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.

Eighth Amendment

Case: 000193

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This petition arises from a matter where the trial court denied bail on appeal without state reasons for the denial. The petition is granted, and the respondent court is ordered to provide a brief written statement of reasons to explain why the defendant’s requests for release pending appeal were denied.

Holding:

This petition arises from a matter where the trial court denied bail on appeal without state reasons for the denial. The petition is granted, and the respondent court is ordered to provide a brief written statement of reasons to explain why the defendant’s requests for release pending appeal were denied.

Authority:

PEN 1272.1

PEN 1272(c) [though referred to in 1272.1 as 1272(3)]

Trivia by Gary:

(Gary note: Section 1272.1 starts out with “Release on bail pending appeal under subdivision (3) of Section 1272 shall be ordered ….” In its final paragraph, it starts out with “In making its decision on whether to grant defendants’ motions for bail under subdivision (3) of Section 1272 ….” If you look at section 1272, however, there is no subdivision (3). Section 1272 does have subdivisions (a), (b), and (c). Here’s the explanation: Prior to January 1, 2024, section 1272 DID have subdivisions by number (1, 2, and 3). Effective that date, however, the section was amended in two respects.

(The substantive change was that it added the language I have bracketed here, which did not exist in previous versions: “After conviction of an offense not punishable with death [or life without the possibility of parole], … In other words, one sentenced to LWOP on or after that date can no longer apply for bail under section 1272 as of that date. The nonsubstantive change was the redesignation of the subdivisions as (a), (b), and (c) in place of the numbers. As of the present date, section 1272.1 has not been “cleaned up,” so to speak, to change its reference to the (a), (b), (c) designated subdivisions of section 1272. The substance of section 1272, subdivision 3 did not change when it was redesignated as subdivision (c). See? We learn something new every day!)

 

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Fines and fees

Case: 000192

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment contains a clerical error regarding the imposed fines. The defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence on some counts and a determinate sentence of others. Two different forms are used–one is the abstract for the indeterminate sentence, the other for the determinate sentence. Though the court imposed only one restitution fine and one parole revocation restitution fine, both fines appear on both forms. While not necessarily improper, it can lead to an ambiguity. In an abundance of caution, and because we agree the duplicate reference could possibly lead to confusion, we direct the clerk of the court issue an amended determinate abstract of judgment, leaving the restitution fine and parole revocation restitution fine reflected only on the indeterminate abstract of judgment, form CR-292.

First Holding:

Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. The abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction and it cannot add to or modify the judgment which it purports to digest or summarize. Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts that have properly assumed jurisdiction can order correction of abstracts of judgment that do not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.

Authority:

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

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324

People v. Caudillo (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 122, 126

Second Holding:

A trial court must accurately set forth all fines and fees in the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 [If the abstract does not specify the amount of each fine, the Department of Corrections cannot fulfill its statutory duty to collect and forward deductions from prisoner wages to the appropriate agency]

Third Holding:

The court has authority to order correction of abstracts of judgment to avoid ambiguity.

Authority:

People v. Frey (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 139, 142 [finding ambiguity between the court’s order and the statement on the abstract of judgment form required correction]

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000191

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is entitled to sentencing relief under section 1172.75 for prior prison term enhancements which were imposed and stayed. Absent a valid waiver of his presence, defendant is entitled to be present at his resentencing hearing on remand.

First Holding:

Any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b), except for enhancements for certain sexually violent offenses, is legally invalid. If a prior prison term enhancement becomes invalid under the section, a trial court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant, and, in doing so, shall apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

Section 1172.75(a) applies to enhancements that were imposed as part of the defendant’s original judgment, regardless of whether the enhancement was stayed or executed. If the enhancement is no longer authorized under the current version of section 667.5(b), section 1172.75(a) renders the enhancement invalid. And the retroactive invalidation of the previously imposed enhancements in turn mandates resentencing under section 1172.75, according to the procedures set forth therein.

[Gary note: This opinion was filed before Espino was decided. It is not applicable here because the prior conviction was stayed. But I think it is important to know the current complete state of the law. Rhodius dealt solely with prior convictions whose punishment was stayed, deferring the question whether section 1172.75 applies to prior convictions that were stricken. On July 2, 2026, the Supreme Court answered that question in People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987). It held that section 1172.75 applies to those prior convictions that were stricken at time of sentencing. This is not discussed in the summary above because the trial court had relied the prior conviction having been stayed, not stricken, which was directly addressed by Rhodius.]

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1068

[People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987)]

Third Holding:

By its own terms, section 1172.75 ensures the defendant’s right to be present, represented by counsel, and present evidence at the hearing.

Authority:

People v. Velasco (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 663, 673-674

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing

Case: 000190

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the court reduced his mandatory assessments due to his inability to pay. We direct the trial court to correct its resentencing minute order and to amend the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

A trial court must accurately set forth all fines and fees in the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 [If the abstract does not specify the amount of each fine, the Department of Corrections cannot fulfill its statutory duty to collect and forward deductions from prisoner wages to the appropriate agency]

Second Holding:

Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. We have the inherent power to correct clerical errors so as to make records such as abstracts of judgment or minute orders conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Thus, we are directing the court to amend the abstract of judgment to conform to its oral pronouncement of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705

Discretion, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000189

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by reimposing the upper term sentences based on aggravating factors that were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury as required under section 1170(b)(2). This error violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court failed to exercise its discretion under AB 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (regarding the choice of sentences to impose when section 654 permits sentencing on only one of the counts it applies to) at the resentencing hearing. The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the correct sentencing date and number of custody credits.

First Holding:

Under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by a jury, not a judge, and established beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 1170(b)(2) similarly provides that 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 not merely a state law entitlement, but is constitutionally required for all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction, relied upon to justify an upper term sentence.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

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. Lack of a jury trial is not harmless under Chapman if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.

Authority:

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

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

Third Holding:

Section 654 prohibits a court from punishing a defendant more than once for the same act or course of conduct. Prior to 2022, the statute required that an act or omission punishable in different ways by different statutes be punished under the provision that provided the longest potential term of imprisonment. (Former sec. 654(a).) AB 518 amended section 654 effective January 1, 2022, to grant a court discretion to punish such an act under either of such provisions. The trial court erroneously failed to exercise its discretion under Assembly Bill 518 at the resentencing hearing. Since we are again remanding this matter for resentencing under Senate Bill 567, the trial court should conduct a full resentencing as to all counts based on the law and circumstances that apply when resentencing occurs, including the amendments to section 654 under AB 518.

Authority:

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294

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

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment will need to be corrected to reflect the correct sentencing date and number of custody credits.

[Gary note: The court did not cite authority for this obviously required order. There are many cases it could have cited. I have listed some of them below.]

Authority:

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

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2