Category Archives: Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000481

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Denial of the petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 is reversed, and the matter is remanded for the court to redetermine whether petitioner acted with reckless indifference to human life, taking into consideration his youth at the time of the offense. We also conclude substantial evidence does not support the court’s finding that petitioner aided and abetted the murder with intent to kill and the denial of the petition therefore cannot be upheld on this alternative ground.

First Holding:

Although petitioner briefly argued in the superior court that his youth should be considered in the court’s analysis of whether he was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, the superior court did not address this argument. Indeed, the superior court may have felt compelled to conclude, based on the state of the law at the time, that petitioner’s youth was not a relevant factor, given that petitioner was a young adult at the time he committed the offense and not a juvenile.

We continue to find there was substantial evidence for the trial court to conclude that the defendant acted with indifference of human life, but pending this appeal, there have been cases that squarely hold that the court should consider youth of a nonjuvenile in that determination.

If we do not address this issue, petitioner may be able to file a second petition for resentencing in the superior court to have the court consider his youth as part of the totality of circumstances bearing on whether he acted with reckless indifference to human life. In the interests of justice and for the sake of judicial economy, we address this argument on the merits. We conclude that petitioner is entitled to a new evidentiary hearing to apply new law relating to the effect, if any, of his youth on the court’s reckless indifference finding.

Authority:

People v. Jimenez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 994, 1008

Second Holding:

We review the court’s findings for substantial evidence. Under this standard, we review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner acted with reckless indifference.

Authority:

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

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

Third Holding:

In the first stage of this appeal–before review was granted and the matter was transferred back to this court–petitioner raised the argument (that the court should take into consideration the defendant’s youth) in his reply brief for the first time. Ordinarily, we do not consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief. As such, this argument was not addressed in our prior opinion.

Authority:

In re Luke H. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1090

Fourth Holding:

During the pendency of this appeal, the appellate court in Jones addressed the relevance of youth to the reckless indifference finding in a case involving a young adult who was 20 years old at the time of the offense.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1076, 1091–1093

Fifth Holding:

In Oliver, the appellate court assumed, without deciding, that the trial court was required to consider the petitioner’s youth (23 years of age) in reference to the petitioner’s mental state, but held that its failure to do so was harmless under the standard of Watson

Authority:

People v. Oliver (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 466, 488–489 and fn. 8

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

Sixth Holding:

In Pittman, the court applied the Watson standard and concluded there was a reasonable possibility the failure to consider the petitioner’s youth impacted the trial court’s decision. The court noted inferences of immaturity could be drawn from the fact that the petitioner was 21 years old when he participated in the attack with two peers who were 16 and 17 years old. Additionally, the crime suggested the participants acted impulsively, under the influence of rashness, and while intoxicated. Thus, the court determined the interests of justice were best served by remanding for the court to consider whether youth impacted the petitioner’s ability to form the requisite mental state for second degree murder.

Authority:

People v. Pittman (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 400, 417-418

Seventh Holding:

In Jiminez, the appellate court agreed that there had been a significant change in the law governing young adult offenders since the ruling on the first petition, and therefore the doctrines of collateral estoppel and law of the case did not apply. In this regard, the court noted that early cases addressing this issue of a petitioner’s youth applied only to juvenile offenders under the age of 18, and only to the major participant and reckless indifference findings.

Thereafter, however, the law was expanded to hold that youth was a consideration for other mental state requirements, including implied malice, and additionally expanded to include young adults who were in their late teens and early 20’s when they committed the crimes. Additionally, the Legislature had enacted similar changes to a variety of statutes to expand youth-related considerations to persons 25 years of age and younger. The court also determined that the error in failing to consider the petitioner’s age was not harmless under the Watson standard.

Authority:

People v. Jimenez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 994, 1001-1004

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

Case 000468

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on the defendant’s petition for mental health diversion, and substantial evidence does not support its ineligibility finding. The court also erred by accepting a guilty to plea to conduct that is not criminal. We reverse defendant’s possession of marijuana conviction, conditionally vacate the remainder of defendant’s guilty pleas, conditionally reverse the judgment, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with section 1001.36 and this opinion.

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 authorizes pretrial diversion for criminal defendants suffering from certain recognized mental disorders. To qualify, criminal defendants must show they are both eligible and suitable for the program. A defendant accused of a qualifying offense is eligible for mental health diversion if, within the last five years, a qualified mental health expert has diagnosed the defendant with a qualifying mental health disorder that was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

A qualifying diagnosis creates a rebuttable presumption that the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense, which may only be overcome if there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating factor, casual factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. For purposes of the diversion statute, a qualified mental health expert includes, but is not limited to, a psychiatrist, psychologist, or a person whose knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education qualifies them as an expert. The statute’s plain language does not limit a qualified mental health expert to a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other medical doctor.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b), (f)

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

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

People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1138, 1141 [appellate court interprets a statute to effectuate the law’s purpose, applying a plain and commonsense meaning to the statute’s text]

Second Holding:

A substance use disorder registered counselor must complete hundreds of hours of classroom education and supervised training regarding addiction counseling, at least over 2,000 hours of work providing counseling services in an alcohol or drug program, and must pass an examination confirming their skill and ability. Under these circumstances, a substance abuse disorder registered counselor possesses the knowledge, skill, experience, training and education to make a substance use disorder diagnosis under the statute.

Authority:

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 9, sec. 13040(a)-(d)

Third Holding:

Where there has been a qualifying diagnosis, it is the People’s burden to overcome by clear and convincing evidence the statutory presumption that the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense. Here, the People did not present any evidence to support a finding that defendant’s substance use disorders were not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to his commission of the charged drug and firearm possession offenses. Argument by counsel is not evidence in the case and cannot be relied upon to support the trial court’s order.

Despite the lack of evidence, the trial court ruled, based on “common sense,” that possession for sale offenses like defendant’s could not be causally connected to a substance use disorder and that the Legislature could not have intended section 1001.36 to apply to possession of narcotics for sale cases because a vast majority of the felony cases before the court involved drugs. In essence, the trial court carved out a wholesale exception to mental health diversion for possession for sale offenses that does not appear in the plain text of the statute. This was error. It is a corollary to fundamental principles of separation of powers that courts must apply the statutes as written unless doing so would yield absurd results.

Authority:

People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485, 491

Fourth Holding:

The absence of evidence showing defendant’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses cannot satisfy the People’s burden to rebut the statutory presumption by clear and convincing evidence.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391,404 [the absence of evidence proving that a petitioner’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses is not substantial evidence supporting a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner’s mental disorder was not a factor in the commission of the offenses]

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 687-689 [By finding the statutory presumption had been overcome by the lack of indication in the police reports that the defendant was suffering from the mental disorder at the time of a robbery, the trial court improperly shifted the burden to the defendant to affirmatively prove that her mental disorder contributed to the offense.]

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s order denying mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard, or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. We presume a trial court’s order is correct and indulge all intendments and reasonable inferences to support it. Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume a trial court knew and applied the law.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448-449

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

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042

Sixth Holding:

It was error for the court to accept the defendant’s guilty plea to an act that was not criminal. The information alleged that he was in possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. Possession of marijuana is not criminal unless it is of more than 28.5 grams. By accepting defendant’s guilty plea to conduct that is not criminal, and sentencing him for that offense, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction. Accordingly, we shall modify the judgment to vacate defendant’s conviction and sentence on that count.

Authority:

People v. Mutch (1971) 4 Cal.3d 389, 395-396, 399 [conviction for conduct not prohibited by statute is void]

People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781, 784-785 [the defendant could not have been guilty of violating Penal Code section 115 by attempting to file a forged instrument because, as a matter of law, the writing he was charged with and admitted forging, a death certificate, is not an instrument within the meaning of section 115]

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

Case: 000433

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to deny defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6, because substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s findings that he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) overhauled the state’s murder statutes to more equitably sentence offenders according to their involvement in homicide offenses. It amended section 188 to require that a principal act with express or implied malice and amended section 189 to state that a person can be liable for felony murder only if: (1) the person was the actual killer; (2) the person, with an intent to kill, was an aider or abettor in the commission of murder in the first degree; or (3) the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.

These ameliorative changes eliminated murder based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other imputed malice theories based solely on a person’s participation in a crime and narrowed the first degree felony murder rule. The Legislature has since expanded eligibility for relief to those convicted of manslaughter. Individuals convicted under the former law may seek retroactive relief under the law as amended pursuant to section 1172.6 Where the trial court issues an order to show cause and holds an evidentiary hearing, the prosecution bears the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder under California law as amended by the changes to section 188 or 189.

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 1172.6

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

People v. Strong (2002) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707 [SB 1437 significantly limited the scope of the felony-murder rule]

Second Holding:

We review the denial of a section 1172.6 petition following an evidentiary hearing for substantial evidence. Our job on review is different from the trial judge’s job in deciding the petition. While the trial judge must review all the relevant evidence, evaluate and resolve contradictions, and make determinations as to credibility, all under the reasonable doubt standard, our job is to determine whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support a rational fact finder’s findings beyond a reasonable doubt.

We examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value that would support a rational trier of fact in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not reweigh the evidence or revisit credibility issues, but rather presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact that could reasonably be deduced from the evidence. Where the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, a reviewing court’s conclusion the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant the judgment’s reversal.

Authority:

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

People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 298

People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 657-658

People v. Pham (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 919, 924-925

People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 358

Third Holding:

When SB 1437 amended Penal Code section 189 to incorporate major participation and reckless indifference requirements, it codified the understanding of those requirements elucidated in Banks and Clark. Banks and Clark, in turn, utilized Tison and Enmund as guideposts to delineate the contours of the major participant and reckless indifference standards for felony murder.

Banks and Clark laid out nonexclusive lists of factors that a court may consider when determining whether a defendant is a major participant in felony murder, or acted with reckless indifference to human life. No one of the Banks or Clark factors is necessary, nor is any one of them necessarily sufficient to establish a defendant was a major participant or acted recklessly indifferent to a grave risk of death during an offense.

Authority:

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 803

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 616, 618

Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137

Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782

People v. Strong (2002) 13 Cal.5th 698, 710

Fourth Holding:

Reckless indifference to human life is implicit in knowingly engaging in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death. It encompasses a willingness to kill or to assist another in killing to achieve a distinct aim, even if the defendant does not specifically desire that death as the outcome of his actions.

Recklessness has both a subjective and an objective component. Subjectively, the defendant must consciously disregard risks known to him. Objectively, recklessness is determined by what a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation, that is, whether defendant’s conduct involved a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person in the actor’s situation would observe. Participation in a garden-variety armed robbery, i.e., one in which the only factor supporting a reckless indifference finding is that a participant was armed with a gun, is insufficient without more to establish reckless indifference.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 616-617

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 884

In re Scoggins (2020) 9 Cal.5th 667, 677 [the fact a participant or planner of an armed robbery could anticipate lethal force might be used is not sufficient to establish reckless indifference to human life]

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case: 000432

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to deny the petition for recall of sentence for attempted murder under section 1172.6 because there was insufficient evidence of intent to kill. We reverse the order denying the petition and remand the matter with directions for the trial court to grant the resentencing petition, vacate the attempted murder conviction, and resentence on the remaining charges.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted SB 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) to eliminate the natural and probable consequences doctrine and to limit application of the felony murder rule. Except in cases of felony murder, a principal must act with malice aforethought to be convicted of murder, and malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime. A defendant convicted of murder or attempted murder under a now-invalid theory may petition the sentencing court to have his or her conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts under section 1172.6.

Authority:

PEN 188(a)(3)

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448–449

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708

Second Holding:

At the evidentiary hearing, the prosecution bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of murder or attempted murder under a currently valid theory. If the prosecution fails to sustain its burden of proof, the prior conviction, and any allegations and enhancements attached to the conviction, shall be vacated and the petitioner shall be resentenced on the remaining charges.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(d)(3)

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s factual findings following a section 1172.6(d) hearing for substantial evidence. We review the entire record in the light most favorable to the court’s order to determine whether any rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 298

People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87

Fourth Holding:

To prove the crime of attempted murder, the prosecution must establish ‘the specific intent to kill and the commission of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing. To be guilty of attempted murder, the defendant must intend to kill the alleged victim, not someone else. A defendant cannot be convicted of attempting to kill someone if the defendant is not aware that person is present. Because direct evidence of a defendant’s intent is rare, intent to kill may be inferred from the defendant’s acts and the circumstances of the crime.

Authority:

People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591, 602

People v. Mumin (2023) 15 Cal.5th 176, 191

People v. Ibarra (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1070, 1079

People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 741

Fifth Holding:

A defendant may be convicted of attempted murder as a direct aider and abettor. To be convicted under such a theory, the defendant must give aid or encouragement with knowledge of the direct perpetrator’s intent to kill and with the purpose of facilitating the direct perpetrator’s accomplishment of the intended killing—which means that the person guilty of attempted murder as an aider and abettor must intend to kill.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1054

Sixth Holding:

Without any evidence that someone inside the co-defendant’s car targeted or otherwise shot at another person when they fired the underlying shots, we can only speculate as to whether the defendant acted with the intent to kill. Speculation is not substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 735

Seventh Holding:

The trial court also improperly relied on its own experience as a former gang prosecutor when it denied the petition, noting that it had prosecuted several cases against members of a gang in the 1990’s in explaining why it found that the defendant acted with the intent to kill. The court’s personal experience is not evidence.

Authority:

Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 236, 286

Eighth Holding:

When admitting a sentencing enhancement, the defendant admits only the facts necessary to establish the enhancement’s elements.

Authority:

People v. Estrada (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 328, 338

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

Case: 000393

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding that the open beer can in this case was a deadly weapon. The conviction for assault with a deadly weapon is reversed.

First Holding:

We review a claim of insufficient evidence under the substantial evidence standard of review. The test is whether there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trier of fact; it is not whether guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence is evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value. We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. It must clearly appear that on no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the verdict.

Authority:

In re Ryan N. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1372

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

In re I.C. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 869, 892

People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87

People v. Conners (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 443, 453

Second Holding:

Objects may be deadly weapons as a matter of law, such as dirks and blackjacks, because the ordinary use for which they are designed establishes their character as such. On the other hand, pocket knives, canes, hammers and hatchets are not deemed deadly weapons per se.

Authority:

People v. Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023, 1029

People v. Graham (1969) 71 Cal.2d 303, 327, disapproved on other grounds by People v. Ray (1970) 14 Cal.3d 20

Third Holding:

Objects may be determined to be deadly weapons when used in a manner capable of producing and likely to produce great bodily injury. “Likely” means a high probability of occurring with a great probability of serious injury. Rolls of coins, batteries, and bicycle footrests have been determined to be deadly weapons when used in a manner capable of producing and likely to produce great bodily injury. No injury or even physical contact is required to support a conviction of assault with a deadly weapon because the focus is on the use of the weapon in a manner likely to produce great bodily injury.

Authority:

In re B.M. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 528, 533 [the manner of use must by capable of and likely to produce death or great bodily injury – two different concepts]

In re David V. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 23, 30 and fn. 5

People v. Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023, 1028

Fourth Holding:

The use of an object in a manner likely to produce death or great bodily injury requires more than a mere possibility that serious injury could have resulted from the way the object was used. Conjecture as to how the object could have been used is not permitted in the analysis. Rather, the determination of whether an object is a deadly weapon under section 245(a)(1) must rest on evidence of how the defendant actually used the object.

Authority:

In re B.M. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 528, 534

Fifth Holding:

If injury does occur, such injuries and their location are relevant in determining whether the object was used in a manner likely to produce great bodily injury. Great bodily injury means significant or substantial injury. Insignificant, trivial or moderate injury is not significant or substantial. Our inquiry is limited to whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that the defendant used the open beer can as a deadly weapon, that is, in a manner capable of producing and likely to produce great bodily injury.

On this record, the defendant’s use of the beer can, tossed from six feet away in a slight overhand manner or with a slinging or flicking motion was not likely to cause serious bodily injury or death. The victim did not sustain great bodily injury, significant or substantial injury, or even anything greater than minor or moderate harm. There was little or no objective description of the can or its weight, and it was not introduced into evidence. There was no evidence of sharp or jagged edges on the can, other data points that would have been relevant to determining the likelihood of producing great bodily injury.

Without more details, it is speculation that the open beer can, used as it was, was capable of producing and likely to produce great bodily injury. Perhaps the beer can, if wielded differently, may have been likely to cause great bodily injury, but our inquiry is limited to how the beer can was actually used.

Authority:

In re Brandon T. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1497

People v. Brown (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1, 7

People v. Quinonez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 457, 464

In re Manuel G. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 805, 822–825

People v. Hahn (1956) 147 Cal.App.2d 308, 309–310 [assault with a deadly weapon occurred when robbery victim driving a car was struck on the head four times with a beer can by passenger sitting behind him]

People v. Beasley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1087, 1088 [bruises on arms and shoulders, without further injury, not great bodily injury]

In re Brandon T. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1497 [small scratch on cheek not great bodily injury]

In re D.T. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 693, 696–697 [sharp pocketknife poked into the victim’s back likely to produce great bodily injury]

People v. Page (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1469, 1474 [sharp pencil held to the victim’s neck likely to produce great bodily injury]

People v. Duke (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 296, 303