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.

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000275

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the two counts of driving a vehicle while under the influence, as he was also changed with operating a motor scooter while under the influence of alcohol. The latter is a more specific statute than the former, and the defendant must therefore be prosecuted under the more specific statute.

First Holding:

A criminal defendant may not be prosecuted under a general statute if the conduct at issue is covered under a more specific statute.

Authority:

In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651

Second Holding:

A motorized scooter is a vehicle under the definition of vehicle under Vehicle Code section 670: A vehicle is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

Authority:

VEH 670

Third Holding:

Under the Williamson rule, if a general statute includes the same conduct as a special statute, the court infers that the Legislature intended that conduct to be prosecuted exclusively under the special statute. In effect, the special statute is interpreted as creating an exception to the general statute for conduct that otherwise could be prosecuted under either statute. Absent some indication of legislative intent to the contrary, the Williamson rule applies when (1) each element of the general statute corresponds to an element on the face of the special statute or (2) when it appears from the statutory context that a violation of the special statute will necessarily or commonly result in a violation of the general statute.

Authority:

People v. Murphy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 81, 86

People v. Henry (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 786, 791-792

Fourth Holding:

It is not correct to assume that the Williamson rule is inapplicable whenever the general statute contains an element not found within the four corners of the special law. Rather, the courts must consider the context in which the statutes are placed. If it appears from the entire context that a violation of the special statute will commonly result in a violation of the general statute, the Williamson rule may apply even though the elements of the general statute are not mirrored on the face of the special statute.

Authority:

People v. Murphy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 81, 8

Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000274

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the trial court to deny the section 1172.6 petition for recall of sentence based on its conclusion that the defendant was ineligible for relief because there was substantial evidence that he was convicted on a still-valid theory of murder.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. As part of these ameliorative changes, malice, a key element the People must prove in a murder prosecution, may no longer be imputed to a defendant solely because the defendant participated in another crime. Defendants who were neither actual killers nor acted with the intent to kill can be held liable for murder only if they were major participants in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in subdivision (d) of section 190.2—that is, the statute defining the felony-murder special circumstance.

Authority:

SB 1437

PC 1172.6

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 967

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

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558

Second Holding:

The trial court used an incorrect legal standard to deny the petition at the prima facie stage. The court erred by applying the substantial evidence standard in concluding defendant was ineligible for relief. The statute does not permit a court to deny a petition at the prima facie stage based on a determination that substantial evidence shows defendant is ineligible for relief. Instead, at this stage, the defendant need only make a prima facie case for relief. In this inquiry, the court takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971

Third Holding:

Should a trial court encounter a material fact dispute, the court may not resolve that dispute at the prima facie stage and should instead grant petitioner an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 567

Amelioration, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000273

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the trial court to impose the upper term based on its own conclusion that the defendant’s prior convictions were numerous and of increasing seriousness, where there was no waiver of a jury or stipulation by the defendant. Defendant was not advised of his right to a jury trial on the aggravating facts, nor did he explicitly waive his right to jury trial on those aggravating facts. The trial court erred in imposing an upper term sentence in the absence of such a waiver.

First Holding:

The trial court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when circumstances in aggravation of the crime justify imposition of an upper term sentence, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury or court trial. This jury trial right is constitutionally required for all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction, relied upon to justify an upper term sentence. 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.

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078

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

Second Holding:

A sentencing judge may only use the information in the record of conviction for the limited function of determining the fact of a prior conviction and the then-existing elements of that offense. A determination that defendant’s prior convictions are of increasing seriousness requires a comparison and evaluation of the relationship among a defendant’s prior convictions, and a determination as to their relative seriousness. As a result, it involves something more than a narrow factual finding that the convictions were sustained and what elements were required to prove them. Thus, defendant was entitled to a jury determination on this aggravating factor.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1081-1083

Third Holding:

Defendant must personally waive the right to a jury trial in open court. The waiver must be explicit and will not be implied from a defendant’s conduct. Therefore, a defendant’s failure to object also would not preclude his asserting on appeal that he was denied his constitutional right to a jury trial.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 16

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 46

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Juveniles, Sentencing

Case: 000272

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter was remanded back to this course following an earlier appeal, for reconsideration in light of People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261. We once again affirmed the judgment, but remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to determine whether petitioner was entitled to a Franklin hearing. Petitioner’s appeal was not final until 2017, after Proposition 57 went into effect on November 9, 2016. Thus, his sentence was nonfinal for purposes of Prop. 57’s application. As such, pursuant to Padilla, he is entitled to a transfer hearing

Holding:

Prop. 57 affords the right to a juvenile transfer hearing to all juveniles charged directly in adult court whose judgment was not final at the time it was enacted. Prop. 57 applies to a sentence that was imposed prior to Prop. 57 but later vacated through a subsequent habeas proceeding. Here, petitioner’s case was directly filed in adult court before Prop. 57 was enacted, but his sentence was vacated through a habeas corpus petition subsequent to the effective date. Thus, his sentence was nonfinal for purposes of Prop. 57’s application. As such, pursuant to Padilla, he is entitled to a transfer hearing. Respondent concedes this position. Thus, it is appropriate to grant the requested relief.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court of Riverside County (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 304

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 159

Discretion, Racial Justice Act, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000271

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The petition for writ of habeas corpus, construed as a petition for mandate, is granted. The defendant filed a petition under the Racial Justice Act (RJA) to challenge his conviction of 25 years earlier. He petition contained statistical data showing that the prosecution charged far more Black defendants for specified offenses than White defendants in that same three-year period. He sought counsel in his petition. The trial court denied it in its entirety.

The trial court erred in ruling that the defendant had to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief to secure appointment of counsel. Rather, to obtain counsel, the Racial Justice Act requires habeas petitioners to plead a plausible allegation of a violation of the Act. Second, the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request for counsel was erroneous because regardless of whether he satisfied the minimal pleading standard governing that request, the court was unaware of its discretion to grant him leave to amend the petition to plead a plausible allegation of a Racial Justice Act violation. Lastly, the trial court erred in invoking the prohibition on successive habeas petitions because the defendant was not required to address procedural bars to relief at this initial stage of the proceedings.

First Holding:

When the issue on review is purely legal, such as the proper interpretation and application of a statute or constitutional provision, our review is de novo. Our fundamental task in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate its purpose. We begin with the text of the statute and give the words their usual meaning while construing them in light of the statutory framework as a whole. If the statutory language is unambiguous, then its plain meaning controls. If the language permits more than one reasonable interpretation, courts may consider other aids, such as the statute’s purpose, legislative history, and public policy. Discretionary decisions by the trial court are generally subject to appellate review under the abuse of discretion standard to determine if they were within the bounds of some applicable legal criteria.

Authority:

In re Lugo (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1535

People v. Carter (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 960, 967

People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 998

Second Holding:

In 2020, the Legislature enacted the Racial Justice Act. The purpose of the Act is to purge racial discrimination from our criminal justice system, and to ensure that race plays no role at all in seeking or obtaining convictions or in sentencing’. In passing the Act, the Legislature recognized that racial bias persists in our criminal justice system because courts generally only address racial bias in its most extreme and blatant forms. The Act acknowledges that all persons possess implicit biases that impact the criminal justice system, and these biases tend to disfavor people of color. The RJA added section 745, which sets forth legal standards governing a claim for relief under the Act. The Act also amended section 1473, which identifies bases for prosecuting a petition for writ of habeas corpus, to add a subdivision governing the litigation of RJA claims.

Authority:

PEN 745

PEN 1473

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 39, 43

People v. Lawson (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 990, 993

Third Holding:

In the legislation amending section 1473(e) effective January 1, 2026, the Legislature emphasized the extremely low showing a petitioner must make to obtain counsel:  “The Act’s threshold to secure counsel is extremely low, and yet courts have denied counsel to litigants raising Racial Justice Act claims far more than they have appointed counsel The Legislature reaffirms that the threshold showing for appointment of counsel does not require a prima facie showing, as correctly held by McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, and should be construed as a minimal pleading requirement.”

Authority:

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33

Fourth Holding:

If the Legislature amends or reenacts the statute without changing the interpretation placed on that statute by the courts, the Legislature is presumed to have been aware of, and acquiesced in, the courts’ construction of that statute.

Authority:

People v. Brown (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1436

Fifth Holding:

The statute now requires the appointment of counsel for an indigent habeas petitioner if the petition pleads a plausible allegation of a violation of RJA, and obligates the court to determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing, instead of a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief.

Authority:

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 39, 44

Sixth Holding:

The trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request for appointment of counsel was erroneous because the court was unaware of its discretion to permit him to amend his petition to satisfy the minimal pleading burden governing his request for counsel. If the court’s decision is influenced by an erroneous understanding of applicable law or reflects an unawareness of the full scope of its discretion, the court has not properly exercised its discretion under the law. Therefore, a discretionary order based on an application of improper criteria or incorrect legal assumptions is not an exercise of informed discretion and is subject to reversal. Simply stated, an abuse of discretion arises if the trial court based its decision on impermissible factors or on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

People v. K.D. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1, 19