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.

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Jury instructions, Standard of review

Case 000344

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred and violated his due process rights by failing to provide a self-defense instruction as to the lesser included battery offense. We reverse defendant’s misdemeanor simple battery conviction.

First Holding:

The trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 239

Second Holding:

We independently review claims of instructional error. We examine the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579

People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218

People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1229

Third Holding:

Under appropriate circumstances a trial court may be required to give a requested jury instruction that pinpoints a defense theory of the case. But a trial court need not give a pinpoint instruction if it is argumentative , merely duplicates other instructions , or is not supported by substantial evidence. However, a defendant bears the burden of requesting a pinpoint instruction; a trial court has no sua sponte duty to provide one.

Authority:

People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 558

People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 824

Fourth Holding:

Furthermore, a trial court must instruct the jury sua sponte on general principles of law applicable to the case, including any defense supported by substantial evidence that is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case. In deciding whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the evidence, but only whether there is evidence which, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt.

Authority:

People v. Villanueva (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 41, 49

People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 195

People v. Orlosky (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 257, 269-270

Fifth Holding:

Generally, a party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language. But that rule does not apply when the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law. Moreover, a failure to object to instructional error will not result in forfeiture if the error affects the defendant’s substantial rights. In this instance, the trial court on its own modified the instruction on the lesser included offense of battery by omitting the element of lack of self-defense, and directing the jury to consider self-defense solely on the question of whether he acted in self-defense on the greater offense of inflicting corporal injury. The instruction affirmatively and erroneously precluded the jury from considering the self-defense evidence in connection with the lesser included battery charge.

Authority:

People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1011-1012

People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579

People v. Townsel (2016) 63 Cal.4th 25, 60

Sixth Holding:

The California Supreme Court has yet to determine whether a trial court’s failure to instruct on a requested affirmative defense instruction supported by substantial evidence is federal constitutional error or state law error. We need not resolve the question in this case, because the error was prejudicial even under the state law standard. Under that standard, reversal is warranted if it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error. In this context, a probability does not mean more likely than not, but merely a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 186, 199

People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 984

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [federal harmlessness standard]

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836-837 [state law harmlessness standard]

Richardson v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1040, 1050

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000343

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The true finding on the defendant’s prior felony strike conviction must be reversed in light of changes to the gang criminal activity statute by AB 333. Defendant’s sentence, as well as the true finding that defendant’s prior conviction qualifies as prior serious felony conviction under the Three Strikes law, is vacated. The matter is remanded to the trial court for any retrial of that allegation, applying the elements of section 186.22 as amended by AB 333 and for resentencing.

First Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature amended section 186.22 with the passage of AB 333. 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. AB 333 is ameliorative legislation that applies to nonfinal judgments under the rule of Estrada.

Authority:

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

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

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

Second Holding:

In Fletcher, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether AB 333 applies to a sentencing court’s determination of whether a defendant’s conviction under the prior version of section 186.22 qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction for purposes of prior serious felony enhancements. It concluded that where a defendant has suffered a prior conviction under the earlier 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. It also held that it applies retroactively to cases in which the judgment is not yet final.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

That the defendant admitted the prior conviction does not forfeit the issue. Defendant’s admission cannot be construed as knowingly and/or intelligently made because it was prior to the decision in Fletcher. The true finding on defendant’s strike prior should be reversed, and the matter remanded to the trial court for any retrial of the strike allegation, applying the elements of section 186.22 as amended by AB 333. Notwithstanding the admission of the prior conviction in the trial court, we have discretion to reach the merits.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [an appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party]

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 400 [an appellate court may reach the merits of a forfeited issue in order to forestall a cognizable ineffective assistance of counsel claim]

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000342

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the court dismissed the now-invalid prior prison term enhancements, but decline to apply the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 to reduce the sentence further. The trial court concluded that section 1172.75 unconstitutionally amended section 170.126 (the petition-for-recall process for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act). Because the Supreme Court has since determined that there is no constitutional conflict, the matter is reversed and remanded for the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Holding:

The Three Strikes Reform Act limited indeterminate life sentences for nonserious, nonviolent third strike offenses. Pursuant to the Reform Act, codified at section 1170.126, a defendant can petition for a recall of sentence and request resentencing. In 2021, section 1172.75 was enacted by the Legislature, directing courts resentencing defendants to use currently applicable sentencing rules and to apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion with a goal of eliminating disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing. Because section 1172.75 incorporates the consideration of the danger to public safety inherent in section 1170.126, the two statutes operate harmoniously, and section 1172.75 is therefore constitutional and a valid, applicable statute under which a defendant may request resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1170.126

PEN 1172.75(d)(2)

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 849-850

Effective assistance of counsel, Fines and fees, Standard of review

Case: 000341

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court ordered restitution in the amount of the manufacturer’s suggested retail price rather than the wholesale price of the goods taken from the retailer. The items had been returned to the retailer following the arrest. Rather than attempt to resell the items on its website advertising “like new” items for sale, the retailer simply destroyed them or donated the items. It was error to base the value of the loss at the manufacturer’s suggested retail price. We will vacate the restitution order and remand for a new restitution hearing.

First Holding:

The defendant did not object on the specific ground that the measure should have been the wholesale value, but that it should have been calculated using a diminished value. Nonetheless, even assuming defendant did not properly object to the trial court’s calculation of restitution, reviewing courts may address issues on appeal that present pure questions of law. Because the proper measure of restitution presents a pure question of law, and in light of defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [an appellate court has authority to reach a forfeited claim]

Second Holding:

We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion. A victim’s restitution right is to be broadly and liberally construed. When there is a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court, no abuse of discretion will be found by the reviewing court.

Authority:

In re Johnny M. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1132

Third Holding:

A restitution order is not intended to provide the victim with a windfall; rather, it is intended to compensate for the victim’s actual loss. Here, there is no evidence in the record of any profits the retailer lost due to defendant’s crimes. As the People concede, giving the retailer restitution based on the retail value of the merchandise rather than the wholesale cost would provide a windfall, because such award would exceed the cost to replace those items.

Authority:

People v. Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1172, 1178-1180 [holding that hat because prosecutor presented no evidence that the retailer lost any profit due to the defendants’ theft, the court’s restitution order based on the retail price of the merchandise was improper]

Jury trial, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000340

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was committed to the Department of State Hospitals nearly 50 years ago after being found not guilty by reason of insanity of robbery and assault. He challenges the order recommitting him for two years. The record fails to establish that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights to a jury trial and we therefore reverse.

First Holding:

Where a criminal defendant has been found to have been insane at the time the offense was committed, unless it appears to the trial court that the sanity of the defendant has been recovered fully, the court may order the defendant committed to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) or any other appropriate facility for care and treatment. The commitment order must specify the maximum term of commitment, which is defined as the longest term of imprisonment which could have been imposed for the offense of which the person was convicted.

Authority:

PEN 1026(a)

People v. K.P. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 331, 338

Second Holding:

A person committed to DSH who completes the maximum term of commitment must be released unless, prior to the expiration of that term, the prosecution files a petition seeking to extend the commitment by two years and demonstrates that the person, by reason of a mental disease, defect, or disorder represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. Upon the filing of such a petition, the person is entitled to a jury trial, unless that right is waived by both the person and the prosecuting attorney.

To proceed with a bench trial instead of a jury trial in a recommitment proceeding, the trial court must obtain a personal waiver of that right from the defendant unless the court finds substantial evidence that the defendant lacks the capacity to make a knowing and voluntary waiver, in which case defense counsel controls the waiver decision. Here, neither party contends that the defendant lacked the capacity to knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to a jury, so the only question before us is whether he personally waived it.

Authority:

PEN 1026.5(b)

People v. Superior Court (Frezier) (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 652, 661–662

People v. Tran (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1160, 1163

Third Holding:

We uphold a jury-trial waiver only if the record affirmatively shows that it is voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. We do not start with a presumption of validity that may only be rebutted by signs of a defendant’s confusion or unwillingness in entering a waiver. Instead, a reviewing court satisfies itself of a legitimate waiver only when the record affirmatively demonstrates it was knowing and intelligent.

The denial of a defendant’s right to a jury trial in a recommitment proceeding, including through the acceptance of an invalid jury trial waiver is not susceptible to ordinary harmless error analysis and automatically requires reversal.

We cannot be certain on this record that the court and the defendant were ever, in the court’s words, on the same page regarding his desire to waive his right to a jury trial. And because we cannot be confident that the defendant actually waived the right, we do not ascribe much significance to his final indication that he did not have any questions about waiving the right. Under the totality of the circumstances, the record does not affirmatively demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury.

As a result, the order extending his commitment to DSH cannot stand.

Authority:

People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 991

People v. Tran (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1160, 1169

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000339

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because of insufficient evidence of the predicate offense, we reverse the juvenile court’s true finding on the gang enhancement as to count 1 pursuant to section 186.22(b)(1)(A) and remand the matter for resentencing. The prosecution did not present any evidence of predicate offenses showing the alleged gang members individually or collectively engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity. Thus, it did not prove that the robbery was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang.

First Holding:

Pursuant to section 186.22(b)(1)(A), the juvenile court may impose a sentencing enhancement for a felony committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(b)(1)(A)

Second Holding:

A gang is an ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, having as one of its primary activities the commission of one or more enumerated offenses, having a common name or common identifying sign or symbol, and whose members individually or collectively engage in, or have engaged in, a pattern of criminal gang activity.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(f)

Third Holding:

A pattern of criminal gang activity is the commission of, attempted commission of, conspiracy to commit, or solicitation of, sustained juvenile petition for, or conviction of, two or more enumerated offenses, provided at least one of these offenses occurred after the effective date of [the criminal gang activity chapter], and the last of those offenses occurred within three years of the prior offense and within three years of the date the current offense is alleged to have been committed, the offenses were committed on separate occasions or by two or more members, the offense commonly benefited a criminal street gang, and the common benefit from the offenses is more than reputational.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(e)(1)

Fourth Holding:

The offenses comprising a pattern of criminal gang activity are referred to as predicate offenses. The term ‘commission’ includes the broader statutory inclusion of the ‘attempted commission of, conspiracy to commit, or solicitation of, sustained juvenile petition for, or conviction’ of a predicate offense.

Authority:

People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818, 82

Fifth Holding:

Section 186.22(e) does not state that a predicate offense must be committed by a gang member. However, that requirement derives from the definition of a criminal street gang, which includes proof that the gang’s members individually or collectively engage in, or have engaged in, a pattern of criminal gang activity. It follows, then, that the proof of a predicate offense must establish that a member of a defendant’s alleged gang was involved in its commission. Taken together the statutory scheme requires proof that gang members committed at least two predicate offenses within the statutory timeframe. Such proof will generally require evidence of who committed the crime and when they did so, as well as evidence of their gang membership and the nature of the crimes.

Authority:

People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818, 829–830

Sixth Holding:

When assessing a claim of sufficiency of evidence of a gang enhancement under section 186.22, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. While substantial evidence may consist of inferences, such inferences must be a product of logic and reason and must rest on the evidence’; inferences that are the result of mere speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding.

Authority:

People v. Shively (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 460, 468

Kuhn v. Department of General Services (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1627, 1633

Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000338

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

When it initially granted the defendant probation, the court waived various fines and assessments based on indigence. On revocation of probation, the court imposed a restitution fine and other assessments. Remanded for the court to consider the defendant’s challenges to the fees and assessments in light of a recent Supreme Court decision.

First Holding:

Under the Supreme Court’s holding in Kopp a defendant may challenge the imposition of any fine as constitutionally excessive. Because Kopp was decided after entry of the juidgment on appeal here, the defendant should have the opportunity to make such a challenge. Though the court could determine that the issue was forfeited for lack of objection, forfeiture may be excused where to require defense counsel to raise an objection would place an unreasonable burden on defendants to anticipate unforeseen changes in the law.

Authority:

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

People v. Perez (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1, 8

People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113, 127 [Courts generally decline to apply the forfeiture rule to a right derived from recent, unanticipated changes to the law.]

Second Holding:

A restitution fine under section 1202.4(b)(1) is required in every case where a person is convicted of a crime unless the court finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. ) Section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1), states that the minimum restitution fine is $300 for each felony conviction and that the maximum fine is $10,000. Section 1202.4, subdivision (c), allows the court not to impose the restitution fine for compelling and extraordinary reasons, but states the defendant’s inability to pay is not a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose the minimum fine. Thus, the 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
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 13, 30

People v. El (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 963, 967

People v. Preston (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 415, 423

People v. Miracle (2018) 6 Cal.5th 318, 356

People v. Montelongo (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 1016, 1033 [Under section 1202.4(c), the trial court may not consider a defendant’s ability to pay when imposing the minimum restitution fine of $300, but the court may consider the defendant’s ability to pay if the court imposes a restitution fine above the minimum.]

Third Holding:

Although fines may properly be imposed as punishment for crime, the “excessive fines analysis” under the United States and California Constitutions, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines. But there is no due process requirement to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23 and fn. 17

Fourth Holding:

Section 1465.8(a)(1) requires, to assist in funding court operations, an assessment of $40 to be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense. Government Code section 70373(a)(1) requires, to ensure and maintain adequate funding for court facilities, that $30 assessment be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense. Both costs are mandatory. But 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).

Authority:

PEN 1465.8

GOV 70373(a)(1)

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 9, 15

People v. Robinson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 401, 405

Abstracts and Minutes

Case: 000337

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment should be amended to reflect one additional day.

Holding:

[GARY NOTE: Likely because the error and solution are so obvious, the court did not cite authority in support of its order. But it COULD have cited any of several cases, some of which I have listed 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

People v. Taylor (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 628

People v. Acosta (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 411, 428, fn. 8

Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000336 (There is no 000335)

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court should have stayed the sentence for either the assault or the battery conviction.

First Holding:

Although Code of Civil Procedure section 269 provided defendant with a statutory right to a certified shorthand reporter rather than an electronic recording, we conclude violation of that statutory right was harmless. The proceedings were recorded electronically and extensive transcripts were prepared based on the recordings.

The California Supreme Court has held that the trial court’s failure to comply with Penal Code section 190.9, requiring that all proceedings in a capital case be conducted on the record with a court reporter present, was harmless where the record was nevertheless adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.

Similarly, here, defendant possessed a statutory right to a certified court reporter, but the trial court’s inability to comply with that right, regardless of the reason, was harmless so long as the electronic recording produced an adequate appellate record.

(Gary note:  You might want to look at Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court (Contra Costa County) 8/10/26 S288176, in which the Supreme Court recognized the right to a verbatim transcript, whether by certified shorthand reporter or electronic, despite the Government Code section 69957 proscription against use of electronic recording other than in limited exceptions.  While the case was a civil dispute, the principles would seem to apply in criminal cases as well.  It’s at least worth looking at, because it may be useful on the quality of the transcript process even where criminal proceedings are electronically recorded.)

Authority:

CCP 269

People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1256-1258 (Hajek and Vo were abrogated on another point by People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1216)

Second 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

Third Holding:

Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an act or omission may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective. We first consider if the different crimes were completed by a single physical act. If so, the defendant may not be punished more than once for that act.

Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single intent and objective or multiple intents and objectives. Section 654 prohibits multiple sentences where the defendant commits different acts that violate different statutes but the acts comprise an indivisible course of conduct engaged in with a single intent and objective.

Whether section 654 applies in a given case is a question of fact for the trial court, which is vested with broad latitude in making its determination. Its findings will not be reversed on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them.

Authority:

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311

People v. Latten (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 574, 577

People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143

Fourth Holding:

Section 654 now provides the trial court with discretion to impose and execute the sentence of either term, which could result in the trial court imposing and executing the shorter sentence rather than the longer sentence. Thus, unless the record clearly indicates which sentence the trial court would stay, remand is required to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion.

Authority:

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391

Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000334

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the conclusion of the hearing under section 1172.75, the trial court miscalculated the credit for time served, and the abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect the correct credits.

Holding:

The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the correct days of custody credit.

Authority:

People v. Taylor (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 628

People v. Acosta (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 411, 428, fn. 8

Sentencing

Case: 000333

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred by sentencing appellant to a consecutive mid-term of eight years on count 6, because he was convicted of only a single relevant offense. The mandatory consecutive sentencing scheme in section 667(d) can apply only when a defendant stands convicted of multiple enumerated sex offenses

Holding:

The trial court sentenced appellant to a consecutive mid-term of eight years on count 6 under section 667.6(d)(1). But as the parties correctly note, the mandatory consecutive sentencing scheme in subdivision (d) can apply only when a defendant stands convicted of multiple” enumerated sex offenses under this statute. Here appellant was convicted of only one offense under section 667.6(e) and therefore the sentence on count 6 must be reconsidered.

Authority:

People v. Jones (1988) 46 Cal.3d 585, 594, fn. 5

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000332

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse count 5 because section 4502 permits only a single conviction for possession of more than one weapon at the same time and place in prison.

Holding:

Section 4502 permits only a single conviction for possession of more than one unlawful weapon at the same time and place in prison.

Authority:

People v. Rowland (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 61, 64-67

(GARY NOTE: The opinion in Rowland relied on People v. Kirk (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 58, which held that possession of more than one sawed-off shotgun at the same time could result in only one count of conviction under what was then section 12020.

(What was then section 12020 has since been broken down into numerous sections by the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010. Its provisions were spread among many new code sections. Best to look at the charging document for the charge, but also look for separate sections that may define the terms.

(Subsequent to Kirk, the Legislature amended what was then section 12001 (now section 17800) to clarify that possession of more than one prohibited weapon simultaneously constituted separate offenses, each of which could be charged. The legislation specified the code section affected by the amendment, and Rowland relied on the absence of mention of section 4502 to conclude that possession of more than one weapon simultaneously under section 4502 still was limited to a single count, at least in part on the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another). The holding in this Case 000332 applied to section 4502. Rowland and its progeny should be used very carefully, and be cited only if its rationale has not been legislated away with respect to your given facts.)