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.

Sentencing

Case 000013

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in calculating defendant’s custody credits. Because he participated in the sober living program pursuant to a court order, he is entitled to custody credit for the time he spent there. The People concede this issue. We agree with the parties.

First Holding:

Credit for time served that is miscalculated must be corrected.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5(a)

Second Holding:

Involuntary time in treatment counts as credit for time served when attributable to the criminal proceedings.

Authority:

People v. Davis (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 771, 777 [Section 2900.5 has two components: First, that the placement be custodial, and second, that the custody be attributable to the proceedings relating to the same conduct for which defendant has been convicted]

People v. Billy (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 246, 262-264, [Defendant’s voluntary stay at a rehabilitation facility did not qualify for custody credit under section 2900.5]

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000012

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The restitution fine must be vacated because it was originally imposed more than 10 years ago. The court must calculate the actual time the defendant has already served and credit that against the subsequent sentence.

First Holding:

Restitution fines are uncollectible after 10 years.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Second Holding:

The court must recalculate credit for time served on resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000011

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially committed constitutional and statutory error in imposing the upper term sentence based on aggravating factors not tried to the jury. The factors relied on were: the victim’s particular vulnerability; the offense was carried out with planning, sophistication, and professionalism; the defendant engaged in violent conduct which indicated a serious danger to society; the defendant had numerous prior convictions and they were of increasing seriousness.

First Holding:

The defendant is entitled to a jury trial on aggravating factors, which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before they can be relied on to impose the upper term (unless they are stipulated to by the defendant).

Authority:

PEN 1170

Second Holding:

The standard of review for evaluating the improper use of untried aggravating fact is whether error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

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

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466

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

Third Holding:

The parties agree the court erred in relying on those circumstances to impose the upper term on the principal count. Their disagreement centers around whether such error was prejudicial under the circumstances. On the record before us, we conclude it was.

Authority:

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

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47

Appellate Principles

Case 000010

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appealed from the denial of his second petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6. The appellate court concluded that his petition is not barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and corresponding public policy considerations. He had never received notice of earlier denial. He is not barred from submitting a new petition.

First Holding:

Successive petitions for resentencing are not explicitly barred by section 1172.6 but may be barred by doctrine of collaterial estoppel. Application of collateral estoppel is not automatic, but is subject to public policy considerations.

Authority:

People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 950

Second Holding:

The court does not apply collateral estoppel with the hypertechnical and archaic approach of a 19th century pleading book, but with realism and rationality.

Authority:

People v. Yokely (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1273

Third Holding:

Because of the retroactive nature and ever-evolving interpretations of the law surrounding section 1172.6, defendants may avail themselves of potential eligibility for relief under the statute that was not previously available under other judicial interpretations.

Authority:

People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 951

People v. Lovejoy (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 860

Discretion, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case 000009

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant invited the trial court to recall his sentence under Penal Code section 1170.1. The court appointed counsel and set a hearing date, but concluded at hearing (with the defendant not being present) that no one-year priors were ever alleged [possibly conflating the request with a motion for resentencing under section 1172.5, which does pertain to resentencing on cases that had certain now-invalid prior prison term enhancements but is unrelated to an invitation for recall of a sentence under section 1170.1] and determined that he was not eligible for resentencing under 1172.1. Reversed.

First Holding:

By taking action on a purported motion that defendant did not make, it conferred jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal to rectify the error.

Authority:

Department of Water Resources Environmental Impact Cases (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 556, 573

Second Holding:

A defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under section 1170.1. If a defendant requests consideration for relief under this section, the court is not required to respond.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1(c)

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

Third Holding:

The right to appeal is statutory only, and a party may not appeal a trial court’s judgment, order or ruling unless such is expressly made appealable by statute.

Authority:

People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155, 1159

Fourth Holding:

It is an abuse of discretion when a court applies improper criteria or an incorrect legal standard to decide an issue.

Authority:

Department of Water Resources Environmental Impact Cases (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 556, 573