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

Case 000747

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On remand from the previous appeal, the trial court did not follow the instructions in the opinion to determine whether the defendant was guilty of implied malice second degree murder, and instead concentrated on whether the defendant had made a prima facie showing that he was eligible for relief under section 1172.6.

The matter must again be reversed and remanded for section 1172.6 (d) proceedings, including briefing and an evidentiary hearing wherein the People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is still guilty of second degree implied malice murder.

First Holding:

The order of the reviewing court is contained in its remittitur, which defines the scope of the jurisdiction of the court to which the matter is returned. Where a reviewing court reverses a judgment with directions the trial court is bound by the directions given and has no authority to return any other issue or to make any other findings. Its authority is limited wholly and solely to following the directions of the reviewing court. Any material variance from the directions is unauthorized and void.

Authority:

Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 701

People v. Dutra (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1367

People v. Ramirez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 55, 64

Second Holding:

We previously remanded this matter with directions for the trial court to conduct further proceedings consistent with [the prior] decision. That decision explained that the trial court had inappropriately applied the felony-murder rule to the case and stated that on remand, we highlight the propriety of formal briefing by the parties to provide both argument and evidence in support of their respective positions regarding defendant’s current guilt for second degree, implied malice murder.

These proceedings shall be consistent with the requirements of amended section 1172.6(d) in order to determine whether the People have met their burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty of murder under California law as amended by the changes to section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.

The trial court’s order denying the petition on a prima facie basis (sec. 1172.6(c)) materially differed from these instructions. Accordingly, the court’s order is void and must be reversed.

Authority:

People v. Ramirez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 55

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Jury trial, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000746

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by discharging Juror No. 1 without good cause in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment. Our review of the record does not reveal it was a demonstrable reality that the discharged juror refused to deliberate. Rather, the juror listened to all the evidence, participated to some extent in the discussions in the jury room, and remained willing and able to vote concerning the verdict. The judgment is reversed.

First Holding:

If at any time, whether before or after the final submission of the case to the jury, a juror dies or becomes ill, or upon other good cause shown to the court is found to be unable to perform his or her duty, or if a juror requests a discharge and good cause appears therefor, the court may order the juror to be discharged. In most circumstances, section 1089 is applied to remove a juror “who becomes physically or emotionally unable to continue to serve as a juror due to illness or other circumstances. However, section 1089 also has been applied “to permit the removal of a juror who refuses to deliberate, on the theory that such a juror is unable to perform his duty.

Authority:

PEN 1089

People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466, 474

Second Holding:

The removal of a seated juror for failing to deliberate is a serious matter that implicates a defendant’s state and federal constitutional right to a unanimous decision by the jury. Accordingly, great caution is required when deciding to excuse a sitting juror. The requirement of a unanimous criminal verdict is an important safeguard, long recognized in American jurisprudence. This safeguard rests on the premise that each individual juror must exercise his or her own judgment in evaluating the case. The fact that other jurors may disagree with a panel member’s conclusions, or find disagreement frustrating, does not necessarily establish misconduct.

Authority:

People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 Cal.5th 432

People v. Allen and Johnson (2011) 53 Cal.4th 60, 71

Third Holding:

If a juror’s willingness or ability to continue deliberating is unclear, the trial court must take care that its investigation is neither too cursory nor intrudes too deeply into the jury’s deliberative process to avoid invading the sanctity of the deliberations or creating a coercive effect on those deliberations.

The circumstance that a juror does not deliberate well or relies upon faulty logic or analysis does not constitute a refusal to deliberate and is not a ground for discharge. Similarly, the circumstance that a juror disagrees with the majority of the jury as to what the evidence shows, or how the law should be applied to the facts, or the manner in which deliberations should be conducted does not constitute a refusal to deliberate and is not a ground for discharge.

Authority:

People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466, 485

Fourth Holding:

When reviewing the dismissal of a juror, the California Supreme Court has adopted a heightened standard of review that protects the defendant’s fundamental rights to due process and a fair trial. The juror’s inability to perform his or her duty must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality. This test is more comprehensive and less deferential than the substantial evidence test. Under both tests, the appellate court reviews the entire record and does not reweigh the evidence.

However, under the substantial evidence test, the court reviews the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and upholds it if there is credible evidence that could reasonably support the trial court’s decision to remove a juror. Under the demonstrable reality test, by contrast, we must determine whether the trial court actually did rely on evidence that supports removing the juror.

This heightened and “ore stringent demonstrable reality standard more fully reflects an appellate court’s obligation to protect a defendant’s fundamental rights to due process and to a fair trial by an unbiased jury. Under the more comprehensive and less deferential review applicable here, we consider the reasons that the trial court provided, identify the evidence on which the court actually relied, and determine whether the evidence manifestly supports the court’s conclusion that a juror is refusing to deliberate.

Authority:

People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 Cal.5th 432, 450-451

People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 1052, 1053

People v. McGhee (2025) 17 Cal.5th 612, 634 [a juror’s ability to describe to the court the views of the challenged juror showed there was some discussion going on]

People v. Engelman (2002) 28 Cal.4th 436, 446 [Jurors can be expected to disagree, even vehemently, and to attempt to persuade disagreeing fellow jurors by strenuous and sometimes heated means; it is not required that jurors deliberate well or skillfully]

People v. Barton (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 496, 515 [juror’s refusal to change her mind and her decision to no longer attempt to explain that decision to the other jurors did not amount to misconduct]

Fifth Holding:

An abuse of discretion in discharging a juror under section 1089 requires reversal only if it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached but for the error.

Authority:

Authority
People v. Bowers (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 722, 736 [applying the Watson standard]

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

People v. Henderson (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 530, 565 [discussing prejudice requirement]

Sixth Holding:

In some instances, removal of a juror was upheld. In Dixon, the discharged juror was not merely disagreeing with the other jurors. The trial court found that the juror was upset by a relative’s illness or by intimidation by the other jurors, and this emotional state inhibited the juror’s ability to deliberate. Based on its observation of the discharged juror’s demeanor, the court assessed that the juror had not been candid with the court about these effects on her ability to deliberate.

In Lomax, the discharged juror had prejudged the case but refused to share any of his reasoning with the other jurors, and the juror himself had said he was not able to consider the evidence or take part in the deliberations because of his conscientious objection to the death penalty.

In Samuels, discharge of a juror was upheld where the juror was distressed, asked to be removed, and told the court she could not follow her oath and lacked courage to impose the death penalty even if she were convinced the case required it.

Authority:

People v. Diaz (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 695, 705,

People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, 591

People v. Samuels (2005) 36 Cal.4th 96, 131–133

Seventh Holding:

While a jury is instructed to try to achieve a unanimous verdict, the possibility of a hung jury is an inevitable by-product of our unanimous verdict requirement.

Authority:

People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Cal.3d 675, 683

Eighth Holding:

It cannot be said a juror has refused to deliberate so long as a juror is willing and able to listen to the evidence presented in court, to consider the evidence and the judge’s instructions, and to finally come to a conclusion and vote. This is precisely what Juror No. 1 did.

Applying the heightened standard of review that governs our assessment of a trial court’s decision to discharge a juror, and based on our examination of the record as a whole, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in discharging Juror No. 1 because her inability to perform her duty as a juror does not appear in the record as a demonstrable reality.

Authority:

People v. Barton (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 496, 514

Ninth Holding:

On the facts in this case, there is no double jeopardy bar to retrial of the case.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 454 1, 9

Discretion, Due process, Duty of the court, Standard of review

Case 000745

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion and violated his right to due process when it denied a continuance to investigate and file a motion for a new trial after granting his motion to represent himself.

First Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision granting or denying a continuance for an abuse of discretion. Absent a showing of an abuse of discretion and prejudice, we will not reverse the trial court’s decision.

Authority:

People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1118

People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 450

Second Holding:

A trial court’s decision that is deemed an abuse of discretion has been described as a decision that exceeds the bounds of reason or as one that is arbitrary, capricious, patently absurd, or even whimsical. A court’s discretion, however, is not a whimsical, uncontrolled power. T

he scope of discretion always resides in the particular law being applied, i.e., in the legal principles governing the subject of the action. The court’s proper exercise of its discretion, therefore, requires knowledge and consideration of the legal principles essential to an informed, intelligent and just decision.

Where a ruling transgresses the confines of the applicable principles of law defining the scope of discretion, the court abuses its discretion.

Authority:

People v. Seigler (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 596, 609

People v. Jacobs (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 728, 737

City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1297

People v. Lara (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 139, 165

Third Holding:

In deciding whether to grant a continuance, trial courts may not exercise their discretion in such a manner as to deprive the defendant or defendant’s counsel of a reasonable opportunity to prepare.

That counsel for a defendant has a right to reasonable opportunity to prepare for a trial is as fundamental as is the right to counsel. The opportunity to prepare is no less fundamental when a defendant elects to proceed pro se.

While it is true that a defendant, who chooses to conduct his defense in pro. per. does so subject to the disabilities normally attendant upon the status as a prisoner, a pro se defendant must be given a reasonable opportunity to prepare a defense.

The denial of a continuance after a trial court grants a defendant’s request for self-representation could deprive a defendant of the opportunity to prepare a defense. To deny him that opportunity would be to render his right to appear in propria persona an empty formality, and in effect deny him the right to counsel.

Therefore, when a trial court grants a defendant’s request to proceed pro se, it has been held an abuse of discretion and a denial of due process to deny a request for a reasonable continuance to allow the in propria persona defendant to prepare a defense.

Authority:

People v. Sakarias (2000) 22 Cal.4th 596, 646

People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647, 652, 653-655

People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308, 324

People v. Wilkins (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 299, 304-305

People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744, 756, 757

Fourth Holding:

Courts have made an exception only where the record demonstrates the trial court expressly conditioned the granting of an untimely Faretta motion on the defendant’s express waiver of a continuance.

Authority:

Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806

People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1038 [court warned the defendant that a request for a continuance would be a basis for denying Faretta motion, and the defendant accepted pro se status on the understanding that no additional time would be granted]

People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 110 [court granted Faretta motion only after the defendant “expressly represented he was able to proceed without a continuance], overruled on other grounds in People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 462

People v. Rudd (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 620, 626 [Faretta motion granted only after the defendant expressly stated he would be able to proceed without a continuance]

Fifth Holding:

The denial of a continuance may be so arbitrary as to deny due process. There are no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process. Instead, the answer must be found in the circumstances present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied.

Authority:

People v. Beames (2007) 40 Cal.4th 907, 921

Sixth Holding:

The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a new trial motion, and its decision will be disturbed only for clear abuse of that discretion. Such an abuse of discretion occurs when the court bases its decision on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Iraheta (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 611, 619

Seventh Holding:

To be sure, the text of section 1181 expressly limits the grant of a motion for new trial to the nine grounds enumerated in the statute. And ineffectiveness of trial counsel is not one of them.

Trial courts, however, have a duty to ensure that a trial is conducted with solicitude for the essential rights of the accused. That includes the right to effective counsel.

The Legislature has no authority to limit by statute a court’s constitutional obligation to ensure that a defendant is accorded due process. Therefore, our Supreme Court has stated that section 1181 should not be read to limit the constitutional duty of trial courts to ensure that defendants be accorded due process of law.

In appropriate circumstances, the trial court should consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a motion for new trial, because justice is expedited when the issue of counsel’s effectiveness can be resolved promptly at the trial level.

Authority:

People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 582

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 630

People v. Watts (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 102, 117

Eighth Holding:

We take issue with the trial court’s determination that the defendant could raise the issues of ineffective assistance of counsel and late discovered evidence on appeal. Unless the record on appeal includes an explanation as to why trial counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, or unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, a claim on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective is at risk of being rejected.

Under the circumstances in this case, the trial court abused its discretion and deprived the defendant of his right to due process. We remand the matter and direct the trial court to grant the defendant a reasonable continuance to investigate and file a motion for new trial.

Authority:

People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267 [claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are often more appropriately litigated in a habeas corpus proceeding]

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000744

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstracts of judgment are inconsistent with the sentencing court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. We will order the abstract of judgment corrected to reflect the trial court’s imposition and stay of a $300 restitution fine, and its waiver of the $80 court security fee and $60 criminal conviction assessment fee. We will further order the determinate abstract of judgment corrected to reflect that the defendant was convicted by jury (not by plea) of count 2 (arson).

Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of judgment.

Authority:

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

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000743

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the defendant was not convicted of a serious felony in this case, the two five-year prior serious felony enhancements are not authorized and must be stricken.

First Holding:

The Three Strikes law is a sentencing scheme that requires a court to double or sometimes triple the punishment for a felony offense if the defendant was previously convicted of a crime that qualifies as a serious or violent’ felony. The serious or violent felonies that trigger this sentencing scheme, commonly referred to as strikes or strike priors, are enumerated by statute. If a defendant’s current offense is a serious felony, the defendant is also subject to a five-year prior serious felony enhancement—a so-called ‘nickel prior’—in addition to any strike

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 582

People v. Thomas (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1122, 1129,

People v. Arnett (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1609, 1613

Second Holding:

Penal Code section 667(a) provides that a person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted of a serious felony shall receive, in addition to the sentence imposed by the court for the present offense, a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction on charges brought and tried separately. A serious felony means a serious felony listed in section 1192.7(c), which identifies 42 offenses as serious felonies, including any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life.

Authority:

PEN 667(a)

PEN 1192.7(c)

Third Holding:

For an offense falling within the enumerated list without any change in elements since the conviction, the question whether that conviction qualifies as a serious felony is entirely legal. But if there is a factual question of whether conduct underlying the crime qualifies the offense as a serious felony, any such facts must be tried to the same factfinder that decided the defendant’s guilt of the charged crime.

Authority:

PEN 969f(a)

People v. Kelii (1999) 21 Cal.4th 452, 456

Fourth Holding:

None of the defendants prior convictions are for offenses listed in section 1192.7(c). And though he received a life sentence because he was a third-strike offender, section 1192.7(c)(7) category requires that the offense be itself punishable by life imprisonment, without regard to application of the Three Strikes law based on defendant’s status as a recidivist.

Authority:

People v. Thomas (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1122, 1130

People v. Hernandez (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 192, 198 [construing the ineligibility factors of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012–Proposition 36–depends on the nature of the offense itself, not the effect of other prior convictions on the defendant’s sentence]

People v. Harrison (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1145, 1159 [construing the ineligibility factors for consideration under section 1170.91 regarding the mitigating effect of trauma incurred in the course of military service, which may even include recall of the sentence and resentencing]

Fifth Holding:

Because the defendant was not convicted of a serious felony in this case, the two five-year prior serious felony enhancements are not authorized and must be stricken. We have authority to correct a sentence that is not authorized by law. But when an error affects part of a sentence, the case must be remanded for a full resentencing hearing as to all counts to permit a trial court to exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances. We thus remand for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Choyce (2025) 18 Cal.5th 86, 128

People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 743, fn. 13.)

People v. Shaw (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 582, 588-589

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