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.

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

Case: 000351

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of aggravated sexual assault by sexual penetration under section 289. The One Strike law applies only to certain offenses. The offense resulting in conviction of Count 18 is not one of those offenses, and the One Strike Sentence for that count is modified accordingly.

First Holding:

Section 289 defines various terms pertaining to the conduct it describes as a crime. [Gary note: you just witnessed a little adjustment of precise language to maintain a “G” rating for this movie. If you have an issue involving this section, read it carefully for its definitions. In this case, the conduct in question did not meet the definition for violation of this section.]

Authority:

PEN 289(k)

Second Holding:

When reviewing for substantial evidence, we examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if a rational factfinder could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence is reasonable, credible evidence of solid value, even if circumstantial. We will reverse only if upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support it.

Authority:

People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357

People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755

Third Holding:

When insufficient evidence supports a conviction for a greater offense, we may modify the judgment to reflect a conviction for a lesser included offense.

Authority:

People v. Bailey (2012) 54 Cal.4th 740, 748

Fourth Holding:

The only lesser offenses here are time barred. Although the defendant did not raise the statute of limitations in his supplemental brief, a defendant may not inadvertently forfeit the statute of limitations and be convicted of a time-barred charged offense. Because the only applicable lesser included offenses are time-barred, we must reverse the defendant’s conviction for count 19 for insufficient evidence.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1999) 21 Cal.4th 335, 338

Kellett v. Superior Court (1966) 63 Cal.2d 822, 827 [Failure to unite all such offenses will result in a bar to subsequent prosecution of any offense omitted if the initial proceedings culminate in either acquittal or conviction and sentence.]

Fifth Holding:

The One Strike law, section 667.61, applies only to certain felony sex offenses. The defendant’s Count 18 conviction is not among those offenses. Consequently, we reverse the jury’s two count 18 true findings under section 667.61.

Authority:

PEN 667.61(c)

People v. Anderson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 92, 102

People v. Seals (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1385

Sixth Holding:

The defendant contends his sentence of [hundreds of years to life] constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the United States and California Constitutions. The defendant forfeited this claim of error. A claim that a sentence is cruel or unusual requires a fact specific inquiry and is forfeited if not raised below. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel never invoked the state constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17). The defendant did not adequately preserve an objection under the Eighth Amendment either. To the contrary, after imposing the sentence, the court asked if counsel for either side wanted to be heard, and defense counsel responded, “No.” As a result, the defendant’s federal constitutional claim is also forfeited.

Authority:

People v. Baker (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 711, 720

People v. Boyce (2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 731

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000350

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Section 654 applied and it was error to impose sentence on more than one of the three counts of human trafficking, pimping, and pandering.

First Holding:

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.

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

Second Holding:

Section 654 does not preclude multiple convictions but only multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. The proscription against double punishment is applicable where there is a course of conduct that violates more than one statute and comprises an indivisible transaction punishable under more than one statute. The divisibility of a course of conduct depends upon the intent and objective of the actor. If all the offenses are incident to one objective, then the defendant may be punished for any one of them but not for more than one. Accordingly, the trial court should have stayed the sentences on two of the counts pursuant to section 654.

Authority:

People v. Miller (1977) 18 Cal.3d 873, 885

Third Holding:

Here, the defendant was convicted in three counts of human trafficking, pimping, and pandering, each related to one victim and each during the same period. Given the specific factual scenario presented here, including that all three offenses were charged for the same period and that none relied on one specific act, the pimping offense was incidental to the pandering offense, and the intent to pander was an essential element of the human trafficking charge.

Authority:

People v. Deloach (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 323, 337 [as a general rule, any acts of prostitution that follow directly or proximately from the pandering are incident to a single objective and therefore constitute an indivisible transaction with it; that is, the subsequent sex offenses are incidental to the commission of the pandering, and are facilitated by it]

People v. Dearborne (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 250, 263 [As charged under the facts of this case, the human trafficking and pandering were part of the same criminal intent and objective, and thus the court was required to stay the sentence on the pandering count. The human trafficking charge literally has an element of an intent to pander.]

Fourth Holding:

The defendant asks us to remand the matter for resentencing based on this error, but we agree with the People that resentencing is not necessary. Rather, we exercise our authority to modify the judgment to reflect that the punishments on [named counts] are stayed pursuant to section 654.

Authority:

PEN 1260 [appellate court may reverse, affirm, or modify judgment]

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473, [court may exercise its authority to modify a judgment based on an unauthorized sentence under section 1260 in the context of section 654]

Duty of the court, Juveniles, Sentencing

Case: 000349

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The juvenile court erred in setting restitution without allowing the minor an opportunity to challenge the amount. We reverse the juvenile court’s restitution award and remand the matter for a contested restitution hearing.

First Holding:

The minor had posed as another person and agreed to buy a counterfeit watch. On meeting the seller, he robbed the seller. At the disposition hearing, the seller said he’d paid a specified amount for the counterfeit watch. The minor asked the court to reserve the question of the amount so the minor could research and present evidence on what the market rate was for counterfeit watches. The court denied the motion and set restitution at the sum the seller testified to.

A victim of conduct for which a minor is found to be a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 who incurs an economic loss as a result of the minor’s conduct shall receive restitution directly from that minor. For stolen property, the value shall be the replacement cost of like property, or the actual cost of repairing the property, whichever is less. A minor has the right to a hearing before a judge to dispute the determination of the amount of restitution. This statutory directive is meant to afford the minor a reasonable opportunity to challenge the accuracy or validity of the victims’ claimed losses. It is a crucial part of the overall statutory scheme, necessary to satisfy due process, and ensure fundamental fairness in the determination of the restitution ultimately ordered.

Authority:

WIC 730.6

In re Brittany L. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1391

Second Holding:

The juvenile court’s refusal of the minor’s request for a restitution hearing wherein he could present evidence contesting the victim’s statement to authorities and the probation department recommended restitution order was contrary to section 730.6(b)(2)’s directive and thus an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

In re S.E. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 795, 804

In re Brittany L. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1391

Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000348

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Remand is necessary for resentencing because the trial court determined one of the factors in aggravation against the defendant in violation of his constitutional right to a jury and relied on such determination in increasing his sentence. [Not error to fail to instruct on section 148 as lesser of section 69 because the jury necessarily relied on the force element of PC 69.]

First Holding:

It was error for the court to impose the upper term based on its own conclusion that the defendant’s prior convictions are numerous or of increasing seriousness. The right to a jury on any fact that increases the normal punishment for an offense derives from the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 840

Second Holding:

A criminal defendant does not waive his constitutional right to a jury trial by failing to object when a court resolves issues to which the right attaches without first obtaining the requisite waivers. As to whether the error was harmless, because the right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors derives from the United States Constitution, we assess prejudice under the standard set forth in Chapman. Under the Chapman 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. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47

People v. Holmes (1960) 54 Cal.2d 442, 443–444

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

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 761 [When the trial court actually relies on improperly proven aggravating facts to justify an upper term sentence, a Sixth Amendment violation occurs and Chapman must be satisfied.]

Third Holding:

Because a reasonable jury could have concluded the defendant’s convictions were not of increasing seriousness, we remand for resentencing without the need to consider their numerosity. Even if we were to reach the issue, we would likely have reasonable doubt a jury would have concluded the defendant’s prior convictions were numerous. Whether prior convictions are “numerous” for purposes of rule 4.421(b)(2) is not further defined in the California Rules of Court. A reasonable jury might consider numerosity in terms of the number of criminal episodes resulting n convictions, not in the number of convictions alone.

Authority:

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 847

Fourth Holding:

We review the trial court’s failure to instruct on a lesser included offense de novo considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.

Authority:

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 847

Fifth Holding:

A trial court is obligated to instruct the jury on an uncharged lesser offense included in one charged if there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude the defendant committed the lesser, but not the greater, offense. Because this is a sua sponte obligation, a defendant may raise it for the first time on appeal. This instructional requirement prevents either party, whether by design or inadvertence, from forcing an all-or-nothing choice between conviction of the stated offense on the one hand, or complete acquittal on the other. Hence, the rule encourages a verdict, within the charge chosen by the prosecution, that is neither harsher nor more lenient than the evidence merits.

Authority:

People v. DePriest (2007) 42 Cal.4th 1, 50

People v. Brothers (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 24, 29-30, 33, fn. 6

Sixth Holding:

The most significant difference between the lesser offense described in section 148(a)(1) and the greater offense described in section 69(a) is that a defendant may be convicted of the lesser offense even if he did not use force or violence to effectuate the resistance. Accordingly, the trial court was required to instruct on the lesser offense of section 148(a)(1) resisting if substantial evidence supported a finding that the defendant did not use force or violence when he resisted the deputies.

Authority:

People v. Brown (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 140, 153

Seventh Holding:

Resisting an officer by force or violence under section 69(a) does not require either a threshold quantum of force or violence, or the use of force or violence upon the person of the officer. The statutory language does not, in other words, require the defendant to have actual physical contact with the officer. Thus, forceful resistance of an officer by itself gives rise to a violation of section 69, without proof force was directed toward or used on any officer. Here, there is no evidence the defendant did not use force in resisting arrest by the deputies. Under the facts here, there is no substantial evidence to show that only the lesser crime was committed. No reasonable juror could conclude the defendant’s physical resistance amounted to a violation of section 148(a)(1) but not of section 69(a). Therefore, the trial court was correct not to instruct the jury on section 148(a)(1).

Authority:

People v. Morgan (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 488, 508, disapproved on another ground in People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

People v. Carrasco (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 978, 985-986 [where uncontradicted evidence was that the defendant struggled forcefully against arrest, instruction on section 148(a)(1) was unnecessary because there was no evidence on which a jury could conclude the defendant resisted without violating section 69(a)]

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Fifth Amendment, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000347

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse and vacate the true findings on the gang murder special circumstances for counts 1 and 4. We also reverse and vacate the true findings on the gang enhancements for counts 1, 2, and 4. We remand the matter to the trial court to allow the District Attorney to retry the gang murder special circumstance and the gang enhancement for count 4 under the current version of the laws as amended by AB No. 333. Principles of double jeopardy preclude retrial as to the gang murder special circumstance for count 1 and the gang enhancement for counts 1 and 2.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 333 amended section 186.22. The amendment narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang as used for the gang enhancement in section 186.22(b) and the gang murder special circumstance in section 190.2(a)(22). It changed the definition to an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons whose members collectively engage in, or have engaged in, a pattern of criminal gang activity, rather than individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal gang activity under the former version of section 186.22. A pattern of criminal activity under former section 186.22(e) required two or more predicate offenses committed on separate occasions or by evidence of such offenses committed by two or more persons on the same occasion.

The amendment changed the requirements of a pattern of criminal activity in four ways. First, a pattern of criminal activity now requires the predicate offenses to be separate from the currently charged offense or offenses. Second, the last predicate offense must have occurred within three years of the commission of the currently charged offense. Third, it requires that the predicate offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to persons. Fourth, the predicate offenses must have commonly benefited a criminal street gang. AB 333 narrowed the common benefit for the gang by the commission of an offense to be more than reputational. The prosecution must show how the predicate offenses provided an actual common benefit to the gang, and that they did not merely enhance the reputation of its individual members.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(g)

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 738

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 460-461

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 450

Second Holding:

AB 333 applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments as we have here. The instructions read to the defendant’s jury preceded the effective date of AB 333 and his appeal was pending on that effective date. The new requirements in section 186.22 apply retroactively to his case on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 396

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 738-739

Third Holding:

We must reverse the gang enhancements and the gang murder special circumstance if any rational fact finder could have come to the opposite conclusion regarding the new requirements of AB 333.

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 462

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 739

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 453

Fourth Holding:

The double jeopardy clause of the federal constitution’s Fifth Amendment provides that no person may be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. The state constitution provides the same protection. A defendant may not be tried a second time for the same offense if the conviction is set aside for insufficiency of the evidence. Our conclusion that the gang special circumstance and the gang allegation were unsupported by sufficient evidence bars retrial.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 15

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 454-455, 468