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, Sentencing

Case: 000283

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, it was error for the court to impose and execute sentence on a count that had been stayed under section 654 at the original sentence.

First Holding:

The law of the case doctrine precluded the trial court from reimposing the one-year sentence on count four that was stayed pursuant to section 654. Under that doctrine, when an appellate court states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal.

Authority:

People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 786

People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 246

Second Holding:

Where the facts are undisputed, the application of section 654 raises a question of law.

Authority:

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 312

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335

Third Holding:

In defendant’s initial appeal, this court determined that the sentence on count 4 should be stayed pursuant to section 654. That point is now law of the case and the trial court was therefore precluded from reimposing the one year sentence on that count. The Attorney General concedes the cause should be remanded for a full resentencing, and because that will be our disposition, we need not discuss defendant’s contention that the trial court did not account for amendments to section 654 (AB 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) when it last sentenced defendant. That contention can be presented to the trial court in the first instance.

Authority:

PEN 654

Amelioration, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case: 000282

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court improperly imposed an upper term sentence without an appropriate factual finding or stipulation as to an aggravating factor, as required by Penal Code section 1170(b). We conclude that the defendant may raise this issue even though he stipulated to the sentence as part of a plea bargain.

First Holding:

When the defendant entered his plea in 2020, the choice to impose a lower, middle, or upper term sentence was committed to the sound discretion of the court. But when the court ultimately entered judgment in 2024, following the passage of SB 567, a trial court was permitted to impose an upper term sentence only when aggravating 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. The defendant argues that, although he agreed to the sentence in his plea agreement, the change in the law renders his agreement to an upper term sentence invalid in the absence of an appropriate finding of or stipulation to aggravating circumstances. The circumstances in French differ from those here in potentially meaningful ways. Nonetheless, in light of the significant uncertainty in this area and the potential Sixth Amendment implications, we deem it appropriate to exercise our discretion to reach the merits of the defendant’s arguments.

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36 [defendant did not forfeit his Sixth Amendment right by failing to request a jury trial on the aggravating circumstances]

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 326–327 [exercising discretion to forgive forfeiture because the application of amended section 1170, subdivision (b) implicates a constitutional right, as recognized in People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730]

Second Holding:

With respect to the merits, the People argue that because the defendant agreed to a specific term of imprisonment as part of his plea bargain, section 1170(b)’s sentencing procedures are irrelevant. As we have noted, this issue has been addressed in multiple Court of Appeal decisions and is now before the Supreme Court. We therefore dispense with offering significant additional analysis, except to say we are persuaded by the logic of the courts that have allowed defendants subject to stipulated sentences to seek the benefits of Senate Bill 567. Among other things, we think this best comports with Stamps, which is the leading authority on what relief is available under ameliorative sentencing legislation that takes effect after a defendant enters a plea agreement for a stipulated sentence.

Authority:

People v. De La Rosa Burgara (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1054, 1063, review granted February 21, 2024, S283452 [defendant entitled to remand]

People v. Todd (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 373, 381–382, review granted April 26, 2023, S279154 [same]

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685

Third Holding:

In keeping with Stamps, if the defendant waives the requirements of amended section 1170(b), the trial court shall reinstate his original sentence. If he invokes the requirements of section 1170(b), he must state whether he stipulates to the facts underlying an aggravating circumstance justifying the imposition of the upper term on count 1 and the enhancement, or whether he desires a jury or bench trial on any aggravating circumstances alleged by the People. If he stipulates to the facts underlying an aggravating circumstance justifying the upper-term sentence, the trial court shall find that the upper term may be imposed on count 1. If he requests a trial, the People will have the burden proving beyond a reasonable doubt the truth of any alleged aggravating circumstance justifying the imposition of the upper term. If the factfinder finds an aggravating circumstance true, and the trial court determines the upper term can be imposed on count 1, the court shall reinstate the original sentence. If the People fail to prove the truth of an aggravating circumstance, the trial court shall find that the sentence on count 1 cannot exceed the middle term. At that point, if the court does not approve of the plea agreement with the reduced sentence or if the People do not agree to the reduced sentence, the court shall vacate the plea in toto and return the parties to their status quo ante.

Authority:

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685

(Gary note: Is Stamps still good law? Effective 1/1/2025, section 1171 was enacted to give courts guides on how to handle various amerliorative statutes. Take a look at 1171(c)(3) in this partial rendition of section 1171 (bold and italics by me):

(Penal Code section 1171[(a) For the purposes of this section, “postconviction proceeding” means a proceeding to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute. Ameliorative statutes include, but are not limited to, Sections 1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75.
(…
((c) The following shall apply for all postconviction proceedings unless there is a conflict with a more specific rule established in statute, in which case the more specific statute shall apply: … (3) Any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement.
(…
((e) This section does not diminish the ability of the prosecution to oppose relief requested in a postconviction proceeding.
((f) This section shall not be interpreted to authorize anything prohibited by an initiative statute.)

Duty of the court, Juveniles

Case: 000281

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The case must be remanded for the juvenile court to declare the four offenses misdemeanors or felonies as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 702.

First Holding:

Crimes punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony at the discretion of the sentencing court are known as wobblers.

Authority:

In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 704

Second Holding:

If a minor commits a wobbler, the court shall declare the offense to be a misdemeanor or felony. The juvenile court must make this declaration at a hearing so the record expressly reflects the court was “‘aware of, and exercised its discretion’” to treat the offense as either a misdemeanor or a felony.

Authority:

WIC 702

In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 705

Third Holding:

Neither the pleading, the minute order, nor the setting of a felony-level period of physical confinement may substitute for a declaration by the juvenile court. Absent a juvenile court’s express declaration, or other record evidence establishing, it was aware of and exercised its discretion, the matter must be remanded for the requisite declaration to be made.

Authority:

In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199, 1208-1209

Fourth Holding:

Fourth Holding:
A claim of section 702 error is not forfeited by the defense’s failure to object in the juvenile court.

Authority:

In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 710-711

Fifth Holding:

We generally review sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when its decision is arbitrary or capricious or exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances. A failure to exercise discretion also may constitute an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847-848

People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1121

Duty of counsel, Effective assistance of counsel, Pleading, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000280

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

As to one of the counts the trial court improperly imposed an upper term sentence. The aggravating facts were found true by the judge rather than by the jury. Thus, we shall vacate the upper term sentence. On remand, the People may elect to retry the aggravating facts; if not, the court may proceed to resentencing.

First Holding:

The court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when 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. Trial on the circumstances in aggravation alleged in the indictment or information shall be bifurcated from the trial of charges and enhancements. The jury shall not be informed of the bifurcated allegations until there has been a conviction of a felony offense.

Authority:

PEN 1170

Second Holding:

When a trial court imposes an upper term sentence by relying on aggravating facts not proven in compliance with section 1170(b)(2), the sentence must be vacated, and the matter must be remanded for resentencing unless the reviewing court finds 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.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 744–775

Third Holding:

In this case there was a jury trial, but the aggravating facts were not alleged in the information, they were not found true by the jury, and they were not stipulated to by the defendant. The error was prejudicial under the federal constitutional standard of review. Therefore, we must vacate the upper term sentence as to count six and remand for resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(2)

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [when part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances]

Fourth Holding:

The People argue that the defendant forfeited this claim because he did not object to the error during the sentencing hearing. We agree that the defendant has forfeited this claim. However, we will exercise our discretion and not apply the forfeiture rule because it will have the effect of converting an appellate issue into a habeas corpus claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to preserve the question by timely objection.

Authority:

People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, 1128

Duty of counsel, Effective assistance of counsel, Evidence, Standard of review

Case: 000279

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We find merit in the defendant’s claim of prejudicially ineffective assistance with respect to the court’s admission of the law enforcement witness testimony, and therefore reverse.

First Holding:

A verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous admission of evidence unless there appears of record an objection to or a motion to exclude or to strike the evidence that was timely made and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of the objection or motion.

Authority:

EVID 353

People v. Flinner (2020) 10 Cal.5th 686, 726 [a defendant forfeits an argument on appeal where [s]he fails to object at all to the evidence in the trial court or when [s]he objects on substantively distinct grounds]

People v. Wilson (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1020, 1030 [defendant forfeited claim of prosecutor misconduct in closing argument, including based on an asserted violation of the Racial Justice Act, by failing to assign misconduct and request a jury admonishment]

Second Holding:

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and (2) counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial, i.e., there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failings, the result would have been more favorable to the defendant. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

Authority:

People v. Rices (2017) 4 Cal.5th 49, 80

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694

Third Holding:

In determining whether counsel’s performance was deficient, we exercise deferential scrutiny. The appellant must affirmatively show counsel’s deficiency involved a crucial issue and cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics. We presume counsel’s performance fell within the wide range of professional competence and that his or her actions and inactions can be explained as a matter of sound trial strategy. When the record on direct appeal sheds no light on why counsel failed to act in the manner challenged, defendant must show that there was no conceivable tactical purpose for counsel’s act or omission.

Authority:

People v. Loza (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 332, 351

People v. Aguirre (2025) 18 Cal.5th 629, 679

People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181, 198

Fourth Holding:

An attorney may choose not to object for many reasons, and the failure to object rarely establishes ineffectiveness of counsel.

Authority:

People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 609-610

People v. Torres (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 37, 48 [counsel’s decision not to object is generally a matter of trial tactics]

Fifth Holding:

This is the rare case where there is no satisfactory explanation for counsel’s failure to object to the testimony of the two police officers concerning whether a drug exchange took place and the defendant’s involvement. Opinions on guilt or innocence are inadmissible because they are of no assistance to the trier of fact. To put it another way, the trier of fact is as competent as the witness to weigh the evidence and draw a conclusion on the issue of guilt.

[GARY NOTE: the balance of this issue was very fact-dependent, with the court implicitly finding that there could have been no legitimate tactical reason for the attorney to not object to the testimony.]

Authority:

People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 77

People v. Torres (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 37, 47

People v. Brown (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 820, 827-829

People v. Duong (2020) 10 Cal.5th 36, 61 [trial court properly excluded proposed expert testimony that certain wounds were accidental and essentially that the defendant lacked the required intent, which was tantamount to expressing an opinion as to defendant’s guilt because it proposed to dispose of an essential element of the crime]

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000278

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Error and/or relief:
The trial court concluded that the defendant was ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 because his prior prison term enhancements were not executed. This was error.

Holding:

Section 1172.75 entitles a defendant to resentencing if the underlying judgment includes a prior-prison-term enhancement that was imposed before January 1, 2020, regardless of whether the enhancement was then executed or instead stayed.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000277

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

AB 333’s amendments to section 186.22 are retroactive and should have been addressed when appellant’s sentence was recalled under section 1172.75. As a result of those amendments, we reverse appellant’s conviction in count 4 for active participation in a criminal street gang, vacate the gang enhancements found true as to three felony convictions, and remand for the People to determine whether to retry appellant on the gang allegations pursuant to the amended version of section 186.22.

First Holding:

AB 333 changed the elements required to prove both the gang conviction under section 186.22(a) and the gang enhancement under subdivision (b). AB 333 added new elements to the substantive gang offense and gang enhancements in section 186.22—for example, by requiring proof that gang members collectively engage in a pattern of criminal gang activity, that the predicate offenses were committed by gang members, that the predicate offenses benefitted the gang, and that the predicate and underlying offenses provided more than a reputational benefit to the gang. These changes had the effect of increasing the threshold for conviction of the section 186.22 offense and the imposition of the enhancement.

Authority:

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

People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, 9

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 749

Second Holding:

AB 333’s amendments to section 186.22 are ameliorative and retroactive to all cases not final as of the legislation’s effective date. When a defendant’s sentence is recalled, the amended version of section 186.22 is applicable at the section 1172.75 resentencing hearing.

Authority:

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

People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, 25

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

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 395–396

People v. Salgado (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 376, 380–381

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 664, 667

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Jurisdiction, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000276

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The sentence on count 1 is unauthorized because no findings were ever made, either by the jury or the court, as to whether the defendant was previously convicted of a qualifying prior vehicle theft offense within the meaning of Penal Code section 666.5(a). On remand, the court shall also address whether one count should be stayed under section 654.  It should be noted that the minute order incorrectly states that the defendant admitted the prior conviction.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 666.5(a) provides that a person convicted of a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 who has been previously convicted of any of several enumerated sections of the Vehicle Code shall be punished by increased by a higher triad than the usual for section 10851. Though the defendant admitted three prior strike convictions, they were not the prior convictions relied on for the PC 666.5 allegation. In the absence of any findings on the allegation, the sentence is unauthorized and exceeded the court’s jurisdiction.

Authority:

PEN 666.5

People v. Neal (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1120

Second Holding:

The record does not reflect that the defendant personally admitted the one strike prior, as required by the law. Every plea shall be entered or withdrawn by the defendant himself or herself in open court.

Authority:

PEN 1018

People v. Hofferber (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 265, 268

Third Holding:

The minute order indicates the defendant admitted the prior strike, but we generally resolve conflicts between the reporter’s and clerk’s transcript in favor of the reporter’s transcript.

Authority:

In re Merrick V. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 235, 249

Fourth Holding:

A defendant may be charged with—and in some cases convicted of—multiple crimes arising out of the same conduct but cannot receive multiple punishments for the same act or omission. Concurrent sentences based on one act or an indivisible course of conduct violate the rules against double punishment. The defendant asserts the chains and stabilizing bars referenced in count 4 were used to tow the motorhome, that any taking or receiving of them was part of one continuous act, and that the court therefore should have stayed the sentence on count 4. The People concede, and we agree, that the matter can be addressed on remand.

Authority:

PEN 654

PEN 954

People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224, 1226−1227

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 353

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000275

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the two counts of driving a vehicle while under the influence, as he was also changed with operating a motor scooter while under the influence of alcohol. The latter is a more specific statute than the former, and the defendant must therefore be prosecuted under the more specific statute.

First Holding:

A criminal defendant may not be prosecuted under a general statute if the conduct at issue is covered under a more specific statute.

Authority:

In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651

Second Holding:

A motorized scooter is a vehicle under the definition of vehicle under Vehicle Code section 670: A vehicle is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

Authority:

VEH 670

Third Holding:

Under the Williamson rule, if a general statute includes the same conduct as a special statute, the court infers that the Legislature intended that conduct to be prosecuted exclusively under the special statute. In effect, the special statute is interpreted as creating an exception to the general statute for conduct that otherwise could be prosecuted under either statute. Absent some indication of legislative intent to the contrary, the Williamson rule applies when (1) each element of the general statute corresponds to an element on the face of the special statute or (2) when it appears from the statutory context that a violation of the special statute will necessarily or commonly result in a violation of the general statute.

Authority:

People v. Murphy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 81, 86

People v. Henry (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 786, 791-792

Fourth Holding:

It is not correct to assume that the Williamson rule is inapplicable whenever the general statute contains an element not found within the four corners of the special law. Rather, the courts must consider the context in which the statutes are placed. If it appears from the entire context that a violation of the special statute will commonly result in a violation of the general statute, the Williamson rule may apply even though the elements of the general statute are not mirrored on the face of the special statute.

Authority:

People v. Murphy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 81, 8

Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000274

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the trial court to deny the section 1172.6 petition for recall of sentence based on its conclusion that the defendant was ineligible for relief because there was substantial evidence that he was convicted on a still-valid theory of murder.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. As part of these ameliorative changes, malice, a key element the People must prove in a murder prosecution, may no longer be imputed to a defendant solely because the defendant participated in another crime. Defendants who were neither actual killers nor acted with the intent to kill can be held liable for murder only if they were major participants in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in subdivision (d) of section 190.2—that is, the statute defining the felony-murder special circumstance.

Authority:

SB 1437

PC 1172.6

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 967

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558

Second Holding:

The trial court used an incorrect legal standard to deny the petition at the prima facie stage. The court erred by applying the substantial evidence standard in concluding defendant was ineligible for relief. The statute does not permit a court to deny a petition at the prima facie stage based on a determination that substantial evidence shows defendant is ineligible for relief. Instead, at this stage, the defendant need only make a prima facie case for relief. In this inquiry, the court takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971

Third Holding:

Should a trial court encounter a material fact dispute, the court may not resolve that dispute at the prima facie stage and should instead grant petitioner an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 567

Amelioration, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000273

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the trial court to impose the upper term based on its own conclusion that the defendant’s prior convictions were numerous and of increasing seriousness, where there was no waiver of a jury or stipulation by the defendant. Defendant was not advised of his right to a jury trial on the aggravating facts, nor did he explicitly waive his right to jury trial on those aggravating facts. The trial court erred in imposing an upper term sentence in the absence of such a waiver.

First Holding:

The trial court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when circumstances in aggravation of the crime justify imposition of an upper term sentence, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury or court trial. This jury trial right is constitutionally required for all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction, relied upon to justify an upper term sentence. A defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.

Authority:

PEN 1170

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

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

Second Holding:

A sentencing judge may only use the information in the record of conviction for the limited function of determining the fact of a prior conviction and the then-existing elements of that offense. A determination that defendant’s prior convictions are of increasing seriousness requires a comparison and evaluation of the relationship among a defendant’s prior convictions, and a determination as to their relative seriousness. As a result, it involves something more than a narrow factual finding that the convictions were sustained and what elements were required to prove them. Thus, defendant was entitled to a jury determination on this aggravating factor.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1081-1083

Third Holding:

Defendant must personally waive the right to a jury trial in open court. The waiver must be explicit and will not be implied from a defendant’s conduct. Therefore, a defendant’s failure to object also would not preclude his asserting on appeal that he was denied his constitutional right to a jury trial.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 16

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 46

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Juveniles, Sentencing

Case: 000272

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter was remanded back to this course following an earlier appeal, for reconsideration in light of People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261. We once again affirmed the judgment, but remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to determine whether petitioner was entitled to a Franklin hearing. Petitioner’s appeal was not final until 2017, after Proposition 57 went into effect on November 9, 2016. Thus, his sentence was nonfinal for purposes of Prop. 57’s application. As such, pursuant to Padilla, he is entitled to a transfer hearing

Holding:

Prop. 57 affords the right to a juvenile transfer hearing to all juveniles charged directly in adult court whose judgment was not final at the time it was enacted. Prop. 57 applies to a sentence that was imposed prior to Prop. 57 but later vacated through a subsequent habeas proceeding. Here, petitioner’s case was directly filed in adult court before Prop. 57 was enacted, but his sentence was vacated through a habeas corpus petition subsequent to the effective date. Thus, his sentence was nonfinal for purposes of Prop. 57’s application. As such, pursuant to Padilla, he is entitled to a transfer hearing. Respondent concedes this position. Thus, it is appropriate to grant the requested relief.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court of Riverside County (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 304

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 159