AppellateAdvisor Law Library Background

Case Summaries

Welcome to the Appellate Advisor blog! Please feel free to scroll through the case summaries in chronological order, or search by keyword, category, or tags. It may be helpful to start with the Welcome Post.

Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 000587

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal from a hearing under section 1172.75, the appellate court struck the balance of the restitution fine as it was ordered more than 10 years prior to the resentencing.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9 was amended and now provides that, upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Second Holding:

Respondent asserts the trial court did not impose the restitution fine nor parole revocation fine at the time of resentencing and therefore it must be stricken for that reason. Generally, respondent is correct.

Authority:

People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 303

People v. Frederickson (2020) 8 Cal.5th 963, 1027 [striking a restitution fine from the record and the abstract of judgment where the court failed to orally impose the fine during the sentencing hearing]

People v. Nilsson (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1, 34 [resentencing necessarily requires a court to impose a new sentence, including any fines, fees, and assessments]

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [the oral pronouncement of judgment controls]

Third Holding:

In this instance, however, the trial court merely reaffirmed the original judgment with the exception of striking the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement. The judgment following the resentencing is not yet final, we conclude appellant is entitled to have the restitution fine stricken. As appellant’s restitution fine was first imposed more than 10 years ago, it is now unenforceable and uncollectible under section 1465.9(d).

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 601, review granted on another issue Mar. 11, 2026, S295038

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744–745 [absent evidence to the contrary, we presume ameliorative criminal statutes apply retroactively to all nonfinal judgments]

Fourth Holding:

Section 1465.9(d) does not apply to the parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45. In Kopp, the court vacated any unpaid portion of the defendant’s restitution fine under section 1465.9(d), but nonetheless remanded the matter because a parole revocation fine is still required and was to be set in the same amount as the restitution fine would have been had the court properly considered the defendant’s ability to pay and stayed.

Further, section 1465.9 makes no mention of the parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45. We are not to insert a term that was not included in a statute or omit a term that has been included. Although a parole revocation fine is closely related to a restitution fine in that they must be imposed at the same time and in the same amounts, a parole revocation fine serves a different purpose, i.e., to deter a prisoner from violating parole, to incentivize a prisoner’s rehabilitation while on parole, and to recoup costs if parole is violated. That purpose is still relevant where, as here, an inmate might one day be paroled. No principle or authority supports vacating the parole revocation fine.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 12, 24, 30

People v. Massicot (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 920, 925

People v. Preston (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 415, 427, 429

Fifth Holding:

It was unnecessary for the trial court to recalculate the defendant’s credit for time served. The sentence from which this appeal was taken has not yet begun to be served, because it was ordered to run consecutive to the one he is currently serving from another county. Under other circumstances, a court may be required to calculate custody credits on a sentence imposed by another county. The present case presents does not present such a circumstance.

Authority:

People v. Phoenix (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1126 [in a determinate sentence case, sentencing court’s imposition of a consecutive sentence replaced another county’s sentence; the second county became the sentencing court]

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000586

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion in finding the defendant unsuitable for mental health diversion, citing an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

First Holding:

The primary goal of section 1001.36 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. Advances in psychology and neuroscience inform this goal.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Ct. (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 898

Second Holding:

Section 1001.36 narrowly defines an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as requiring an unreasonable risk that the defendant will commit one of several statutorily enumerated violent felonies colloquially known as super strikes.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

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

Third Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision on whether to grant section 1001.36 diversion for abuse of discretion. In this context, 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.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

In concluding that the defendant posed such a danger, the court found she was likely to continue selling fentanyl, that the fentanyl she sold was likely to kill someone, and that she could be prosecuted for such a death on a theory of implied malice murder. According to the court, this established an unreasonable risk that the defendant would commit a super strike—murder—and the court denied diversion.

The court’s reasoning rests on purely speculative factual findings unsupported by any evidence. Speculation is not evidence, less still substantial evidence. The court did not cite any other basis for denying diversion, nor do the People cite an alternative basis for affirming the court’s order. The court abused its discretion in denying diversion on this basis. Accordingly, we reverse.

Authority:

Wise v. DLA Piper LLP (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1188

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

Amelioration, Discretion, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000585

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the trial court declined to consider dismissing a firearm enhancement, citing its desire not to get involved in changing the sentence of the original sentencing court and not to usurp the role of the parole board in assessing when defendant was ready for release. Because these rationales reflect an abdication of the court’s duty to exercise its sentencing discretion, we must reverse and remand for the court to exercise that discretion at a new, full resentencing.

First Holding:

The failure to exercise discretion is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 744

Dickson Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 449

Second Holding:

Where, as here, a defendant was originally sentenced for a prior prison term enhancement that arose from a conviction that was not a sexually violent offense, that defendant is entitled to a full resentencing where that enhancement is to be stricken and where the trial court is to apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 875

Third Holding:

The law regarding the 25 years-to-life firearm enhancement has changed since defendant’s original sentencing hearing in 2004: At that time, a trial court did not have discretion to dismiss that enhancement; since January 1, 2018, trial courts have had the power to dismiss firearm enhancements under section 12022.53 entirely or to substitute a lesser firearm enhancement in their place.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 695-696

Fourth Holding:

Although we review a trial court’s discretionary sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion a trial court abuses its discretion when it refuses to exercise that discretion. That is what happened here: What was supposed to be a full resentencing was merely a reaffirmation of a prior sentence and an abdication of discretionary decision-making to others whom the trial court believed were (or had been) better suited to the task. Section 1172.75 requires trial courts to get involved where, as here, the governing law has changed in a way that makes a lower sentence a possibility. What is more, section 1172.75 also enables a trial court to consider postconviction factors, which would be given no weight were a trial court to defer to the original sentence entered before any postconviction conduct comes to pass.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

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

People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 744

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

Fifth Holding:

The presumption of regularity is rebutted when a trial court affirmatively indicates that it is not following the law.

Authority:

People v. Carter (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 322, 324

People v. Panozo (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 825, 839 [where the record is not silent, but rather is ‘at the very least ambiguous as to whether the court understood its statutory obligation, remand is appropriate]

Sixth Holding:

Upon remand, the court is to conduct the full resentencing mandated by section 1172.75. At that time, the court should calculate defendant’s actual custody credits from the date of arrest through the date of resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

PEN 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29 [defendant entitled to all actual custody days since arrest, including date of resentencing]

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000584

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the restitution fine should not have been reimposed. The abstract of judgment reflects a parole revocation restitution fine that was not imposed. We will modify the judgment to vacate the restitution fine and direct that the trial court prepare an amended abstract of judgment removing the restitution fine and parole revocation restitution fine.

First Holding:

On resentencing, the court reimposed the original $5000 restitution fine, over the defendant’s objection that he had already paid it. Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9(d) provides that upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to Section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated. Here, the trial court reimposed defendant’s original fines, including a $5,000 restitution fine, 30 years after they were originally imposed. Therefore, any unpaid portion remaining on the $5,000 restitution fine must be vacated. The defendant advised the trial court that he had paid it in full, but regardless, any order regarding any remaining unpaid balance shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600-601, review granted Mar. 11, 2026, S295038 on another point

Second Holding:

The abstract of judgment lists a parole revocation fine of $5,000, but it was not ordered by the court. The abstract must be corrected accordingly.

[GARY note: The court cited no authority for its directive that the abstract of judgment be corrected. Likely because the error and cure seem so obvious. But there is plenty of authority for the court’s order, and I have set out some below.]

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

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

Case 000583

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though the trial court erred in failing to instruct that mere presence at the scene is insufficient to prove guilt, the error was harmless in light of the other evidence presented. The abstract of judgment is premature. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed the defendant on probation for two years. The abstract of judgment, however, indicates that the defendant was sentenced to state prison for two years. It must be corrected.

First Holding:

The abstract of judgment is premature. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed the defendant on probation for two years. The abstract of judgment, however, indicates that the defendant was sentenced to state prison for two years. it must be corrected.

(GARY note: The court cited no authority for its directive that the abstract of judgment be corrected. Likely because the error and cure seem so obvious. But there is plenty of authority for the court’s order, and I have set out some below.)

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

Second Holding:

We review questions of instructional error de novo. In so doing, we consider the jury instructions as a whole, as well as the charges and entire record.

Authority:

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

People v. Serrano (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 902, 909

Third Holding:

In determining a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment 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 focus of the substantial evidence test is on the whole record of evidence presented to the trier of fact, rather than on isolated bits of evidence.Reversal on this ground is unwarranted unless it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conviction.

In other words, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard is the same in cases in which the People rely primarily on circumstantial evidence. If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.

Authority:

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

People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252, 261

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

People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1055

People v. Bean (1988) 46 Cal.3d 919, 932

Fourth Holding:

A person aids and abets the commission of a crime when he or she, acting with (1) knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator; and (2) the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the offense, and (3) by act or advice aids, promotes, encourages or instigates the commission of the crime. Whether a person has aided and abetted a crime is a question of fact for which the trier of fact may consider presence at the scene of the crime, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense. The requisite state of mind may be proven with circumstantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1054-1055

Fifth Holding:

Although defendant’s mere presence at the scene cannot alone establish aiding and abetting, her presence may be considered along with other evidence to establish that she aided and abetted the burglary. Further, possession of recently stolen property cannot alone establish burglary, but such possession is highly incriminating and need only be slightly corroborated.

Authority:

People v. Pettie (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 23, 57

People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1055

People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 176

People v. McFarland (1962) 58 Cal.2d 748, 754-755

Sixth Holding:

It is settled that in criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, the trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence. The general principles of law governing the case are those principles closely and openly connected with the facts before the court, and which are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case. The trial court has a sua sponte duty to give the mere presence portion of the aiding and abetting instructions where there is substantial evidence supporting its consideration.

Authority:

People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 422

People v. Boyd (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 541, 557

Seventh Holding:

We conclude that the defendant’s testimony was sufficient to trigger the trial court’s sua sponte duty to give the mere presence portion of the aiding and abetting instruction. However, whether prejudice is to be measured under the Watson standard or the more rigorous Chapman standard, we find beyond a reasonable doubt that the failure to instruct was harmless, in light of our review of the entire record, including the arguments of the parties.

Authority:

People v. Boyd (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 541, 557

People v. Perry (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 251, 260

People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 715

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

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