issue not contemplated at time of waiver].

 

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

Case 000922

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that the minor committed count 1 (conspiracy to commit assault with a firearm).

First Holding:

Conspiracy is an inchoate crime. A conviction of conspiracy requires proof that the defendant and another person had the specific intent to agree or conspire to commit an offense, as well as the specific intent to commit the elements of that offense, together with proof of the commission of an overt act by one or more of the parties to such agreement in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Criminal conspiracy is an offense distinct from the actual commission of a criminal offense that is the object of the conspiracy. Other than the agreement, the only act required is an overt act by any of the conspirators, not necessarily the defendant, and that overt act need not itself be criminal. Conspiracy thus criminalizes preparatory conduct at an earlier stage than an attempt to commit a crime.

As an inchoate crime, conspiracy fixes the point of legal intervention at the time of agreement to commit a crime, and thus reaches further back into preparatory conduct than attempt. An overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy must occur after the agreement but before the completed offense.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2014) 60 Cal.4th 603, 616, superseded on other grounds in People v. Carr (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 136, 142

People v. Zamora (1976) 18 Cal.3d 538, 560, overruled in part on other grounds in Cowan v. Superior Court (1996) 14 Cal.4th 367, 376

People v. Brown (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1361, 1368

Second Holding:

Conspiracy requires specific intent to commit the target offense. The mental state elements of conspiracy require the prosecution to demonstrate the defendant had the specific intent both to agree to the conspiracy and to commit the object offense.

The two elements are distinct, but closely related. In some cases, it may be useful to distinguish between the two elements, especially when evidence of one is direct and the other is circumstantial. But in many cases, proof of the two specific intent elements will overlap.

Together, these two specific intent elements play a critical role in a conspiracy prosecution: Proof of these elements is what separates a coconspirator from a mere bystander to the crime.

Authority:

People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 164

People v. Swain (1996) 12 Cal.4th 593, 600

People v. Marsh (1962) 58 Cal.2d 732, 742–744 [focusing on intent to commit a crime where there was clear evidence of intent to agree]

People v. Beck and Cruz (2019) 8 Cal.5th 548, 629 [focusing on intent to agree where there was clear evidence of intent to commit a crime]

Third Holding:

The First Amendment forbids punishing a person merely for associating with others—even as part of a group premised on a violent aim. Because the law will not recognize a rule of guilt by association, we insist on proof of a defendant’s knowledge of, and specific intent to further, the group’s unlawful ends.

Authority:

Scales v. United States (1961) 367 U.S. 203

Elfbrandt v. Russell (1966) 384 U.S. 11, 19 [A law that applies to membership without the specific intent to further the illegal aims of the organization rests on the doctrine of guilt by association, which has no place here]

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) 561 U.S. 1, 18 [noting that mere membership in, or association with, an organization that advocates terrorism cannot itself be criminalized]

Fourth Holding:

To prove conspiracy, the prosecution need not establish the intent to participate in every act necessary to complete the object offense. But ultimately, to connect any individual to the charged conspiracy, the prosecution must at least establish that the individual specifically intended to agree to commit the criminal offense and to play at least some role in achieving it.

Authority:

Salinas v. United States (1997) 522 U.S. 52, 63 [A conspiracy may exist even if a conspirator does not agree to commit or facilitate each and every part of the substantive offense]

People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 166-167

Fifth Holding:

We must review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment, and then determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sufficiency determinations necessarily take account of the standard of proof that applied before the trial court.

That is why in criminal cases we must ensure the record demonstrates substantial evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

Sixth Holding:

We must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.

But we cannot, however, venture beyond the evidence presented at trial, and may consider only those inferences that are reasonably supported by the record.

A reasonable inference may not be based on suspicion alone, or on imagination, speculation, supposition, surmise, conjecture, or guess work. It must logically flow from other facts established in the action, and it cannot be based entirely on the suspicions of the officers involved in the case and the conjecture of the prosecution.

In sum, after considering the record in its entirety, we conclude that the evidence presented at the contested jurisdiction hearing is insufficient to show that minor had the requisite specific intent to participate in a conspiracy to commit the target offense of assault with a firearm.

(Gary note: I omitted the recitation of facts the court relied on to reach its conclusion after applying the various principles set forth in the opinion and this summary.)

Authority:

People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 167-168

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

Case 000908

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted of three charges, including two counts of conspiracy. Under the circumstances in this case, he could be convicted of only a single count of conspiracy. We reverse the conviction on count 3.

First Holding:

The defendant was charged with explosion causing mayhem and great bodily injury in count 1, conspiracy to discharge a firearm from a motor vehicle in count 2), and conspiracy to commit assault with a firearm in count 3. Both conspiracy convictions both convictions arose from a single agreement and the single criminal objective of shooting the victim.

A defendant may be convicted of only a single count of conspiracy based on a single agreement. It is well settled that the essence of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement, and thus it is the number of the agreements (not the number of the victims or number of statutes violated) that determine the number of the conspiracies. The gist of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement or confederation of the conspirators to commit one or more unlawful acts. The conspiracy is the crime, and that is one, however diverse its objects.

Authority:

People v. Meneses (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1648, 1669

People v. Lopez (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1551, 1557 [One agreement gives rise to only a single offense, despite any multiplicity of objects]

Braverman v. United States (1942) 317 U.S. 49, 53

Second Holding:

Where a defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction, we review the whole 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.

We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. This standard applies whether direct or circumstantial evidence is involved. The evidence presented in this case supports only that there was a single agreement to commit one shooting of the victim.

Authority:

People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1251

Third Holding:

That the single shooting may have violated two separate criminal statutes is immaterial.

Authority:

People v. Patrick (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 952, 965 [noting that a single agreement to commit acts which, if completed, would constitute more than one substantive crime, is but a single conspiracy]

People v. Meneses (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1648, 1669 [Whether the object of a single agreement is to commit one or many crimes, it is in either case that agreement which constitutes the conspiracy which the statute punishes]

Fourth Holding:

If the felony is conspiracy to commit two or more felonies which have different punishments and the commission of those felonies constitute but one offense of conspiracy, the penalty shall be that prescribed for the felony which has the greater maximum term. Here, because the maximum punishment for count 2 is seven years and the maximum punishment for count 3 is four years , count 3, having the lesser maximum term, must be reversed.

Authority:

PEN 182(a)

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000904

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court denied the defendant’s application for mental health diversion, finding that although defendant was eligible for diversion, he was not suitable because he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

There is insufficient evidence of an unreasonable risk that defendant will commit a super strike offense if treated in the community. We will reverse the judgment and remand the matter for a new hearing on defendant’s present suitability for mental health diversion.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 1001.36 gives a trial court discretion to grant pretrial diversion for individuals with certain mental health disorders. The trial court can postpone prosecution at any time in the judicial process, either temporarily or permanently, to allow the defendant to undergo treatment. The Legislature intended the mental health diversion program to apply as broadly as possible.

Authority:

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

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147-1149

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 133

Second Holding:

A defendant must be both eligible and suitable for mental health diversion. A defendant is eligible under section 1001.36 (b) if (1) the defendant has been diagnosed by a qualified mental health expert with a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the DSM; and (2) the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

Authority:

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 133

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891

Third Holding:

As for suitability, four circumstances must be satisfied: (1) in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert the defendant’s mental disorder would respond to treatment; (2) the defendant consents to diversion and agrees to waive his or her speedy trial rights; (3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment requirements; and (4) if treated in the community, the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as defined in section 1170.18.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(1)-(4)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891-892

Fourth Holding:

A defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety under section 1170.18(c) if there is an unreasonable risk that the defendant will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv), otherwise known as a super strike.

The enumerated super strike offenses include murder, attempted murder, solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a police officer, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, a serious or violent felony punishable by death or life imprisonment, a sexually violent offense, or a sexual offense committed against a minor under the age of 14.

Authority:

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 679

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for mental health diversion for abuse of discretion. A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary decision by applying the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.

There is no evidence defendant had been previously charged with a super strike offense, and his current offense is not a super strike. Defendant’s criminal history consists of two nonviolent felonies and four misdemeanor offenses. At the time of the hearing on his application, defendant was doing well in an outpatient program. He had successfully engaged in a treatment program for six months, he was maintaining housing and a job, he had not reoffended, and his treatment provider recommended defendant continue treatment in the community.

On this record, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of an unreasonable risk that defendant will commit a super strike offense if treated in the community.

Authority:

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 135

Due process, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000882

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though the defendant was convicted of section 243.4(a), the correct code section for the pleaded and proved crime was section 243.4(d), and we modify the judgment accordingly. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.

(Gary note: I stretch to count this as a win, because it did not really provide any relief. But it contains some important principles on what happens when the allegation describes conduct but lists the incorrect code section for it. So I decided to include it. Yep. My bar for inclusion is very low.)

First Holding:

Adequate notice to the defendant of the offense with which he is charged is not determined solely by the charging statute. A reference to an incorrect penal statute can be overcome by factual allegations adequate to inform the defendant of the crime charged.

The defendant was amply acquainted with the basis for count 3 and argues no prejudice from being charged under the wrong subdivision of section 243.4. The victim testified to the conduct underlying count 3 at the preliminary hearing and then again at trial. There is no dispute the evidence supports a conviction under subdivision (d).

Authority:

People v. Haskin (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1439

People v. Thomas (1987) 43 Cal.3d 818, 826–827, 832

People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 427–428

(Gary note: the court did not cite it, but section 1260 provides that the appellate court may modify a judgment, among several other actions. While it does not specifically say that the court can modify the judgment by having it reflect a different code section than was alleged, the above cases make it clear that specification of a code section does not necessarily control whether the defendant has been placed on adequate notice of the conduct he is accused of.)

Second Holding:

We review de novo whether the trial court’s instructions on the law were correct. When instructions are claimed to be erroneous, conflicting, or ambiguous, we ask whether jurors were reasonably likely to have construed them in a manner that violates the defendant’s rights. We look to the instructions as a whole and the entire record of trial, including the arguments of counsel.

We assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions given. Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.

Authority:

People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088

People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028

People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 873

People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 720

Third Holding:

The defendant argues the trial evidence does not support the conclusion that the victim was particularly vulnerable. We review an aggravating factor finding for substantial evidence. The court must review the whole 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 aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt. We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Mendez-Torres (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1020

People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 806

People v. Alvarado (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 178, 195 [inability to speak English can be a factor suggesting particular vulnerability]

People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 413 [noting vulnerability from victim being alone]

People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 638 [noting vulnerability from victim being told a false story to get the victim into a private space]

People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 203 [noting a vulnerable position arises from exploiting a false sense of security]