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, Sentencing

Case 000582

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is reversed and remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court, in accordance with this opinion and Kopp, to determine whether the defendant has the ability to pay the various fines, fees, and assessments it previously imposed.

Holding:

While this case was on appeal, the Kopp court concluded that a trial court must conduct an ability-to-pay hearing before imposing a (1) restitution fine above the statutory minimum of $300; or ancillary fees. The Supreme Court also found that, if requested by the defendant, the court must consider the defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment (sec. 1465(a)(1)) or a court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373(a)(1)), allowing the parties on remand to present any relevant evidence or argument on the matter. On remand the defendant shall be afforded the opportunity to assert legal analyses applicable to such a challenge under the excessive fines clauses and argue how the particular facts of this case inform such an inquiry.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 8th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23, 31

Second Holding:

Inability to pay may be considered only in increasing the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the minimum fine pursuant to section 1202.4(c).

Authority:

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

Elements of crime, Jury instructions

Case 000581

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The jury received a legally erroneous instruction on the elements of the gang conspiracy offense.

First Holding:

The trial court instructed the jury on count 10 as follows: The defendant is charged with participating in a criminal street gang conspiracy, in violation of section 182.5. It is charged that the felony committed was murder, in violation of section 187(a) To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that: 1. The defendant was an active participant in a criminal street gang; 2. The defendant had knowledge that its members engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity; 3. The crime of murder, in violation of section 187 was committed by the gang in which the defendant belongs; and 4. The defendant intended to promote, further, assist, or benefit in the commission of the crime by other gang members.

The court failed to advise the jury that it must find defendant in fact promoted, furthered, assisted, or benefitted in the commission of the crime and did not just intend to do so.

Authority:

People v. Abbate (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 100, 110

Second Holding:

While there was sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to find the defendant guilty on count 10, it was far from overwhelming. The jury found the defendant not guilty on several of the counts charged against him. And the court’s instructional error was exacerbated by the prosecution’s argument that “the fourth element is that they either intended to further, to promote, or further assist in the commission of crimes of other gang members.

The reviewing court must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury. On this record, we cannot conclude that the instructional error was harmless. We will therefore vacate the conviction on count 10 and remand the matter to the trial court to allow the prosecution an opportunity to retry count 10.

Authority:

People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 746–747

People v. E.H. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 467, 480

People v. Lopez (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 327, 346

Third Holding:

A trial court must instruct on all lesser included offenses supported by substantial evidence, including voluntary manslaughter.

Authority:

People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 561

Due process, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000580

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Judgment is reversed and remanded for the court to consider the fines and fees imposed with regard to ability to pay and under the excessive fines doctrine.

First Holding:

In Kopp, the Supreme Court addressed how court-ordered payments should be analyzed when a defendant claims inability to pay. There are three categories: fines, ancillary costs, and victim restitution. “Fines” refers to penalties inflicted by the sovereign for commission of offenses. I.e., “fine” refers to a legislatively provided punishment following a criminal conviction.

By contrast, “ancillary costs” refers to payments that are generally not intended to punish for the commission of a crime but instead are funding mechanisms, created by the Legislature to reimburse a government agencies for expenditures or to otherwise fund a broad assortment of services. “Restitution” refers to payments made to compensate crime victims for economic loss caused by an offense.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 9, 11-12

Second Holding:

Restitution fines under section 1202.4 constitute punishment and therefore fines rather than true restitution and that parole revocation restitution fines under section 1202.45—which are in the same amount as restitution fines—are likewise punitive and therefore fines. Such fines do not need to be structured to reflect each person’s ability and avoid disproportionate burdens. Accordingly, due process does not require courts to consider the ability of defendants to pay fines before imposing them. Instead, excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 13-14, 22-23

Bearden v. Georgia (1983) 461 U.S. 660, 666, fn. 8

San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez (1973) 411 U.S. 1, 22

Third Holding:

Ancillary costs or assessments should be imposed on criminal defendants only if they have the ability to pay the costs, on equal protection grounds. Kopp noted that the Legislature has enacted a robust fee waiver system in civil cases. In addition, because both the civil operations and facilities assessments imposed on the defendant in Kopp were enacted to raise money for the courts and were ultimately deposited into the same fund, the Supreme Court concluded that there appears no rational basis to deny only indigent criminal defendants the ability to avoid those costs.

Accordingly, the court in Kopp directed the trial court on remand to consider the defendant’s ability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under section 1465.8 or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373.

Authority:

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

Racial Justice Act

Case 000579

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for relief pursuant to the California Racial Justice Act of 2020. We agree he made a prima facie showing of an RJA violation. We conditionally reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

First Holding:

The Racial Justice Act (RJA) provides: The state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. One way to show an RJA violation is by proving a law enforcement officer involved in the case exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin. If the defendant makes a prima facie showing of a violation, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

PEN 745

Second Holding:

The trial court erred in concluding that an officer whose comments may have indicated improper racial consideration was not involved in the case. The statute does not require the officer to be integral to the investigation, just somehow involved. The officer’s action in interviewing the victim constitutes involvement. A prima facie showing means that the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation of subdivision (a) occurred. A substantial likelihood requires more than a mere possibility, but less than a standard of more likely than not.

Authority:

PEN 745

Third Holding:

The trial court acted too soon by concluding that the officer was just “chatting about child molesters” and not directing his statements against the defendant’s heritage. The proper construction of the officer’s comments needed to be resolved at an evidentiary hearing. That is where the court can determine, as the trial court here aptly phrased it, whether a statement that may have some race or culturally related context actually showed bias or animus. A conditional reversal is warranted for the court to hold an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

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

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

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000578

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that placing the defendant on mental health diversion would present an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The denial of the request for diversion under section 1001.36 is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 gives trial courts the discretion to grant pretrial diversion for individuals suffering from certain mental health disorders. The statute defines pretrial diversion as the postponement of prosecution, either temporarily or permanently, at any point in the judicial process from the point at which the accused is charged until adjudication, to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment.

The maximum period of diversion is two years. If the defendant performs satisfactorily in diversion, then at the end of the period of diversion, the court shall dismiss the defendant’s criminal charges that were the subject of the criminal proceedings at the time of the initial diversion, and the arrest upon which the diversion was based shall be deemed never to have occurred.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

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

Second Holding:

Mental health diversion requires trial court findings that the defendant is both eligible for diversion and suitable for the program. The criteria for each are specified in the statute. Defendants are eligible if they have been diagnosed with a recognized mental disorder that was a significant factor in the commission of the criminal offense with which they are charged.

They are suitable if:

(1) in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s mental disorder would respond to treatment; (

2) the defendant agrees to waive their speedy trial rights;

(3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment requirements; and

(4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as defined in sections 1170.18 and 667(e)(2)(C)(iv).

Only the public safety suitability requirement necessitates a trial court finding.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b) and (c)

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

Third Holding:

As used throughout the Penal Code, “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” means an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv), which numerates particularly serious or violent felonies, known colloquially as “super strikes.”

Super strikes include any homicide offense, solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a police officer or firefighter, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, or any serious or violent felony punishable by life imprisonment or death.

Authority:

PEN 1172.18

People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 351

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892, fn. 4

Fourth Holding:

Assuming the defendant is both eligible and suitable, the trial court must also be satisfied that the recommended inpatient or outpatient program of mental health treatment will meet the specialized mental health treatment needs of the defendant. This is not an additional eligibility or suitability requirement the defendant must meet. Rather, section 1001.36(f)(1) read as a whole appears to contemplate an ongoing assessment to assure that defendants will receive appropriate treatment for their particular conditions as part of the diversion program.

Authority:

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1079

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

Fifth Holding:

Even where defendants make a prima facie showing that they meet all the express statutory requirements, the court may still exercise its discretion to deny diversion. But this residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law.

Authority:

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1079

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 888, 891

Wade v. Superior Court (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 694, 710

People v. Williams (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 990, 1001 [scope of discretion always resides in the particular law being applied]

Sixth Holding:

A trial court’s ruling on a motion for mental health diversion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. A trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a given defendant is a good candidate for mental health diversion. 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.

Authority:

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

People v. Oneal (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 581, 588

People v. Curry (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 314, 324

People v. Bunas (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 840, 848–849

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

Seventh Holding:

Section 1001.36(e) provides that the hearing on a defendant’s eligibility and suitability shall be informal and may proceed on offers of proof, reliable hearsay, and argument of counsel. In general, the court will find hearsay evidence trustworthy when there are sufficient indicia of reliability. The court, however, may not rely on unsubstantiated or unreliable evidence.

Authority:

People v. Buell (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 682, 689 [hearsay that bears a substantial guarantee of trustworthiness is admissible in probation revocation proceedings]