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.

Abstracts and Minutes

Case: 000356

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment fails to reflect that the multiple-murder special‑circumstance allegation as to count 2 was vacated.

Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that the multiple-murder special‑circumstance allegation as to count 2 was vacated.

[Gary note: The court cited no authority for its order for correction. This opinion was a modification of the opinion I summarized as Case 000302, which was already being remanded for other reasons, including a direction to correct a different problem in the abstract of judgment. Though the court cited no additional authority for the modification for further correction, there are many cases it could have chosen from. I have set forth 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

Jury trial, Standard of review

Case: 000355

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred when it overruled defendant’s objection to the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge to excuse a prospective Hispanic juror who reported negative experiences with law enforcement and the criminal justice system, where the prosecutor did not overcome the presumptive invalidity of the challenge by clear and convincing evidence.

First Holding:

Intentional discrimination is not the correct standard for determining whether the exercise of a peremptory challenge was improper. The court did not first require the prosecutor to overcome the presumptive invalidity of the challenge under the more demanding standard set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7(e). We may not impute to the trial court findings it did not make, but in this case, the record is devoid of any evidence that the prospective juror’s negative experiences with law enforcement and the criminal justice system bore on his inability to be fair and impartial. Under these circumstances, the prosecutor did not overcome the presumptive invalidity of the peremptory challenge, the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s objection, and section 231.7 compels reversal of the judgment and remand for a new trial.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(e) and (j)

People v. Guzman (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 464, 475

People v. Jimenez (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 534, 540

Second Holding:

Both the federal and state Constitutions prohibit any advocate’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors based on race. Doing so violates both the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and the right to trial by a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community under article I, section 16 of the California Constitution.

Authority:

People v. Parker (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1184, 1210–1211

People v. Lenix (2008) 44 Cal.4th 602, 612

Third Holding:

The Fourteenth Amendment’s mandate that race discrimination be eliminated from all official acts and proceedings of the State is most compelling in the judicial system. This is so because it is not only litigants who are harmed when the right to trial by impartial jury is abridged. Taints of discriminatory bias in jury selection—actual or perceived—erode confidence in the adjudicative process, undermining the public’s trust in courts.

Authority:

Powers v. Ohio (1991) 499 U.S. 400, 412, 415

People v. Gutierrez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1150, 1154

Miller-El v. Dretke (2005) 545 U.S. 231, 238

Fourth Holding:

Under the Batson/Wheeler test, the ultimate question for the trial court in ruling on an objection to a peremptory challenge is whether the party exercising the objection engaged in ‘purposeful discrimination. Recognizing the limitations of the Batson/Wheeler inquiry, the Legislature enacted AB 3070 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) to add Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, which creates new procedures for identifying unlawful discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges. The Legislature intended that the new law be broadly construed to further the purpose of eliminating the use of group stereotypes and discrimination, whether based on conscious or unconscious bias, in the exercise of peremptory challenges.

Authority:

CCP 231.7

People v. Guzman (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 464, 475

People v. Jaime (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 941, 943

People v. Ortiz (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 768, 791–792

Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79

People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258

Fifth Holding:

Section 231.7 prohibits the use of a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of the prospective juror’s race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or the perceived membership of the prospective juror in any of those groups. If a party or the trial court objects to the use of a peremptory challenge, the party exercising the peremptory challenge shall state the reasons the peremptory challenge has been exercised.

If the reason for the exercise of the peremptory challenge is not presumptively invalid under section 231.7(e) or (g) (which set forth specific reasons that are presumptively invalid), the reason is to be evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances to determine if there is a substantial likelihood that an objectively reasonable person, who is aware that unconscious bias and purposeful discrimination have resulted in the unfair exclusion of potential jurors in California, would view membership or perceived membership in any of the protected groups as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge. The court need not find purposeful discrimination to sustain the objection.

Authority:

CCP 231.7

People v. Barnes (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 560, 577–578

Sixth Holding:

The trial court’s denial of an objection under section 231.7 is reviewed de novo, with the trial court’s express factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence. The appellate court shall not impute to the trial court any findings, including findings of a prospective juror’s demeanor, that the trial court did not expressly state on the record. The reviewing court shall consider only reasons actually given under subdivision (c) and shall not speculate as to or consider reasons that were not given to explain either the party’s use of the peremptory challenge or the party’s failure to challenge similarly situated jurors who are not members of the same cognizable group as the challenged juror, regardless of whether the moving party made a comparative analysis argument in the trial court. Should the appellate court determine that the objection was erroneously denied, that error shall be deemed prejudicial, the judgment shall be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(j)

Fines and fees, Juveniles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000354

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because of legislation enacted since the disposition hearing, the $300 restitution fine is ordered stricken in this Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 juvenile proceeding. The statutory change regarding joint and severally liability, however, does not apply retroactively.

First Holding:

While this appeal was pending, the Legislature amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 and removed the requirement that a minor pay a restitution fine. The relevant portion of the statute now states that the court shall not impose a separate and additional restitution fine against a minor found to be a person described in section 602. Because the judgment is not final, the appellant is entitled to the ameliorative benefits of this amendment.

Authority:

WIC 730.6

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

Second Holding:

The modification of section 730.6(b)(3), eliminating joint and several liability for juvenile offenders for direct restitution, is not punitive, but civil. Because it is not ameliorative of punishment, there is no presumption that it applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments. Enacted after the order imposing direct restitution jointly and severally with other parties, it has prospective effect only, and does not apply retroactively to this minor’s case.

Authority:

WIC 730.6(b)(3)

In re J.L. (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 388

Discretion, Duty of the court, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000353

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights by imposing a sentence based on aggravating circumstances that were neither admitted by him nor tried to a jury. The trial court conducted an inadequate inquiry when the defendant requested that new counsel be substituted.

[GARY NOTE: The unpublished opinion lays out several observations that it characterizes as possibly arguable deficiencies in counsel’s performance that would support a finding that it would be necessary to substitute new counsel as the defendant requested. Many of the specifics have been redacted from the filed opinion itself, as the Marsden hearing is a confidential inquiry conducted outside the presence of the prosecution and the public, and the matters stated by any participants (the defendant, the attorney for the defendant, the court) at the hearing are not subject to public disclosure.]

First Holding:

The defendant is entitled to resentencing because the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by relying on aggravating circumstances based on facts that had not been admitted or tried to a jury. Although the defendant did not preserve this claim in the trial court, his failure to do so does not forfeit his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

Authority:

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47-48

Second Holding:

In Cunningham, the United States Supreme Court held that, except for prior conviction allegations, the Sixth Amendment requires any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence to be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The sentencing scheme in effect in California at the time violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because it allowed a defendant’s prison sentence to be increased beyond the statutory maximum based on facts that had not been found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or admitted by the defendant. The statutory maximum, for Sixth Amendment purposes, is the maximum sentence the court may impose without finding any additional facts beyond those necessary to support the verdict. Cunningham explained that California could comply with the Sixth Amendment either by requiring jury findings for any facts necessary to impose an aggravated sentence or, alternatively, by authorizing sentencing courts to exercise broad discretion within a statutory range.

Authority:

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281, 294

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 746-747

Third Holding:

California’s current sentencing scheme (in effect at the time of the defendant’s sentencing) adopts the first option Cunningham outlined. Under section 1170(b), when a statute specifies three possible terms, the court must order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial. After revoking the defendant’s probation, the court found in aggravation that the crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threats of great bodily harm, and other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness. But this aggravating factor was not admitted or otherwise proved to the trier of fact.

Authority:

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 294

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 748

Fourth Holding:

We apply the rigorous Chapman standard of review to determine whether the trial court’s reliance on unproven aggravating circumstances was prejudicial. Under that standard, the violation is prejudicial unless we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a jury would have found true all the aggravating facts upon which the challenged sentence was based. The defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing unless the appellate court can conclude that the omission of a jury trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to every aggravating fact the trial court used to justify an upper term sentence. Put another way, the defendant is entitled to a remand unless no reasonable jury would have found in favor of the defendant as to any of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court. In conducting this analysis, moreover, we may not assume that the record contains all the evidence that would have been presented had the aggravating circumstances been tried to a jury.

Authority:

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768, 775

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

Fifth Holding:

Further, because the court imposed an enhancement for great bodily injury under section 12022.7, it was improper to also rely on great bodily injury as a factor in aggravation for purposes of imposing the upper term, although that error is subject to harmless error analysis. The court could, without running afoul of section 1170(b)(5), rely on other aggravating circumstances independent of the great bodily injury enhancement, such as a finding that the offense involved great violence or reflected a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(5) [a court cannot impose an upper term by using the fact of any enhancement upon which sentence is imposed under any provision of law]

Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1)

People v. Gutierrez (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1729, 1735-1736

People v. Castaneda (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 611, 614-615

Sixth Holding:

When a defendant requests that his appointed counsel be relieved and new counsel be appointed under Marsden, the trial court must give the defendant an opportunity to explain his concerns about his counsel’s performance and provide examples of deficiencies. The defendant is entitled to substitute counsel when the record clearly shows that the appointed counsel is not providing adequate representation. The trial court abuses its discretion when the defendant has shown that a failure to replace the appointed attorney would substantially impair the right to assistance of counsel. The trial court also abuses its discretion if it does not conduct an adequate inquiry into the defendant’s motion. When the defendant has identified shortcomings by counsel, the court must obtain counsel’s response and conduct any further inquiry that is needed to determine whether counsel had adequate explanations for all of the defendant’s complaints.

The critical factual inquiry in a Marsden hearing will often involve whether counsel consulted sufficiently with their client, adequately investigated the facts, and properly prepared for the relevant hearing. When the trial court’s inquiry is deficient, we remand the case for a new Marsden hearing. On this record, the trial court lacked an adequate basis to determine whether counsel had properly investigated and prepared the defendant’s mitigation case for the sentencing hearing. Likewise, we lack an adequate record to review the trial court’s denial of Marsden relief. On remand, the trial court should conduct a Marsden hearing to determine whether the defendant is entitled to substitute counsel for purposes of his resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 123-124

People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 599

People v. Carter (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1092, 1099, 1102-1104

People v. Ng (2022) 13 Cal.5th 448, 500

People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 488

People v. Ivans (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1666 [stating the trial court must make a careful inquiry before it can intelligently rule on the Marsden motion]

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000352

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in not conducted a full resentencing under section 1172.75 after striking the now-invalid prior prison term enhancements and in conducting the hearing in the absence of the defendant without his express consent.

First Holding:

A defendant is entitled to a full resentencing hearing under section 1172.75.

Authority:

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402 [by its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements]

Second Holding:

Absent a valid waiver under section 977, defendant is entitled to be present physically or by remote appearance at resentencing.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

Resentencing under section 1172.75 ordinarily must be initiated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), by the CDCR notifying the trial courts—no later than December 31, 2023—of all incarcerated individuals who may be entitled to relief under the statute. Compare Burgess with Cota–two cases discussing different circumstances under which a defendant-initiated resentencing petition is improper, but the CDCR’s failure to notify trial court by deadline does not preclude full resentencing hearing. Here, it appears the trial court’s early, but incomplete action granting defendant some resentencing relief by striking his section 667.5(b) prison-prior terms in 2022 made it unlikely defendant would appear on the CDCR resentencing-eligibility lists submitted to the trial court in 2023. That defendant may have fallen through the cracks in this manner does not deprive him of full resentencing eligibility under section 1172.75. To the extent necessary for procedural regularity, we deem defendant’s appeal here a petition for habeas corpus to secure the resentencing hearing the People concede is necessary.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(b) and (c)

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 379-382

People v. Cota (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1131

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 71-72 [appeal may be treated as a habeas corpus petition in the interest of judicial economy]

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000351

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of aggravated sexual assault by sexual penetration under section 289. The One Strike law applies only to certain offenses. The offense resulting in conviction of Count 18 is not one of those offenses, and the One Strike Sentence for that count is modified accordingly.

First Holding:

Section 289 defines various terms pertaining to the conduct it describes as a crime. [Gary note: you just witnessed a little adjustment of precise language to maintain a “G” rating for this movie. If you have an issue involving this section, read it carefully for its definitions. In this case, the conduct in question did not meet the definition for violation of this section.]

Authority:

PEN 289(k)

Second Holding:

When reviewing for substantial evidence, we examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if a rational factfinder could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence is reasonable, credible evidence of solid value, even if circumstantial. We will reverse only if upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support it.

Authority:

People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357

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

Third Holding:

When insufficient evidence supports a conviction for a greater offense, we may modify the judgment to reflect a conviction for a lesser included offense.

Authority:

People v. Bailey (2012) 54 Cal.4th 740, 748

Fourth Holding:

The only lesser offenses here are time barred. Although the defendant did not raise the statute of limitations in his supplemental brief, a defendant may not inadvertently forfeit the statute of limitations and be convicted of a time-barred charged offense. Because the only applicable lesser included offenses are time-barred, we must reverse the defendant’s conviction for count 19 for insufficient evidence.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1999) 21 Cal.4th 335, 338

Kellett v. Superior Court (1966) 63 Cal.2d 822, 827 [Failure to unite all such offenses will result in a bar to subsequent prosecution of any offense omitted if the initial proceedings culminate in either acquittal or conviction and sentence.]

Fifth Holding:

The One Strike law, section 667.61, applies only to certain felony sex offenses. The defendant’s Count 18 conviction is not among those offenses. Consequently, we reverse the jury’s two count 18 true findings under section 667.61.

Authority:

PEN 667.61(c)

People v. Anderson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 92, 102

People v. Seals (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1385

Sixth Holding:

The defendant contends his sentence of [hundreds of years to life] constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the United States and California Constitutions. The defendant forfeited this claim of error. A claim that a sentence is cruel or unusual requires a fact specific inquiry and is forfeited if not raised below. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel never invoked the state constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17). The defendant did not adequately preserve an objection under the Eighth Amendment either. To the contrary, after imposing the sentence, the court asked if counsel for either side wanted to be heard, and defense counsel responded, “No.” As a result, the defendant’s federal constitutional claim is also forfeited.

Authority:

People v. Baker (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 711, 720

People v. Boyce (2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 731

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000350

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Section 654 applied and it was error to impose sentence on more than one of the three counts of human trafficking, pimping, and pandering.

First Holding:

An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision.

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

Second Holding:

Section 654 does not preclude multiple convictions but only multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. The proscription against double punishment is applicable where there is a course of conduct that violates more than one statute and comprises an indivisible transaction punishable under more than one statute. The divisibility of a course of conduct depends upon the intent and objective of the actor. If all the offenses are incident to one objective, then the defendant may be punished for any one of them but not for more than one. Accordingly, the trial court should have stayed the sentences on two of the counts pursuant to section 654.

Authority:

People v. Miller (1977) 18 Cal.3d 873, 885

Third Holding:

Here, the defendant was convicted in three counts of human trafficking, pimping, and pandering, each related to one victim and each during the same period. Given the specific factual scenario presented here, including that all three offenses were charged for the same period and that none relied on one specific act, the pimping offense was incidental to the pandering offense, and the intent to pander was an essential element of the human trafficking charge.

Authority:

People v. Deloach (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 323, 337 [as a general rule, any acts of prostitution that follow directly or proximately from the pandering are incident to a single objective and therefore constitute an indivisible transaction with it; that is, the subsequent sex offenses are incidental to the commission of the pandering, and are facilitated by it]

People v. Dearborne (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 250, 263 [As charged under the facts of this case, the human trafficking and pandering were part of the same criminal intent and objective, and thus the court was required to stay the sentence on the pandering count. The human trafficking charge literally has an element of an intent to pander.]

Fourth Holding:

The defendant asks us to remand the matter for resentencing based on this error, but we agree with the People that resentencing is not necessary. Rather, we exercise our authority to modify the judgment to reflect that the punishments on [named counts] are stayed pursuant to section 654.

Authority:

PEN 1260 [appellate court may reverse, affirm, or modify judgment]

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473, [court may exercise its authority to modify a judgment based on an unauthorized sentence under section 1260 in the context of section 654]

Duty of the court, Juveniles, Sentencing

Case: 000349

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The juvenile court erred in setting restitution without allowing the minor an opportunity to challenge the amount. We reverse the juvenile court’s restitution award and remand the matter for a contested restitution hearing.

First Holding:

The minor had posed as another person and agreed to buy a counterfeit watch. On meeting the seller, he robbed the seller. At the disposition hearing, the seller said he’d paid a specified amount for the counterfeit watch. The minor asked the court to reserve the question of the amount so the minor could research and present evidence on what the market rate was for counterfeit watches. The court denied the motion and set restitution at the sum the seller testified to.

A victim of conduct for which a minor is found to be a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 who incurs an economic loss as a result of the minor’s conduct shall receive restitution directly from that minor. For stolen property, the value shall be the replacement cost of like property, or the actual cost of repairing the property, whichever is less. A minor has the right to a hearing before a judge to dispute the determination of the amount of restitution. This statutory directive is meant to afford the minor a reasonable opportunity to challenge the accuracy or validity of the victims’ claimed losses. It is a crucial part of the overall statutory scheme, necessary to satisfy due process, and ensure fundamental fairness in the determination of the restitution ultimately ordered.

Authority:

WIC 730.6

In re Brittany L. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1391

Second Holding:

The juvenile court’s refusal of the minor’s request for a restitution hearing wherein he could present evidence contesting the victim’s statement to authorities and the probation department recommended restitution order was contrary to section 730.6(b)(2)’s directive and thus an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

In re S.E. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 795, 804

In re Brittany L. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1391

Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000348

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Remand is necessary for resentencing because the trial court determined one of the factors in aggravation against the defendant in violation of his constitutional right to a jury and relied on such determination in increasing his sentence. [Not error to fail to instruct on section 148 as lesser of section 69 because the jury necessarily relied on the force element of PC 69.]

First Holding:

It was error for the court to impose the upper term based on its own conclusion that the defendant’s prior convictions are numerous or of increasing seriousness. The right to a jury on any fact that increases the normal punishment for an offense derives from the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 840

Second Holding:

A criminal defendant does not waive his constitutional right to a jury trial by failing to object when a court resolves issues to which the right attaches without first obtaining the requisite waivers. As to whether the error was harmless, because the right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors derives from the United States Constitution, we assess prejudice under the standard set forth in Chapman. Under the Chapman 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.

Authority:

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

People v. Holmes (1960) 54 Cal.2d 442, 443–444

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

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 761 [When the trial court actually relies on improperly proven aggravating facts to justify an upper term sentence, a Sixth Amendment violation occurs and Chapman must be satisfied.]

Third Holding:

Because a reasonable jury could have concluded the defendant’s convictions were not of increasing seriousness, we remand for resentencing without the need to consider their numerosity. Even if we were to reach the issue, we would likely have reasonable doubt a jury would have concluded the defendant’s prior convictions were numerous. Whether prior convictions are “numerous” for purposes of rule 4.421(b)(2) is not further defined in the California Rules of Court. A reasonable jury might consider numerosity in terms of the number of criminal episodes resulting n convictions, not in the number of convictions alone.

Authority:

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 847

Fourth Holding:

We review the trial court’s failure to instruct on a lesser included offense de novo considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.

Authority:

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 847

Fifth Holding:

A trial court is obligated to instruct the jury on an uncharged lesser offense included in one charged if there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude the defendant committed the lesser, but not the greater, offense. Because this is a sua sponte obligation, a defendant may raise it for the first time on appeal. This instructional requirement prevents either party, whether by design or inadvertence, from forcing an all-or-nothing choice between conviction of the stated offense on the one hand, or complete acquittal on the other. Hence, the rule encourages a verdict, within the charge chosen by the prosecution, that is neither harsher nor more lenient than the evidence merits.

Authority:

People v. DePriest (2007) 42 Cal.4th 1, 50

People v. Brothers (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 24, 29-30, 33, fn. 6

Sixth Holding:

The most significant difference between the lesser offense described in section 148(a)(1) and the greater offense described in section 69(a) is that a defendant may be convicted of the lesser offense even if he did not use force or violence to effectuate the resistance. Accordingly, the trial court was required to instruct on the lesser offense of section 148(a)(1) resisting if substantial evidence supported a finding that the defendant did not use force or violence when he resisted the deputies.

Authority:

People v. Brown (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 140, 153

Seventh Holding:

Resisting an officer by force or violence under section 69(a) does not require either a threshold quantum of force or violence, or the use of force or violence upon the person of the officer. The statutory language does not, in other words, require the defendant to have actual physical contact with the officer. Thus, forceful resistance of an officer by itself gives rise to a violation of section 69, without proof force was directed toward or used on any officer. Here, there is no evidence the defendant did not use force in resisting arrest by the deputies. Under the facts here, there is no substantial evidence to show that only the lesser crime was committed. No reasonable juror could conclude the defendant’s physical resistance amounted to a violation of section 148(a)(1) but not of section 69(a). Therefore, the trial court was correct not to instruct the jury on section 148(a)(1).

Authority:

People v. Morgan (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 488, 508, disapproved on another ground in People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

People v. Carrasco (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 978, 985-986 [where uncontradicted evidence was that the defendant struggled forcefully against arrest, instruction on section 148(a)(1) was unnecessary because there was no evidence on which a jury could conclude the defendant resisted without violating section 69(a)]

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Fifth Amendment, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000347

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse and vacate the true findings on the gang murder special circumstances for counts 1 and 4. We also reverse and vacate the true findings on the gang enhancements for counts 1, 2, and 4. We remand the matter to the trial court to allow the District Attorney to retry the gang murder special circumstance and the gang enhancement for count 4 under the current version of the laws as amended by AB No. 333. Principles of double jeopardy preclude retrial as to the gang murder special circumstance for count 1 and the gang enhancement for counts 1 and 2.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 333 amended section 186.22. The amendment narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang as used for the gang enhancement in section 186.22(b) and the gang murder special circumstance in section 190.2(a)(22). It changed the definition to an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons whose members collectively engage in, or have engaged in, a pattern of criminal gang activity, rather than individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal gang activity under the former version of section 186.22. A pattern of criminal activity under former section 186.22(e) required two or more predicate offenses committed on separate occasions or by evidence of such offenses committed by two or more persons on the same occasion.

The amendment changed the requirements of a pattern of criminal activity in four ways. First, a pattern of criminal activity now requires the predicate offenses to be separate from the currently charged offense or offenses. Second, the last predicate offense must have occurred within three years of the commission of the currently charged offense. Third, it requires that the predicate offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to persons. Fourth, the predicate offenses must have commonly benefited a criminal street gang. AB 333 narrowed the common benefit for the gang by the commission of an offense to be more than reputational. The prosecution must show how the predicate offenses provided an actual common benefit to the gang, and that they did not merely enhance the reputation of its individual members.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(g)

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 738

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 460-461

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

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 450

Second Holding:

AB 333 applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments as we have here. The instructions read to the defendant’s jury preceded the effective date of AB 333 and his appeal was pending on that effective date. The new requirements in section 186.22 apply retroactively to his case on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 396

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 738-739

Third Holding:

We must reverse the gang enhancements and the gang murder special circumstance if any rational fact finder could have come to the opposite conclusion regarding the new requirements of AB 333.

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 462

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 739

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 453

Fourth Holding:

The double jeopardy clause of the federal constitution’s Fifth Amendment provides that no person may be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. The state constitution provides the same protection. A defendant may not be tried a second time for the same offense if the conviction is set aside for insufficiency of the evidence. Our conclusion that the gang special circumstance and the gang allegation were unsupported by sufficient evidence bars retrial.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 15

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 454-455, 468

Discretion, Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000346

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed a minimum $300 restitution fine and an assessment of $70 in ancillary costs. The trial court held a hearing and determined that the defendant had the ability to pay. We affirm the order on ancillary costs but remand to give the defendant the opportunity to further challenge the restitution fine under Kopp.

First Holding:

A person convicted of a crime can, and in some cases must, be ordered to pay a variety of punitive fines along with other nonpunitive ancillary costs. Some statutes require the imposition of fines and ancillary costs regardless of a defendant’s ability to pay. Other statutes require a finding of the ability to pay or allow for its consideration. Restitution fines under section 1202.4 are considered punitive fines, whereas assessments to fund court facilities and operations are considered ancillary costs. The distinction between punitive fines and other imposed payments is important because it impacts whether a given form of required payment is initially challenged under, and then reviewed under, the constitutional excessive fines clauses, or under the constitutional provision for equal protection.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 12, 14-15, 18 [we analyze fines and ancillary costs separately because different justifications support each, and different constitutional protections apply]

Second Holding:

If requested by a defendant, the court must consider the 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).

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 25-26, 30 [in light of the Legislature’s provision of fee waivers to indigent civil litigants, equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing either assessment]

Third Holding:

In reaching its conclusion that the defendant did not meet his burden to show his inability to pay the ancillary costs, the court considered his potential to earn wages while in prison and his general ability to work, which was within its discretion to do. The trial court did not state that it was relying solely on the defendant’s ability to earn wages while in prison. The court found simply that he is capable of working. The trial court’s conclusion that he had the ability to pay $70 in court assessments was not arbitrary or irrational.

Authority:

People v. Fish (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 730, 739 [collecting cases]

People v. Santos (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 923, 934 [factors to consider in determining ability to pay may include, among others, the defendant’s realistic ability to earn prison wages or obtain employment]

People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490, disapproved in part as stated in Kopp, at p. 23, fn. 17. 490 [trial court may consider potential prison pay during the period of incarceration” in determining inability to pay]

People v. Cervantes (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 213, 229 [ability to pay includes the ability both to obtain prison wages and to earn money after release from custody]

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377 [a trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it]

Fourth Holding:

Punitive fines are subject to a different approach. There is no due process requirement to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine. Sentencing judges may, and often do, consider the defendant’s ability to pay, but in such circumstances they are guided by sound judicial discretion rather than by constitutional mandate.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 23

San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez (1973) 411 U.S. 1, 22

Fifth Holding:

A court has discretion to impose a nonexcessive fine as punishment, even on indigent defendants. Thus, the excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines. The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry for excessive fines is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish. While ability to pay may be part of the proportionality analysis, it is not the only factor.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 8th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 21, 23

United States v. Bajakajian (1998) 524 U.S. 321, 334

Sixth Holding:

Under section 1202.4(b), the restitution fine shall be set at the discretion of the court and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. The court shall impose the restitution fine unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. A defendant’s inability to pay shall not be considered a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution fine. Inability to pay may be considered only in increasing the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the minimum fine.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4

Seventh Holding:

A court’s ruling on ability to pay is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating his or her inability to pay the imposed amounts.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 21, 24

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 868

People v. Lowery (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1046, 1057, 1053

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000345

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Pursuant to a plea bargain, the two defendants pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter. Both petitioned the court for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. The court denied each man’s petition. We reverse and remand for the trial court to hold another evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 1172.6(d)(3) to determine whether the defendant’s would be guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt under current law.

First Holding:

In 2019, the Legislature enacted SB 1437, which altered the rules of murder liability to ensure culpability more closely matched punishment. To provide retroactive relief, SB 1437 also established a resentencing process, now codified in section 1172.6. This statute permits individuals convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter under a theory made invalid by the current law to petition the sentencing court to vacate the conviction and seek resentencing. Petitioners can seek such relief whether their convictions are the result of a trial or acceptance of a plea offer in lieu of a trial.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 472

Second Holding:

We review the court’s finding for substantial evidence, making all inferences in favor of the judgment.

Authority:

People v. Schell (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 437, 442

Third Holding:

Three times the court stated the defendants could be convicted of the crime to which they pleaded–voluntary manslaughter. In one instance, the court noted it was significant the crime they had pleaded to was manslaughter. However, that is not the question the court must answer. The evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6(d)(3), requires the court to determine whether the petitioner could be convicted of murder or attempted murder under current law – not manslaughter.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

Fourth Holding:

On this record, we cannot confidently find the trial court meant to find the two men could be found guilty of murder and not manslaughter under current law. We therefore remand for the court to hold an evidentiary hearing and answer the required question under section 1172.6(d)(3) with regard to their manslaughter convictions.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6