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.

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Retroactivity, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case: 000295

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There are two defendants, both convicted of murder and other matters. We reverse all counts of the conviction of Defendant A because of instructional error. It is therefore not necessary for us to consider the other errors urged by Defendant A. As to Defendant B, we reverse the conviction on the firearm offenses because of instructional error, and agree that the jury’s true findings on gang enhancements and related gang-related firearm enhancements must be vacatedand remanded because of changes in the law of gang criminal activity.

[GARY NOTE: The opinion is 70 pages long and goes into extensive discussion of the elements of murder. The reversals were based on the absence of proper jury instructions. I have chosen to summarize only a few of the pronouncements in the opinion rather than present a treatise on the elements of murder. I will, however, send the opinion to attorneys on request.]

First Holding:

Due to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the meanings of “willfully,” “deliberately,” and “with premeditation,” or with the instructions describing aider and abettor liability for murder, Defendant A’s conviction for first degree murder requires reversal.

To be guilty of first degree murder as an aider and abettor, the jury must be instructed that a person aids and abets the commission of a crime when he or she, acting with (1) knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator; and (2) the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the offense, (3) by act or advice aids, promotes, encourages or instigates, the commission of the crime.

Authority:

People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 561

Second Holding:

We evaluate the failure to instruct the jury on an element of an offense for prejudice under Chapman. Under this standard, we must reverse the conviction unless after examining the entire cause, including the evidence, and considering all relevant circumstances, it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.

Authority:

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

People v. Beck and Cruz (2019) 8 Cal.5th 548, 642

People v. Swain (1996) 12 Cal.4th 593, 607

Third Holding:

We review a claim of instructional error de novo. Review of the adequacy of instructions is based on whether the trial court fully and fairly instructed on the applicable law. Generally, the trial court is required to instruct the jury on the general principles of law that are closely and openly connected with the evidence and that are necessary to the jury’s understanding of the case. It also has a duty to refrain from giving incorrect instructions or instructions on principles of law that are irrelevant and that would have the effect of confusing the jury or relieving it from making findings on the relevant issues. The trial court’s duty in this regard extends to lesser included offenses that find substantial support in the evidence. In determining the correctness of jury instructions, we consider the entire charge of the court, in light of the trial record.

Authority:

People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 581, 584

People v. Barber (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 787, 798-799

People v. Thomas (2023) 14 Cal.5th 327, 388–389

People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 162

People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 926

Fourth Holding:

An erroneous failure to instruct on a lesser included offense requires reversal of a conviction if, taking into account the entire record, it appears reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable outcome had the error not occurred. In a noncapital case, a failure to instruct sua sponte on a lesser necessarily included offense that is supported by the evidence is state law error that we review for prejudice under Watson. Under Watson, a defendant must show it is reasonably probable a more favorable result would have been obtained absent the error. We also consider the instructions as a whole, the jury’s findings, and the closing arguments of counsel.

Authority:

People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 169, 178

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836

People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 716

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818

People v. Beltran (2013) 56 Cal.4th 935, 955

People v. Larsen (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 810, 831

Fifth Holding:

We determine whether a jury instruction correctly states the law under the independent or de novo standard of review. When we review a purportedly erroneous instruction, we consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution.

Authority:

People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088

People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028

Sixth Holding:

AB 333 amended section 186.22, by, among other things, modifying the definitions of “pattern of criminal activity” and “criminal street gang,” as well as clarifying what is required to establish that an offense benefits, promotes, furthers, or assists a criminal street gang. Section 186.22 now requires proof of the following additional requirements with respect to predicate offenses: (1) the offenses must have commonly benefited a criminal street gang where the common benefit is more than reputational; (2) the last predicate offense must have occurred within three years of the date of the currently charged offense; (3) the predicate offenses must be committed on separate occasions or by two or more gang members, as opposed to persons; and (4) the charged offense cannot be used as a predicate offense.

To benefit, promote, further, or assist means to provide a common benefit to members of a gang where the common benefit is more than reputational. Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational may include, but are not limited to, financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting a perceived or actual gang rival, or intimidation or silencing of a potential current or previous witness or informant.

Authority:

People v. Perez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 192, 206

People v. Lopez (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 327, 345

Seventh Holding:

Because the changes to the criminal street gang statute in AB 333 are ameliorative,those changes apply retroactively to defendants whose convictions are not yet final.

Authority:

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

Discretion, Standard of review

Case: 000294

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion when it found the defendant unsuitable for mental health diversion despite acknowledging he did not pose an unreasonable risk of committing a “super strike.”

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 authorizes pretrial mental health diversion for defendants with qualifying mental health disorders.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

Second Holding:

A trial court’s ruling on a request for mental health diversion is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the court’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

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. A trial court further abuses its discretion if its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377

Fourth Holding:

A defendant is suitable for mental health diversion based on satisfaction of the following criteria: (1) In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder causing, contributing to, or motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment; (2) The defendant consents to diversion and waives the defendant’s 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)(1)-(4)

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795

Fifth Holding:

Under section 1170.18, an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety is an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a “super strike,” which includes any homicide or attempted homicide offense, any serious or violent felony punishable by life imprisonment or death, and sexually violent offenses.

Authority:

PEN 1170.18(c)

PEN 667(e)(2)(C)(iv)

Sixth Holding:

A trial court may not deny diversion to an otherwise eligible defendant unless it finds the defendant is likely to commit one of these offenses. In making this determination, the trial court may consider the opinions of the district attorney, the defense, or a qualified mental health expert, and may consider the defendant’s treatment plan, the defendant’s violence and criminal history, the current charged offense, and any other factors that the court deems appropriate.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 450

Seventh Holding:

The trial court found defendant unsuitable for mental health diversion despite acknowledging that he was not likely to commit a super strike offense. That acknowledgment was reasonable, given that defendant had never previously been convicted of a super strike offense and was not charged with a super strike in the underlying cases. Under the circumstances, there is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion defendant was likely to commit a super strike.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 897

Eighth Holding:

To the extent the trial court was relying on defendant’s history of noncompliance with medication, self-medicating with methamphetamine, his unwillingness to obey court orders, and probation violations, this was also an error. None of these past personal flaws is a reason that the Legislature has identified as valid for denying mental health diversion. Further, none of these reasons is consistent with the underlying purpose of the mental health diversion statute, namely to provide treatment to break the cycle of criminal recidivism for those with diagnosed disorders. Given that the court’s rationale failed to justify its decision to deny defendant mental health diversion, we must vacate the trial court’s orders.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 897 [expanding the reasons to deny diversion is inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the mental health diversion statute]E

 

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000293

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2022, the trial court resentenced the defendant under Penal Code section 1172.75, which invalidated prior prison enhancements, by striking the enhancements. The trial court, however, left intact the Three Strikes sentences. The court should have considered whether to reduce the sentence in line with the Three Strikes Reform Act.

Holding:

A trial court is required to apply the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 at a section 1172.75 proceeding absent a finding the defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838

Amelioration, Discretion, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000292

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In this appeal following resentencing under section 1172.75, the abstract of judgment must be amended to accurately reflect his actual custody credits, and several fines and fees must be reduced or vacated.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, section 1172.75(a) invalidated sentence enhancements imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 667.5. With exceptions not relevant here, the statute requires that sentences that include these invalid enhancements be recalled and the defendant resentenced.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

We review the trial court’s sentencing decision at a section 1172.75 resentencing for an abuse of discretion. Section 1172.75(d), vests the superior court with broad discretion based on an inherently factual inquiry. Under an abuse of discretion standard, we ask whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether its rulings of law are correct, and whether its application of the law to the facts was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Authority:

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 364

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 856–857

Third Holding:

An appellate court may not substitute its judgment about appropriate sentencing for that of the trial court, but instead must give due regard to the discretion vested in that court. The appellate court can find a reversible abuse of discretion only if it concludes that no reasonable judge would have agreed with the trial court’s decision. Unless that standard is met, the appellate court must affirm the decision, even if it might have ruled differentlyin the first instance.

Authority:

People v. Dain (2025) 18 Cal.5th 246, 258

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment reflects credit for time served but reflects 326 fewer days than the defendant is entitled to. It must be corrected to reflect the correct number of days.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

PEN 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29 [defendant entitled to all actual custody days since arrest, including date of resentencing]

Fifth Holding:

The trial court imposed a $30 criminal conviction fee on each count pursuant to Government Code section 70373. It also imposed a court operation fee of $40 per count pursuant to section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1). However, Government Code section 70373 only applies to convictions after the statute’s January 1, 2009 effective date. Similarly, the court operations fee is only applicable to convictions after the statute’s 2003 operative date. Because the defendant suffered the convictions in 1995, the criminal conviction and court operations fees must be stricken.

Authority:

PEN 1465.8

People v. Davis (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 998, 1000

People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4th 749, 753, 754

Sixth Holding:

The restitution fine must be vacated, as it was imposed more than 10 years ago. Upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

In re Mattison (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1066

SeventhHolding:

The parole revocation fine must be reduced from $300 to $200. At the resentencing hearing, the court imposed a $300 restitution fine and imposed and stayed a $300 parole revocation fine. However, because the trial court originally imposed a $200 restitution fine, and the court may not impose a more severe punishment on resentencing, we agree with the parties that the stayed parole revocation fine must be reduced to $200, matching the originally imposed restitution fine.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Pleading, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000291

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This was a People’s appeal from the trial court’s grant of a motion under section 995 to set aside counts and enhancements in the information that the magistrate found insufficient evidence to support at the preliminary hearing. Grant of section 995 motion affirmed.

[GARY NOTE: This opinion went into depth analyzing the sufficiency of evidence on the question of gang common benefit and whether the members collectively engaged in the pattern of criminal gang activity that the statute requires. It discussed several published cases as example that guided its decision. I have not included the discussion or the cases cited, as that depth is beyond the scope of this blog. I’m happy to provide the full opinion to any attorney who asks me for it.]

First Holding:

Under section 995, an information will be set aside if the defendant was committed without reasonable or probable cause. To establish probable cause sufficient to withstand a section 995 motion to dismiss, the People must make some showing as to the existence of each element of the charged offense. Reasonable or probable cause’ means such a state of facts as would lead a [person] of ordinary caution or prudence to believe, and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused. Probable cause signifies a level of proof below that of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or even proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The showing required at this stage is exceedingly low, and an information should be set aside only when there is a total absence of evidence to support a necessary element of the offense charged.

Authority:

Hale v. Superior Court (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 268, 271 [a defendant may utilize section 995 to strike invalid enhancement allegations]

People v. Chapple (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 540, 545

People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 473

People v. Superior Court (Mendez) (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 268, 276

People v. Garcia (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 864, 870–871

Second Holding:

When we review a section 995 motion, we disregard the ruling of the superior court and directly review the determination of the magistrate. We must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the information and decide whether there is probable cause to hold the defendants to answer, i.e., whether the evidence is such that a reasonable person could harbor a strong suspicion of the defendant’s guilt.

Authority:

People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 654 [reviewing denial of sec. 995 motion made after magistrate struck special circumstance allegation]

Lexin v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1050, 1072

Third Holding:

As here with respect to the gang evidence presented by the prosecution, where the facts are undisputed, the determination of probable cause constitutes a legal conclusion which is subject to independent review on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Farley) (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 315, 326

People v. Scully (2021) 11 Cal.5th 542, 582 [independent standard of review applies when magistrate determines that the People did not put forth sufficient evidence to support the charges]

Fourth Holding:

Not every crime committed by gang members is related to a gang. Concerned with lax interpretations of the prior gang law that allowed for overly expansive application of gang enhancements, the Legislature amended section 186.22 effective January 1, 2022. The amendments to section 186.22 narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang and increased the prosecution’s burden of proof by altering the definition of a criminal street gang and instituting new requirements to prove that a criminal street gang engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity.

Authority:

People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 744

People v. Renteria (2022) 13 Cal.5th 951, 961, fn. 6

Fifth Holding:

For the reasons stated in this opinion, we conclude that there was insufficient evidence that a reasonable person could harbor a strong suspicion that gang’s predicate offenses were either committed for the gang’s common benefit or that the gang members collectively engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity as defined under section 186.22. Finding insufficient evidence that the gang meets the definition of a criminal street gang under section 186.22, we discern no error in the trial court’s partial grant of the section 995 motion as to the gang enhancements and gang related firearm enhancements as to all defendants.

Authority:

Lexin v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1050, 1072

Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000290

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing following remand from the prior appeal, the court failed to recaculate the credit for time served.

First 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. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29

Second Holding:

The trial court must calculate the credits. It is not the proper function of the Court of Appeal to engage in this business of correction of clerical errors in the computation of credits.

Authority:

People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954, 959

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000289

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude that section 654 did not apply here because the trial court granted defendant probation without imposing sentence, so we affirm the judgment. But we direct the trial court to correct the clerk’s minute order to reflect the oral pronouncement as to the jail probation condition and restitution fine and corresponding stayed probation revocation fine as $300 each.

First Holding:

There is an apparent discrepancy between the court’s oral pronouncement imposing a probation condition of 300 days in county jail and the clerk’s minute order splitting the 300 days between the two counts, showing 150 days under each count. The record of the oral pronouncement of the court controls over the clerk’s minute order. The court’s oral pronouncement was clear. It imposed a probation condition of 300 days in county jail. We order the clerk’s minute order corrected to reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of a probation condition of 300 days in county jail.

Authority:

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

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 187-188

Second Holding:

Generally, section 654, which precludes multiple punishment for a single act, does not apply when a court grants a defendant probation. A grant of probation is neither punishment nor a criminal judgment. It is an act of grace and clemency designed to allow rehabilitation. No punishment is imposed. Section 654 does not apply where no punishment is imposed. This is so even if probation is conditioned on jail time. Here, because the trial court granted defendant probation without imposing a sentence, section 654 does not apply.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Stender (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 413, 425, overruled on other grounds in People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225, 240

People v. Wittig (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 124, 126-127 137

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 965

Third Holding:

The minute order conflicts with the trial court’s oral pronouncement, the latter which ordered only the mandatory minimum fines (here, $300), not the $1,000 fine included in the minutes. When there is a discrepancy between the court’s oral pronouncement and the clerk’s minute order or the abstract of judgment, the record of the oral pronouncement controls. We order the clerk’s minute order corrected to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of the mandatory minimum restitution fine of $300 and the corresponding stayed $300 probation revocation fine.

Authority:

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

Abstracts and Minutes

Case: 000288

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to amend the abstract of judgment for the conviction on count 2 by inserting on page one the number “6” both in the box for number of years imposed and in the box for “total time” imposed for that count.

[GARY NOTE: I can’t tell if this is a “victory,” but I included it because it is yet another instance of an error in the abstract. I suspect it had no impact in this case, but ….]

Holding:

Inasmuch as it is the oral pronouncement of sentence that controls, we exercise our authority to order that the abstract be amended to conform to the sentence pronounced at the sentencing hearing. As with other clerical errors, discrepancies between an abstract 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 [it is the oral pronouncement of sentence that constitutes the judgment; the abstract of judgment cannot add to or modify the judgment which it purports to digest or summarize]

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

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473

People v. Felix (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1618, 1631

Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000287

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We modify the judgment to vacate the balance of the $200 restitution fine pursuant to section 1465.9(d).

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, the Legislature amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), which provides that upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Second Holding:

We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. If the language of the statute contains no ambiguity, we presume the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute governs. The 10-year period starts with the original imposition of the fine and does not restart on resentencing. We modify the judgment to vacate the balance of the restitution fine.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 354

People v. The North River Ins. Co. (2025) 18 Cal.5th 1, 13

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 601 review granted 3/11/2026 (S295038)

Amelioration, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case: 000286

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the trial court failed to consider the amendments under AB 333 to the elements of gang criminal activity and gang criminal enhancements. The trial court must first, however, determine whether the defendant’s name was on a list prepared by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as being a person whose sentence includes a now-invalid enhancement for a prior prison term. If it is not, then the trial court has no jurisdiction to conduct a hearing under section 1172.75.

First Holding:

A trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has commenced. Where the trial court relinquishes custody of a defendant, it also loses jurisdiction over that defendant. The Legislature may restore jurisdiction to the trial court by enacting a statute allowing defendants with final convictions to petition for resentencing, and indeed, has done so several times.

Authority:

People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 636

Second Holding:

The Legislature did not create a right for defendants to petition for resentencing in section 1172.75. Instead, it required the secretary of the CDCR and the county correctional administrator of each county to initiate the resentencing process by identifying those persons in their custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an invalid enhancement and providing the name of each person to the sentencing court that imposed the enhancement. Absent action by the CDCR, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a defendant’s motion for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Escobedo (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 440, 447-448

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 381

People v. Newell (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 265, 268

People v. Cota (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1129-1131, review granted Oct. 1, 2025, S292637 [superior court has jurisdiction to resentence a defendant if the CDCR includes the defendant in a list of eligible inmates but fails to forward the list to the superior court]

Third Holding:

The record before us does not establish that the superior court had jurisdiction to resentence the defendant under section 1172.75. Any action taken without fundamental jurisdiction is void, not simply voidable. Prior to taking any further action on remand, therefore, the court must first determine whether the CDCR in fact placed the defendant’s name on a list of defendants potentially eligible for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 71

Fourth Holding:

The full resentencing rule applies to proceedings under section 1172.75. Under this rule, the resentencing court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the sentence and may revisit all prior sentencing decisions . In particular, the court may consider any changed circumstances since the original sentencing hearing.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 877

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

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424-425

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681

Fifth Holding:

The original sentence was based in part on the jury’s finding that the defendant committed the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Without that finding, his sentence for premeditated and deliberate attempted murder would have been life with the possibility of parole after having served seven years. Because of the gang finding, however, his sentence for attempted murder required that he serve at least 15 years prior to any parole.

AB 333 restricted the circumstances in which gang enhancements under section 186.22 apply. In resentencing proceedings under section 1172.75,the court shall apply any changes in law that reduce sentences, and the defendant argued that in light of the amendments to section 186.22, a retrial on the gang allegation is necessary. The trial court disagreed, concluding the gang enhancement has been found to be true and that a retrial was not warranted.

But AB 333’s substantive amendments to section 186.22 apply retroactively to defendants whose convictions are not final. Even if a defendant’s conviction became final years ago, if his sentence is vacated as a result of subsequent legislation, it becomes nonfinal for purposes of resentencing. Thus, assuming the court had jurisdiction to vacate the defendant’s sentence, he is entitled to benefit from the recent amendments to section 186.22 at resentencing.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 162

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

Case: 000285

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment contained numerous errors and must be corrected. In addition, the judge did not specify which fines and fees he was not going to impose, and the judge failed to impose certain fees that are mandatory. Remanded for the judge to orally ponounce the fines and fees it intends to impose.

Holding:

The judgment against a defendant in a felony case must be pronounced by the court with the defendant, or an attorney for the defendant, present. Fines and fees, as part of the judgment, must be orally pronounced and cannot be simply added to the judgment later outside defendant’s presence. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.

Authority:

PEN 1191

PEN 1193

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 388-389

People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing

Case: 000284

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court only struck the now-invalid enhancement, and ortherwise left the original sentence intact. Because the court based its decision not to dismiss enhancements on the mistaken belief defendant was eligible for elderly parole, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion such that defendant’s case must be remanded for a full resentencing.

First Holding:

Section 1385(c)(1) provides that notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute. Section 1385(c)(2) provides in pertinent part, that in exercising its discretion under this subdivision, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the nine mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present. Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1032

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s sentencing decisions under section 1385 for an abuse of discretion. When a sentencing court is unaware of its discretionary powers, it cannot exercise informed discretion. The appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 225

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

Third Holding:

The trial court mistakenly believed defendant was eligible for elderly parole. (See sec. 3055(g).) Defendant’s sentenced under the Three Strikes law are not eligible for elderly parole. This mistaken belief tainted the trial court’s interests of justice analysis, as it relied heavily on the possibility defendant could obtain parole at a later, but certain, date regardless of its decision to dismiss enhancements. Because the trial court was mistaken about parole, we are uncertain the court would impose an identical sentence given the correct understanding that defendant’s future parole eligibility rested with the trial court alone. Accordingly, defendant is entitled to a full resentencing under the proper standard.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 419 [there must be clear indication the trial court would have reached the same conclusion with fully informed discretion]

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