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.

Amelioration, Discretion, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case 000531

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant, whose original sentencing occurred prior to 1/1/2020, is eligible for full resentencing under section 1172.75 where his original sentence imposed sentence (whether or not stayed) on now-invalid prior prison term enhancements, even if later his sentence was modified on other grounds after 1-1-2020.

[GARY NOTE: The court, in this unpublished case, concluded that section 1172.75 applies to the original judgment, which was before 1/1/2020, and therefore the defendant was eligible despite any subsequent resentencing under section 1172.1. The decision rested on the Court of Appeals logic in interpreting the statutes, however, and did not otherwise cite any published case law. Since an unpublished decision cannot be cited as authority, the gold extracted in this summary does not specifically address the question reached by the court in this case.]

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid. It requires the court to vacate the entire sentence and hold a full resentencing hearing, applying any applicable ameliorative changes in the law since the original sentencing. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1054

People v. Dixon (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 236, 243

Second Holding:

Section 1172.1 authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and rehabilitations (CDCR) [as well as “the Board of Parole Hearings in the case of a defendant incarcerated in state prison, the county correctional administrator in the case of a defendant incarcerated in county jail, the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, or the Attorney General if the Department of Justice originally prosecuted the case”] to recommend to the superior court that the court recall a previously imposed sentence and resentence the defendant.

The CDCR recommendation furnishes the court with jurisdiction it would not otherwise have to recall and resentence and is an invitation to the court to exercise its equitable jurisdiction. The court may, on its own motion, within 120 days of the date of commitment or at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law, recall the sentence and commitment previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced, whether or not the defendant is still in custody. Whether recall on the invitation of the CDCR et al. or on its own motion, the new sentence, if any, cannot be greater than the initial sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1

People v. McMurray (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1035, 1

Third Holding:

If the resentencing request is from the Secretary of CDCR, the Board of Parole Hearings, a county correctional administrator, a district attorney, or the Attorney General, there shall be a presumption favoring recall and resentencing of the defendant, which may only be overcome if a court finds the defendant currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in section 1170.18(c) (an unreasonable risk that the defendant will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv)).

Authority:

PEN 1172.1(b)

People v. Braggs (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 809, 818

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s sentencing decisions in a section 1172.75 resentencing proceeding for abuse of discretion. However, where the appeal from a resentencing order raises questions of law, our review is de novo.

Authority:

People v. Mathis (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 359, 366, review granted Aug. 13, 2025, S291628

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 855-856

People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 804 [the interpretation of a statute presents a question of law that this court reviews de novo]

Elements of crime, Statutory interpretation

Case 000530

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A person may be ineligible for a concealed weapon permit if the person has been subject to any restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order issued pursuant to specified statutory provisions. There are exceptions, however, and the defendant fell within those exceptions. The emergency protective order expired, and he had not been given notice and was not given an opportunity to be heard before the emergency protective order was issued.

[Gary note: This is not exactly a criminal case. It was an appeal from a denial of application for a concealed weapons permit. I decided to include it, as it highlights the elements of time since the disqualifying event AND the requirement that the permitted person be notified of the expiry or termination of the permit. You may someday have a client facing a concealed weapons charge because of an expired or vacated permit, and it may be useful to be familiar with section 26202, so here it is.]

Holding:

Penal Code section 26202 provides that an applicant for a permit to carry a concealed weapon shall be deemed ineligible under various specified circumstances, including where the person has been subject to any restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order issued pursuant to specified statutory provisions.

However, that ineligibility does not apply if that order expired or was vacated or otherwise canceled more than five years prior to the licensing authority receiving the completed application, or that order expired or was vacated or otherwise canceled and the applicant did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. The applicant defendant in this case falls under the latter exception–lack of notice and opportunity to challenge the order before the expired order was issued.

Authority:

PEN 26202

Sentencing

Case 000529

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in including nonvictims in its postconviction protective order under section 136.2(i)(1).

First Holding:

Section 136.2(i)(1) provides that when a defendant has been convicted of a crime that requires the defendant to register as a sex offender, the court, at the time of sentencing, shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with a victim of the crime. The trial court does not have authority to restrain a defendant from contacting a person who was not a victim of the crime.

Authority:

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 648

Second Holding:

The term “victim” under section 136.2 is not limited to only those individuals named in the charge for which the defendant was convicted. A victim may include anyone with respect to whom there is reason to believe that any crime is being or has been perpetrated or attempted to be perpetrated. Thus, a “victim of the crime” may include a person not named in the count on which the defendant was convicted, so long as that person was a victim of the same crime.

It is possible for a protective order to protect more than one person/victim and the statute does not require that a person be expressly identified in a charging instrument in order to be considered a victim. A protective order is available for one or more persons as long as each person is a ‘victim’ of any one of the specifically enumerated crimes under section 136.2(i)(1) for which the defendant has been convicted.

Authority:

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 647

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 142, 143-144, fn. 4

Third Holding:

Several courts have vacated protective orders where the persons listed in the protective orders either were not present during the incident or did not suffer harm as a result of the offense for which the defendants were convicted.

Authority:

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 648–649 [Person A was not present when Pena committed sexual battery against the victim]

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 144 [the defendant’s ex-wife and the other children did not suffer continuous sexual abuse]

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 237 [the minor children were present but asleep during incident]

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000528

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that the sentence was enhanced under section 12022(a) (armed with a firearm) and not under section 12022.5 (use of firearm).

Holding:

The appellate court may direct the trial court to correct clerical errors in an abstract of judgment.

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000527

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was improper for the court to impose the upper term based on factors that were not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

Section 1170(b)(2) states that when a statute allows for a low, middle, and high term, the court shall impose the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of the upper term. Rule 4.421(b) sets out several aggravating factors relating to a defendant: (1) The defendant has engaged in violent conduct that indicates a serious danger to society; (2) The defendant’s prior convictions are numerous or of increasing seriousness; (4) The defendant was on probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole when the crime was committed; and (5) The defendant’s prior performance on probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole was unsatisfactory. The court stated that it found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant showed an increasing and violent criminal history, he posed a danger to society, and he does not perform well in probation or on parole.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)

Rules of Court, rule 4.421

Second Holding:

Subsequent to the date of sentencing, the United State Supreme Court decided Erlinger, holding that virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed—including certain details relating to prior convictions—must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt or freely admitted in a guilty plea. Thus, in sentencing a judge may do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.

Authority:

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 824

Third Holding:

Under the reasoning of Erlinger, a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm. When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review. Under that standard, a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1079-1080, 1086,

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 743

Fourth Holding:

Whether a defendant’s crimes showed increasing seriousness requires a comparison and evaluation of the relationship among a defendant’s prior convictions, and a determination as to their relative seriousness. Those factors must be assessed by a jury; such a finding involves something more than a narrow factual finding that the convictions were sustained and what elements were required to prove them, which is the limitation on a court’s power under the reasoning of Erlinger.

The same is true for a finding that a defendant’s performance on probation had been unsatisfactory, because even where a finding of unsatisfactory probation performance is based on conviction of a new offense, it is not strictly limited to that fact. Rather, it must be proven that the defendant was ordered to serve a term of probation and remained on probation at the time he or she committed the new offense. These facts, too, go beyond the mere existence of a prior conviction and its elements. It cannot be shown that a rational juror could conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these facts constitute factors in aggravation.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082-1083, 1089-1091