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.

Discretion, Duty of the court, Standard of review

Case: 000392

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on the defendant’s petition seeking mental health diversion. We thus conditionally vacate defendant’s no contest plea, conditionally reverse the judgment, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with section 1001.36.

First Holding:

We review a trial court’s order denying mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard, or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. We presume a trial court’s order is correct and indulge all intendments and reasonable inferences to support it. Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume a trial court knew the law and followed it. But where a court’s ruling clearly expresses the legal and factual basis for its resolution of controverted issues, an appellate court will not imply findings the trial court did not make.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448–449

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042

Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1384

Second Holding:

Section 1001.36(b)(1)(2) provides that a defendant is eligible for mental health diversion if (1) they present evidence that in the last five years they have been diagnosed by a qualified mental health expert with a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and (2) their mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

Third Holding:

If a defendant satisfies the eligibility requirements in section 1001.36(b), the court then must consider whether the defendant is suitable for diversion based on the following criteria set forth in section 1001.36(c): (1) In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder that caused, contributed to, or motivated the defendant’s criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment; (2) The defendant consents to diversion and waives their right to a speedy trial; (3) The defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and (4) The defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in section 1170.18, if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Fourth Holding:

A diversion order is expressly discretionary with the court, even when all of the criteria are met. However, this residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law. The stated purpose of mental health diversion is to keep people with mental disorders from entering and reentering the criminal justice system while protecting public safety, to give counties discretion in developing and implementing diversion across a continuum of care settings, and to provide mental health rehabilitative services. Legislative history confirms there is a strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders because of the benefits of such treatment to both the offending individual and the community.

Authority:

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 135

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 691

Fifth Holding:

The record shows that the trial court’s ruling failed to apply the correct legal standards to defendant’s diversion request. After finding defendant eligible, the court denied him diversion because he was unsuitable based on the determination that he targeted vulnerable people. This ruling rests on a legal error because the court did not apply the four statutory suitability criteria found in section 1001.36(c). Additionally, denial of mental health diversion using a court’s residual discretion should be limited to those situations where the purposes of the statute would not be achieved.

Here, the trial court relied on its observation that defendant targeted vulnerable victims but failed to tie that observation to achieving the purposes of the statute, and the strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders because of the benefits of such treatment to both the offending individual and the community. By applying the wrong legal standard, the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for mental health diversion.

Authority:

Grossmont Union High School Dist. v. Diego Plus Education Corp. (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 552, 584 [trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when it did not apply one of the essential components for deciding whether fees should be awarded under the applicable fee statute]

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 138

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 691

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449

Abstracts and Minutes

Case: 000391

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though the proposed probation order would have imposed a search condition as to electronic devices, the trial court agreed to not impose that condition of probation. The written order of probation, however, had the condition checked. The matter is remanded for the trial court to modify the order to conform to its oral pronouncement.

Holding:

In a criminal case, it is the oral pronouncement of sentence that constitutes the judgment. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. As with other clerical errors, discrepancies between a written order and the actual judgment as orally pronounced are subject to correction at any time, and should be corrected by a reviewing court when detected on appeal.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 [rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement; the record of the oral pronouncement of the court controls over the clerk’s minute order and abstract of judgment]

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000390

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A jury convicted the defendant of five counts of first degree murder and found true five multiple-murder special circumstances (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). The trial court sentenced him to five consecutive state prison terms of life without parole for the murder counts. It was error to submit to the jury more than one multiple-murder special circumstance allegation of multiple murder, and four must be stricken. However, this does not affect the sentence because the trial court properly applied the special circumstance to impose life without parole for all five murder counts.

First Holding:

The jury should have found only one multiple-murder special circumstance rather than five.

Authority:

PEN 190.2(a)(3)

People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 678

People v. Garnica (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1558, 1563–1564

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Jury trial, Pleading, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000389

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Consolidation and cross-admission of unrelated charges was improper and prejudicial under the circumstances of this case, and we will therefore reverse the judgment for possible retrial. Due to insufficient evidence of defendant’s guilt under certain murder theories presented to the jury, we will bar the prosecution from pursuing those theories in any retrial.

First Holding:

In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We presume the existence of every fact that the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence to support the judgment. To overturn a jury’s finding, it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support it.

Authority:

People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331

People v. Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913, 919

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

Second Holding:

First degree willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder must be committed with express malice—i.e., willfully. The remaining elements of premeditation and deliberation are generally established through the following types of evidence: (1) facts about how and what defendant did prior to the actual killing which show that the defendant was engaged in activity directed toward, and explicable as intended to result in, the killing—what may be characterized as planning activity; (2) facts about the defendant’s prior relationship and/or conduct with the victim from which the jury could reasonably infer a motive to kill the victim, and (3) facts about the nature of the killing from which the jury could infer that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a preconceived design to take his victim’s life in a particular way for a reason which the jury can reasonably infer from facts of type (1) or (2).

The evidence of premeditation and deliberation is generally sufficient when there is evidence of all three types or at least extremely strong evidence of (1) or evidence of (2) in conjunction with either (1) or (3). These factors discussed in Anderson, while helpful for purposes of review, are not a sine qua non to finding first degree premeditated murder, nor are they exclusive.

Authority:

PEN 188(a)(1)

People v. Concha (2009) 47 Cal.4th 653, 662

People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 26–27

People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117, 1125

Third Holding:

Where, as here, offenses in separate cases meet a statutory basis for consolidation, a defendant bears the burden to make a clear showing of prejudice to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in consolidating the cases. In our review, we examine the record before the trial court when it denied defendant’s severance motion and consider: (1) the cross-admissibility of the evidence in separate trials; (2) whether some of the charges are likely to unusually inflame the jury against the defendant; (3) whether a weak case has been joined with a strong case or another weak case so that the total evidence may alter the outcome of some or all of the charges; and (4) whether one of the charges is a capital offense, or the joinder of the charges converts the matter into a capital case.

Authority:

PEN 954

People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 160-161

Fourth Holding:

We first address the charges’ cross-admissibility, because a finding of cross-admissibility generally negates the possibility of prejudice. Evidence of other crimes can be admitted to prove the offender acted according to a certain plan, or acted with a particular motive, if a degree of similarity exists between the past and present crimes so as to permit a reasonable inference that the offender must have entertained the same intent in both instances

Authority:

People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 38

People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899, 926

Fifth Holding:

There exists a hierarchy, or continuum, with respect to the degree of similarity that is needed for cross-admissibility, depending upon the purpose for which introduction of the evidence is sought. To be admissible to demonstrate a distinctive modus operandi, the evidence must disclose common marks or identifiers, that, considered singly or in combination, support a strong inference that the defendant committed the crimes. To be admissible to show intent, however, the prior conduct and the charged offense need only be sufficiently similar to support the inference that defendant probably harbored the same intent in each instance. To be cross-admissible to establish motive, the offenses need not necessarily be factually similar but must share a direct logical nexus.

Authority:

Alcala v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1205, 1222

People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 392

People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 121

People v. Demetrulias (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1, 15

People v. Scheer (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1018 [the motive for the charged crime arises simply from the commission of the prior offense]

Sixth Holding:

Disputed identity is a factor to be considered in weighing the probative value of allegedly cross-admissible evidence of intent against the likelihood of undue prejudice due to its admission.

Authority:

People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 394, fn. 2

People v. Earle (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 372, 390–391

People v. King (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1301–1303

People v. Thompson (1988) 45 Cal.3d 86, 109 [to be admitted, evidence of other crimes must not contravene other policies limiting admission, such as those contained in Evidence Code section 352]

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000388

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court erred in not reevaluating the conviction for gang criminal activity under the provisions of AB 333, enacted after the original sentencing.

First Holding:

When any aspect of a case is on appeal from sentencing, the case or prosecution has not been reduced to final judgment for Estrada retroactivity purposes.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 397

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

Second Holding:

AB 333’s changes to section 186.22 apply retroactively under Estrada.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1207

Third Holding:

AB 333 essentially adds new elements to the substantive offense and enhancements in section 186.22. AB 333 made the following changes to the law on gang enhancements: First, it narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons.

Second, whereas section 186.22, former subdivision (f) required only that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang, AB 333 requires that any such pattern have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, AB 333 also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Fourth, AB 333 narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational. These changes also apply to the crime of active participation in a criminal street gang.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

People v. E.H. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 467, 479

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

People v. Rojas (2023) 15 Cal.5th 561, 565

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000387

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in using aggravating factors that were neither found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a trier of fact nor admitted by the defendant.

First Holding:

Section 1170(b)(1) through (3) provides the court may impose the upper term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term. As amended, section 1170(b) altered the trial court’s sentencing discretion and created a presumption against the upper term, which may be overcome only if the required facts are properly proven and the trial court concludes the term is justified. Unless a defendant stipulates to the facts, or waives his or her jury trial right, that aggravating factfinding role now resides solely with the jury The trial court may also consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction. A Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 760, 768, 773

Second Holding:

A violation is prejudicial unless an appellate court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court to justify an upper term sentence, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statutory requirements. Accordingly, a defendant is entitled to reversal and remand unless we can conclude that the omission of a jury trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman as to every aggravating fact the trial court used to justify an upper term sentence. 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. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768, 775

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

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

Eighth Amendment, Sentencing

Case: 000386

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A court must consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment and a court facilities assessment. We therefore remand to the trial court to conduct an inability to pay hearing as to those assessments.

First Holding:

Under Kopp, a court must consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment and a court facilities assessment.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1

Second Holding:

Restitution fines and parole revocation fines under sections 1202.4 and 1202.45a), respectively, are punitive fines. Court operations assessments and court facilities assessments, under section 1465.8(a)(1) and Government Code section 70373(a)(1), respectively, are ancillary costs and not punishment. As to punitive fines, subject to the Eighth Amendment, a court may impose a nonexcessive fine as punishment. therwise, an excessive fines analysis applies to punitive fines imposed in excess of the minimum. Because the trial court here imposed punitive fines in the minimum amounts of $300 and stayed the parole revocation fine, they are not subject to an inability to pay hearing, as the defendant concedes.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 13-15

Third Holding:

However, ancillary costs do implicate equal protection principles. The court operations and facilities assessments are ancillary costs intended to raise funds for the courts. A criminal defendant cannot avoid the imposition of these costs regardless of indigency. By contrast, an indigent civil litigant may have similar fees waived entirely. Where the Legislature has already determined that both criminal defendants and civil litigants should be charged similar amounts for the same reasons, there appears no rational basis to deny only indigent criminal defendants the ability to avoid those costs. Accordingly, equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under section 1465.8(a)(1) or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1). Therefore, the trial court here should have considered the defendants’s inability to pay before imposing the $40 court operations assessment under section 1465.8(a)(1) and the $30 criminal conviction assessment fee under Government Code section 70373(a)(1).

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 18, 28-29, 30

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000385

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The minute order and abstract of judgment erroneously indicates that the court imposed the parole revocation fine (PEN 1202.45) on the defendant, who was sentenced to a term of life without the possibility of parole. Because the parole revocation fine cannot be imposed on person sentence to LWOP, it must be stricken.

First Holding:

The trial court should not have imposed the challenged fines and respectfully request the court modify the judgment by striking them. The abstract must be corrected.

Authority:

PEN 1202.45

People v. Oganesyan (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1181–1182, 1185 [Section 1202.45 indicates that it is applicable to a person .whose sentence includes a period of parole]

Second Holding:

The defendant contends he is entitled to an additional day of actual presentence custody credit. The People concede he is correct. Although the defendant did not object at trial, forfeiture of sentencing only occurs when the alleged error involved an exercise of discretion. Because the calculation of credits is purely mathematical, his failure to object at trial does not preclude this court from correcting the error.

Authority:

People v. Aguirre (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1139

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000384

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter must be remanded for the trial court to determine whether the defendant’s 2010 conviction still constitutes a serious felony and strike in like of the application of AB 333.

Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature amended section 186.22 with the passage of AB 333. Among other things, AB 333 changed the elements of gang offenses and enhancements by narrowing the definitions of criminal street gang, pattern of criminal activity, and what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang. Where a defendant has suffered a conviction under the prior version of section 186.22, AB 333 applies to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000383

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though we find sufficient evidence to support the convictions, we conclude the evidence does not support the challenged large quantity aggravating circumstances attached to three of the counts.. There were several errors in the abstract of judgment, but they were corrected after the opening brief was filed.

First Holding:

In assessing a claim of insufficiency of evidence, the reviewing court’s task is to review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. An appellate court must accept logical inferences that the trier of fact might have drawn from the evidence even if the court would have concluded otherwise.

Conflicts and even testimony that is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends. Before a verdict may be set aside for insufficiency of the evidence, a party must demonstrate that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conviction. The same standard of review applies when the conviction rests on circumstantial evidence. The standard of appellate review for determining the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an enhancement is the same as that applied to a conviction.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11

People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 419

People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331

People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053

People v. Weddington (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 468, 483

Second Holding:

Possession may be actual or constructive. Actual possession means the contraband is in the defendant’s immediate possession or control. A defendant has actual possession when that defendant has the contraband. Constructive possession means the contraband is not in the defendant’s physical possession, but the defendant knowingly exercises control or the right to control the object. Dominion and control is readily found when the controlled substance is discovered in a place such as a defendant’s residence, vehicle, or among his, her, or their personal effects. Exclusive possession is not necessary. A defendant does not avoid conviction if his, her, or their right to exercise dominion and control over the place where the contraband was located is shared with others.

Authority:

In re Daniel G. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 824, 831

People v. Busch (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 150, 162

Third Holding:

Mere proximity to a prohibited item, however, is not sufficient evidence of possession. In Martin, the court concluded the evidence demonstrated the defendant had mere access or proximity when the stolen goods were found in his codefendant’s car without evidence linking the stolen goods to the defendant. In Myles, the evidence was insufficient to establish possession of stolen televisions found in the trunk of a car in which the defendant was a passenger. In Zyduck, the appellate court rejected the argument that the defendant’s mere presence in a car owned and driven by another, in which the stolen property is readily visible, is enough to show possession.

Authority:

People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 696,

People v. Myles (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 429

People v. Zyduck (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 334, 335-336

People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1417, disapproved on another ground in People v. Farwell (2018) 5 Cal.5th 295, 304 & fn. 6

Fourth Holding:

The defendant did not forfeit the challenge to the quantity enhancement by failing to object below. As to forfeiture, an objection is generally required to challenge on appeal a trial court’s reliance on an improper factor in imposing a sentence. However, sufficiency of the evidence has always been viewed as a question necessarily and inherently raised in every contested trial of any issue of fact, and requiring no further steps by the aggrieved party to be preserved for appeal. Parties may generally challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment for the first time on appeal because they necessarily objected to the sufficiency of the evidence by contesting it at trial.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353

In re K.F. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 655, 660

People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 596

Fifth Holding:

California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(10) provides a circumstance in aggravation occurs when the crime involved a large quantity of contraband. In light of the testimony of the witnesses, there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the the quantity possessed by the defendant constituted a large quantity.

Authority:

Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(10)

Sixth Holding:

Typically, when part of a sentence is stricken on review, a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances. However, the record in this case demonstrates with unusual clarity that remand would be an idle act. The trial court indicated it was going to impose the middle term on all counts except those three on which the jury found the large quantity factor in aggravation. It is clear that but for those findings, it would have imposed the middle term. Having concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support those findings, we modify the judgment to impose the middle term for the affect counts.

Authority:

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

People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371, 432

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000382

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court accepted the defendant’s admission to a single prior serious felony conviction and a prior strike conviction.These admissions were based on the defendant’s 2010 conviction for assault with a deadly weapon with a gang enhancement. The court sentenced the defendant as a second striker based on his admission that his 2010 conviction of aggravated assault with a gang enhancement constituted a strike. In light of AB 333’s modifications to the elements of PC 186.22 regarding gang criminal activity, the People concede, and we agree, that the defendant’s two-strike sentence must be vacated and the matter remanded for a possible retrial of his prior conviction allegations.

Holding:

AB 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) increased the evidentiary requirements for proving gang offenses and enhancements by amending section 186.22. The defendant’s prior convictions were based on his admission to the elements of section 186.22 as it read at the time of his plea. At that time, the prosecution was not required to prove—and the defendant did not admit—the elements newly required under AB 333. These heightened requirements apply when assessing whether pre–AB 333 convictions may be used for certain sentencing purposes.

Because the defendant’s prior convictions predated AB 333, the record does not establish they satisfy the amended statute’s more stringent requirements, and because this case is not yet final, the parties agree that the trial court’s true findings on the prior strike and serious felony enhancement must be vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing. If the prosecution elects to retry those allegations, the trial court must adjudicate them applying the elements of section 186.22 as amended by AB 333.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583, 608

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000381

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The parties agree the minute order and abstract of judgment contain clerical errors regarding the imposed enhancements and should be corrected to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. The court also must determine credit for time served. We agree.

First Holding:

Courts have the inherent power to correct clerical errors, either on their own motion or upon the application of the parties. Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.

Authority:

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

People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 [a discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as entered in the minutes is presumably the result of clerical error]

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

Second Holding:

When a prison term already in progress is modified as the result of an appellate sentence remand, the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served, whether in jail or prison, and whether before or since he was originally committed and delivered to prison custody.

Authority:

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 673