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.

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000692

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The condition of probation requiring the minor to “report to your probation officer as directed and follow his or her orders” is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and must be modified.

First Holding:

We review constitutional challenges to probation conditions de novo.

Authority:

People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717, 723

Second Holding:

A probation condition must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated, if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground of vagueness. A probation condition that imposes limitations on a person’s constitutional rights must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890

Third Holding:

Courts may not delegate to probation officers the authority to set probation conditions. A probation officer has wide discretion to enforce court-ordered conditions and to give directives to a probationer, if those directives are reasonably related to previously imposed terms. The condition as drafted does not clearly demarcate the scope of the probation officer’s wide discretion to enforce the court’s conditions. To remove any ambiguity on this point, we will direct that the condition be modified to read “Report to [the probation officer] as directed and follow his/her orders related to the probation conditions imposed by the court.”

Authority:

In re Pedro Q. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1368, 1372-1373

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902 [While the probation officer may properly specify the details necessary to effectuate the court’s probation conditions, it is the court’s duty to determine the nature of the requirements imposed on the probationer.]

Defenses, Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Fifth Amendment, Jury instructions, Standard of review

Case 000691

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court gave an erroneous instruction on involuntary manslaughter requiring reversal. Based on the findings of the jury that the defendant was not guilty under any valid theory, we do not order retrial on the involuntary manslaughter.

First Holding:

(Gary note: I provide the following as context for the results in this opinion. These summaries are intended and designed to highlight principles of law, not so much the specific factual situation in which the error occurred. In this jury instruction error case, though, a little more factual specificity may aid the reader in understanding the more universal principles.

(In this case, the judge modified the standard instruction on involuntary manslaughter in such a way that the jury first had to find that the defendant acted in complete self-defense, and then had to determine whether he did so in a negligent matter. But that is not the law. Complete self-defense ends the question. Had the defendant acted in any way that was NOT complete self-defense, then he would not have been acting lawfully. And the jury necessarily found that he acted in complete self-defense, so it was misled by the instruction that allowed the jury to find him guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

(The opinion summarizes the context: “Here, the jury found defendant not guilty of first degree and second degree murder based on the finding that defendant acted in lawful self-defense in shooting defendant. It further found defendant not guilty of voluntary manslaughter rejecting that unreasonable self-defense was applicable. It found defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter, finding, as recognized by the trial court, that defendant, ‘in a lawful act of self-defense, was criminally negligent in how he did it, and in his criminally negligent manner resulting in an involuntary manslaughter.’ As we have concluded, such determination was not a valid theory of involuntary manslaughter. There was no other theory of involuntary manslaughter presented to the jury. Here, the only question for the jury was whether defendant acted in reasonable self-defense in shooting [the victim] one time in the face. Once it concluded that such use of force was reasonable, it found lawful self-defense, which was a complete defense to involuntary manslaughter. The jury necessarily relied on the erroneous instruction to convict defendant of involuntary manslaughter after finding the complete defense of justifiable homicide. The error was prejudicial.”)

It is settled that in criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, a trial court must instruct on general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case. It is also well settled that this duty to instruct extends to defenses if it appears … the defendant is relying on such a defense, or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.

Authority:

People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 73

Second Holding:

In reviewing a claim that the court’s instructions were incorrect or misleading, we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury understood the instructions as asserted by the defendant. We consider the instructions as a whole and assume the jurors are intelligent persons capable of understanding and correlating all the instructions.

Authority:

People v. Butler (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 998, 1013

Third Holding:

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. A defendant lacks malice and is guilty of voluntary manslaughter in limited, explicitly defined circumstances: either when the defendant acts in a sudden quarrel or heat of passion, or when the defendant kills in unreasonable self-defense—the unreasonable but good faith belief in having to act in self-defense.

Authority:

PEN 192

People v. Elmore (2014) 59 Cal.4th 121, 132

People v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 87-88

Fourth Holding:

A defendant commits involuntary manslaughter by committing a homicide with the mens rea of criminal negligence. The offense must be based on one of three predicate acts: (1) killing in the commission of a misdemeanor ; (2) killing in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection; or (3) killing in the commission of a noninherently dangerous felony committed without due caution and circumspection.

The performance of an act with criminal negligence supplies the criminal intent for involuntary manslaughter, regardless whether the conduct underlying the offense is a misdemeanor, a lawful act, or a noninherently dangerous felony.

Authority:

People v. Sevilla (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 618, 626

Fifth Holding:

A killing in perfect self-defense is justifiable homicide. Perfect self-defense requires that one must actually and reasonably believe in the necessity of defending oneself from imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. Imperfect self-defense reduces an intentional and unlawful killing to voluntary manslaughter. Imperfect self-defense occurs when defendants act in the actual but unreasonable belief they are in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death.

Authority:

People v. Odell (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 307, 321

People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 645

Sixth Holding:

In determining whether error has been committed in giving or not giving jury instructions, we must consider the instructions as a whole and assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.

Authority:

People v. Jo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1172

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000690

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant cannot be convicted of both the robbery and the petty theft it resulted in, and the conviction and sentence for petty theft, along with associated fines and fees, must be reversed.

First Holding:

A defendant cannot be convicted of both robbery and petty theft based on the same conduct because theft is a lesser necessarily included offense of robbery.

Authority:

People v. Ortega (1998) 19 Cal.4th 686, 699

Second Holding:

While section 654 prohibits multiple punishment, it is generally permissible to convict a defendant of multiple charges arising from a single act or course of conduct.

However, a judicially created exception to this rule prohibits multiple convictions based on necessarily included offenses. When a defendant is found guilty of both a greater and a necessarily lesser included offense arising out of the same act or course of conduct, and the evidence supports the verdict on the greater offense, that conviction is controlling, and the conviction of the lesser offense must be reversed.

Authority:

PEN 654

PEN 954

People v. Ortega (1998) 19 Cal.4th 686, 692

People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031, 1034

People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 736

Third Holding:

This is true even though the defendant first took items from the store and then took the same items from the loss prevention officer by force. The taking of the items from the loss prevention officer was the same as taking items from the store since the loss prevention officer was acting as an agent of the store.

Authority:

People v. Villa (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1434–1435

People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23, 29

Fourth Holding:

The People contend the defendant forfeited his right to raise this issue on appeal because he did not object to his separate convictions before the trial court. We consider the merits of the argument because a defendant may challenge an unauthorized sentence even if he or she failed to object below.

Authority:

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295

Fifth Holding:

Section 1465.8(a)(1) requires a court to impose a $40 court operations assessment for every conviction of a criminal offense. Similarly, Government Code section 70373(a)(1), requires a $30 conviction assessment for each misdemeanor or felony conviction. The court also imposed a fine of $41 under section 1202.5 along with a restitution fine of $600 and a $600 parole revocation restitution fine, which was suspended unless parole is revoked.

Because we reverse the conviction for petty theft, we remand the matter for the superior court to vacate any portion of the fines and fees imposed for petty theft.

Authority:

PEN 1202.5

PEN 1202.4

PEN 1465.8(a)(1)

GOV 70373

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees

Case 000689

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The restitution fine is more than 10 years old and must be vacated. The abstract of judgment does not correctly reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and must be corrected.

First Holding:

The abstract of judgment does not correctly reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. At resentencing, the trial court found defendant indigent and waived any non-mandatory fines and fees. Once the trial court found defendant indigent, the court operations and conviction assessments were no longer mandatory. They were, therefore, waived by the court.

The abstract of judgment nevertheless includes a court operations assessment (sec. 1465.8) totaling $560 and a conviction assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373) totaling $420. Because the abstract of judgment does not accurately reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment, we will order it corrected.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 14-15

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

Second Holding:

The restitution fine was imposed more than 10 years ago and must be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Immigration, Plea bargains, Standard of review

Case 000688

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to section 1473.7. We reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter an order granting the motion.

First Holding:

Section 1473.7 allows noncitizens who have served their sentences to vacate their convictions if they can establish that their convictions are invalid due to prejudicial error impairing their ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential immigration consequences of their conviction. To show prejudicial error, the noncitizen must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the noncitizen would have rejected the plea if the noncitizen had correctly understood the immigration consequences.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7(a)(1)

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316

Second Holding:

In making this determination, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Those circumstances include the noncitizen’s ties to the United States, the importance the noncitizen placed on avoiding deportation, the noncitizen’s priorities in negotiating a plea bargain, and whether the noncitizen had reason to believe an immigration-neutral disposition was available.

However, this list is not exhaustive, and no single type of evidence is necessary for relief. Any assertions by the noncitizen must be corroborated with objective evidence. Objective evidence can include facts in declarations, contemporaneous documentation of the noncitizen’s immigration concerns, and the charges the noncitizen faced.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316, 320-321

Third Holding:

We review independently whether noncitizens have demonstrated a reasonable probability they would have rejected a plea offer had they understood its immigration consequences. Where the trial court has based its rulings on a cold record, or, in other words, only documentary evidence, we need not defer to trial court fact finding.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319-320

Fourth Holding:

While the judge who took the plea in 1995 declared her practice was to ensure defendants received sufficient immigration advisements, she mentions only possible consequences. She does not state she or the district attorney made the mandatory consequences explicit. Because the defendant’s plea predated Padilla, the requirement making this advisement mandatory for defense counsel did not yet exist. Without an explicit statement about the mandatory consequences, the immigration advisement was inadequate.

Authority:

Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356

People v. Manzanilla (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 891, 905–906 [where immigration consequences are clear and virtually certain, after 2010 counsel now must advise client of those consequences]

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 523 [failure to advise of certain immigration consequences of plea rendered representation constitutionally deficient]

Fifth Holding:

To determine prejudice, we focus on whether there is a reasonable probability the defendant would have turned down the plea agreement had he understood the immigration consequences. [The court then described his ties to the United states.] We also determine whether there was reason for the defendant to believe an immigration-neutral disposition was possible. His attorney testified to several other crimes to which the defendant could have pleaded that would have been better for his immigration prospects. Although his exposure was eight years, his plea agreement was for less than a year of prison time. He may have needed to accept a longer prison time to obtain a lesser conviction, but he averred this willingness.

The sparse record we have does not provide reason to believe the prosecutor would have rejected such a proposal automatically. Moreover, though the trial court stated, and the prosecutor argues, it would have been irrational to roll the dice on a longer sentence with such an offer in hand, the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that someone in the defendant’s position might indeed rationally make such a decision, as the defendant affirmed he would have.

Authority:

Lee v. United States (2017) 582 U.S. 357, 371