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, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000250

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred at sentencing when it relied on aggravating circumstances to increase the defendant’s punishment without obtaining a waiver of his right to a jury trial on those circumstances.

First Holding:

The trial court erred by sentencing the defendant to an upper term absent the defendant’s (a) stipulation to the aggravating facts the trial court relied on or (b) waiving a jury trial on those aggravating facts.

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1076 [criminal defendants are entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose them to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided middle term]

Second Holding:

We cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true the facts underlying the aggravating circumstance that the defendant’s prior convictions as an adult are numerous. This aggravating circumstance rests on a somewhat vague and subjective standard, which makes it difficult to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court.

For example, we cannot confidently say where the jury would have drawn the line for numerous, how the jury would have weighed felonies or misdemeanors, or how the jury might have considered the passage of time and discounted older convictions. We are also mindful that we cannot necessarily assume that the record reflects all of the evidence that would have been presented had aggravating circumstances been submitted to the jury. For example, had the defense told the jury more details about the offenses, the jury could have been more likely to count convictions as minor and thus less likely to add up to the numerous standard. Having determined that the facts underlying one aggravating circumstance do not meet the standard for harmless error, we must vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 840

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1091

Abstracts and Minutes

Case: 000249

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Various clerical errors in the minute order memorializing the defendant’s sentence and on the abstract of judgment need to be corrected. In counts 3 through 9, defendant was found guilty of sexual battery within the meaning of section 243.4(a). The abstract of judgment for the determinate sentence correctly identified the applicable statute as section 243.4(a) for counts 3 and 4, but it incorrectly identified the applicable statute as section 243.5(a) for counts 5 through 9. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a minimum restitution fine of $300 and a suspended parole revocation fine of $300. However, the relevant minute order and the abstract of judgment list each of these fines as $4,500. We find both fines were $300.

First Holding:

Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts have jurisdiction to order corrections of clerical errors contained in an abstract of judgment. The abstract of judgment will be corrected to reflect the correct statute.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

When there is a discrepancy between an oral pronouncement of judgment and an abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. A court of appeal can order trial courts to amend a minute order and abstract of judgment to accurately reflect the trial courts oral pronouncement.

Authority:

People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 244 [abstract of judgment]

People v. Morales (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1587, 1594 [minute order]

People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 260-261

Due process, Sentencing

Case: 000248

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Error and/or relief:
At the resentencing hearing ordered as result of a the prior appeal, the trial court erred by resentencing the defendant without his personal presence, failing to conduct a full resentencing, and miscalculating his credits for time served.

[Gary note: the opinion indicates that the abstract following the remand was incorrect, that an amended abstract filed thereafter was incorrect in other respects, and a new amended abstract contained several errors–including in the minute order that the defendant had waived his presence, yet there was nothing in the reporter’s transcripts to indicate he had waived his presence. I reiterate a comment I made in an earlier post: Counsel really should examine the abstracts of judgment carefully, whether the defendant was the client at the trial level or at the appellate level.]

First Holding:

A defendant has a constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of the criminal prosecution, i.e., all stages of the trial where his absence might frustrate the fairness of the proceedings. The defendant’s right to be present includes at a resentencing hearing.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (1998) 17 Cal.4th 253, 260 [right to presence following remand to consider dismissing strike]

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 348

Second Holding:

Section 977 requires that a felony defendant shall be physically present at the time of the imposition of sentence. It allows a defendant to waive their physical presence only for other proceedings.

Authority:

PEN 977(b)(1)

Third Holding:

Notwithstanding section 977, waiver of personal appearance at felony sentencing is permitted by section 1193 if the defendant, in open court and on the record or in a notarized writing, requests that judgment be pronounced against the defendant in his or her absence. This provision applies to resentencing following an appellate court remand. But the defendant did not waive his right to be present at sentencing in open court or by a notarized writing. Accordingly, the trial court erred when it resentenced him without his personal presence.

Authority:

PEN 977(b)(1)

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 345-346

People v. Sanchez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1414

Fourth Holding:

At the resentencing, the trial court failed to update the defendant’s custody credits. The amended abstract must include credit for actual days in custody after the original sentencing until the date of resentencing. On remand, the trial court must calculate the actual time in prison; the determination of prison conduct credits is left to the prison administration

Authority:

People v. Sanchez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1418

People v. Honea (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 842, 845, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Johnson (2004) 32 Cal.4th 260, 268, fn. 3.

Fifth Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing ‘a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

Sixth Holding:

Although we concluded in the first appeal that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion to dismiss the strike pursuant to Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th 497, the trial court on resentencing had jurisdiction to reconsider that ruling.

Authority:

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 364

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497

People v. Rodriguez (1998) 17 Cal.4th 253, 260

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000247

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is not eligible to have a full resentencing under section 1172.75 because no now-invalid prior prison term enhancement had ever been imposed, a pre-condition for invocation of section 1172.75. The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it erroneously indicates that the enhancement for the prior prison term was stayed, when it is clear from the record that the court actually struck the enhancement rather than impose and stay it.

First Holding:

Appellate courts may exercise their authority to correct clerical errors, including correcting an abstract of judgment and may strike statements in the abstract to conform with the court’s oral pronouncement. Because the trial court explicitly stated, “The court is likewise going to strike the 667.5(b) prison prior,” the enhancement should not have been listed in the abstract of judgment, and we have the authority to order the abstract’s correction without requiring an accompanying resentencing. We order that correction accordingly.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts]

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 388

Second Holding:

The question in this case was left open by the Supreme Court in People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1066, footnote 2 and, as is discussed below, is factually distinguishable from the issue to be decided in People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 194 (Espino), review granted October 23, 2024, S286987, which hinges on the “imposition” of a stricken prison prior enhancement’s punishment. Pending briefing before the Supreme Court is limited to the following issue: “Is a defendant entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when the judgment in the defendant’s criminal case includes a prior-prison-term enhancement that was imposed but for which punishment was stricken?” (Espino, S286987, Supreme Ct. Mins., July 30, 2025.)

(Gary Note: Espino was decided by the Supreme Court on July 2, 2026. It did firmly hold that section 1172.75 applies when the punishment for a now-invalid prior prison term enhancement was stricken, not merely stayed as it was in Rhodius. Footnote 1 of the Supreme Court opinion in Espino seems to make it clear that it was not deciding the issue that arose in this Case 000247. Footnote 1: “Our decision in Rhodius also left open whether a prior prison term enhancement is “imposed” (sec. 1172.75(a)) “when an enhancement, not just its associated punishment, [is] stricken” (Rhodius, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1066, fn. 2). As that question is not at issue in this case, we do not address it.”

(I can tell you that a petition for review in this case (the one for which this is the summary, 000247) was denied a few months ago, before Espino was decided. It seems it will take a different case to convince the Supreme Court to decide whether a person is eligible for relief under section 1172.75 in cases where the court struck the enhancement itself (and thus had nothing on which to impose and either stay or strike punishment.)

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1066, footnote 2

People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 194 (review granted 10/23/24, S286987

People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987, decided July 2, 2026)

Sentencing

Case: 000246

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though not entitled to conduct credits because he was convicted under the One Strike Law, the defendant was entitled to credit for actual time in custody. The matter is remanded for the court to determine and award the length of time he was in custody.

First Holding:

The defendant is entitled to presentence custody credits. As there appears to be a factual discrepancy regarding the date of his arrest, we remand this issue to the trial court for a determination of the appropriate amount of presentence custody credit

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Ravaux (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 914, 919

People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954, 958

Second Holding:

A person sentenced under the One Strike Law (section 667.61) is not entitled to pre-sentence conduct credit.

Authority:

People v. Adams (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 170, 182

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1036–1037

People v. Dearborne (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 250, 267–268