Tag Archives: Appellate process

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000169

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred when it imposed a consecutive term of eight months for taking a police vehicle without consent rather than the correct four-month sentence for attempted taking, the crime specified by the complaint. The appropriate term for an attempt is half the sentence for the completed crime, in this case, four months. Accordingly, we will modify the sentence imposed for attempted theft to a term of four months and otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

In setting the sentence the court imposed a consecutive term of eight months for count 8, a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851. The allegation of count eight of the complaint stated that the defendant attempted to take a vehicle without consent. It does not refer to section 664(a), which specifies that the sentence for an attempt is one-half the term of imprisonment prescribed upon a conviction of the offense attempted. The charging document, however, need not cite the statute to allege an attempt.

Authority:

PEN 952

PEN 664(a)

People v. Hawley (1930) 106 Cal.App. 216, 218 [in charging an attempt to commit theft (even in the absence of direct statutory authorization therefor), it should be sufficient to allege that the defendant unlawfully attempted to commit the same offense]

People v. Heim (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 1, 4 [defendant was on notice of the charge against him where charging documents specifically referred to attempted burglary]

Second Holding:

An appellate court may reverse, affirm, or modify a judgment or order appealed from, or reduce the degree of the offense or attempted offense or the punishment imposed. When sentencing error does not require additional evidence, further fact finding, or further exercise of discretion, the appellate court may modify the judgment appropriately and affirm it as modified.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Haskin (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1441

Amelioration, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000164

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Following the defendant’s conviction by jury trial, the court imposed the upper term based on the defendant’s use of a firearm in the commission of a crime; (2) the manner in which the crime was committed indicates planning, sophistication, and professionalism; and (3) the defendant has refused to accept responsibility for his actions. The only factor submitted to and found true by the jury was that the defendant was armed with or used a firearm.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, a sentencing court may not impose a determinate upper term sentence unless (1) there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify its imposition, and (2) the aggravating circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Other than stipulated facts or the fact of a prior conviction, aggravating facts relied upon to justify an upper term must be resolved by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This jury trial right is not merely a state law entitlement, but is constitutionally required for all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction. A Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established.

Authority:

PEN 1170b)(1)

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 755, 768

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

Second Holding:

We decline to apply forfeiture. It being evident that the trial court imposed an upper term sentence on the basis of its own posttrial factfinding, the defendant’s claim that this violated section 1170(b)(2) presents a pure issue of law that implicates the constitutional right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 327

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 879 [construing defendant’s constitutional challenge to her probation condition as presenting a pure question of law reviewable on appeal despite her failure to object at sentencing]

Third Holding:

The defendant argues that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to the court’s choosing the upper term in reliance on unpleaded and unproven aggravating circumstances. There can be no tactical justification for failing to object to the imposition of the upper term based on plainly unproven aggravating factors that the defendant had no notice of in the operative information. Accordingly, even assuming the issue has been forfeited, we would exercise our discretion to reach the merits to forestall defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

People v. Torres (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 88, 92 [reaching defendant’s sentencing claim notwithstanding forfeiture]

People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 146 [reviewing court may exercise discretion to consider forfeited claims to forestall ineffective assistance of counsel arguments]

Fourth Holding:

When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply Chapman. Such errors are prejudicial unless an appellate court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court to justify an upper term sentence, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statutory requirements. If the reviewing court cannot so determine, applying the Chapman standard of review, the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing. Given this exacting standard, we cannot say that the sentencing error here was harmless.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 332

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

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000156

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal from a resentencing, the defendant seeks a remand to make further requests to dismiss gang enhancements under recently amended Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (g), which now requires more than reputational benefit to a gang. We reverse the judgment and remand the matter for the trial court to rule on defendant’s motion to dismiss the gang enhancements, and to reconsider its determination declining to dismiss the firearm enhancements under section 1385.

First Holding:

At the resentencing hearing, the trial court erred in believed it had no jurisdiction under the remittitur from the previous appeal (which had remanded the matter for resentencing) to fully resentence the defendant. But the scope of the superior court’s jurisdiction as defined by a remittitur does not prevent the retroactive application of ameliorative laws.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

Because the trial court determined it had no jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion to dismiss the gang enhancements, it did not reach the parties’ substantive arguments. Given the lack of a full record on appeal regarding the issues (including the absence of the complete preliminary hearing transcript and evidence), the appropriate course is to permit the trial court to assess, after full consideration of the issue on a proper record, whether changes to section 186.22 require dismissal of the gang enhancements.

We observe that if the trial court exercises its discretion to dismiss the gang enhancements, the prosecution will be entitled to the same remedy as the defense (i.e., withdrawal from the plea agreement) and the trial court may withdraw its approval of the plea agreement as well. If defendant elects and is permitted to withdraw from the plea agreement, the trial court must restore the parties to the status quo ante, including permitting the prosecution to request to reopen the preliminary hearing and present evidence on the new elements of the gang allegations or to proceed without those charges.

[Gary Note: This opinion was issued in December 2025. Effective 1/1/26, Pen. Code, sec. 1171 was amended, and subdivision (c)(3) provides that, with respect to certain postconviction proceedings to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute, a modification of a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea bargain. Does this affect the Stamps solution of remanding for the possible setting aside of the plea bargain if the defendant chooses to pursue amelioration? Good question, Gary!]

Authority:

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 707-708

People v. Superior Court (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 256

Mendoza v. Superior Court (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 42, 58

Third Holding:

We review for abuse of discretion the trial court’s exercise of discretion under section 1385(c). We review associated questions of statutory construction de novo.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1033

People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 242

Fourth Holding:

Under Penal Code section 1385(c)(1), 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. 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 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.

The trial court denied the defendant’s request to dismiss the firearm enhancment under Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c). But it decided the motion before Walker clarified how to exercise its authority. Accordingly, we will remand the matter to allow the trial court to determine that question and, if decided in the negative, to further determine whether there is substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors sufficient to neutralize the great weight of the recognized mitigating circumstances asserted by defendant (including mental illness, prior victimization, and childhood trauma). Notwithstanding the presence of a mitigating circumstance, trial courts retain their discretion to impose an enhancement based on circumstances long deemed essential to the furtherance of justice inquiry.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)(1)

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024 [Specifically, absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a court retains the discretion to impose or dismiss enhancements provided that it assigns significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances, when they are present. In other words, if the court does not find that dismissal would endanger public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.]

Fifth Holding:

On remand, the trial court shall consider defendant’s motion for relief under section 186.22 and reconsider defendant’s motion to dismiss the firearm enhancements under section 1385. If such relief is granted, defendant shall be entitled to full resentencing.

Authority:

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

Appellate Principles, Fines and fees

Case: 000151

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though the court affirmed the other orders of the trial court regarding the resentencing conducted under Penal Code section 1172.75, the restitution fine, ordered more than 10 years earlier, must be stricken.

First Holding:

As a result of amendments effective January 1, 2025, the restitution fine must be stricken, because it has been more than 10 years since it was originally imposed. Penal Code section 1465.9 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. Not only is the unpaid portion now uncollectible, the court must vacate the portion of the judgment imposing it.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

People v. Greeley (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 609, 626-627

People v. Lopez-Vinck (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 945, 953

Second Holding:

Though the People argue that the 10 years has not passed, because he was resentenced only a few years ago, the People do not identify any legal authority or develop any substantive reasoning supporting the proposition that a component of a defendant’s punishment starts over at resentencing. We therefore need not consider that argument.

However, the plain language of the statute does not support their interpretation and the result they advocate for is in tension with clearly expressed legislative intent to eliminate fees and fines that deepen the poverty cycle for offenders without meeting the financial needs of crime survivors. We find the People’s position untethered from the plain language of the statute and the underlying legislative intent, and in advancing the proposition that the restitution fine was “reimposed” at the resentencing hearing such that the clock affording defendant ameliorative relief from a component of his punishment restarted, they fail to elucidate the point or acknowledge any of the issues such an interpretation necessarily implicates. Therefore, we give effect to the plain language of section 1465.9(d) providing that any portion of a judgment imposing a restitution fine under section 1202.4 shall be vacated 10 years after imposition.

Authority:

People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 363 [If a party’s briefs do not provide legal argument and citation to authority on each point raised, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration.]

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000150

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by not obtaining the defendant’s personal waiver of his right to a jury trial on the aggravating circumstance allegations and the prior strike allegation. The People concede, and we agree. The error was prejudicial only as to the aggravating circumstances, not as to the prior strike. The record does not reflect that the defendant had ever waived jury trial on either the prior strike or aggravating factors.

First Holding:

There is a constitutional right to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction, relied upon to justify an upper term sentence. A waiver of this right must be personally expressed by the defendant 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. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078

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

Second Holding:

Failure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury, like failure to submit an element to the jury, is not structural error. When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review. Under that standard, reversal and remand are required unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified. Lack of a jury trial is not harmless under Chapman if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.

We accept the People’s concession that a rational jury could have reached a different conclusion with respect to the defendant’s prior performance on probation. The probation report noted that he had satisfactorily completed two prior grants of probation, although he failed on two other grants. The report listed his past successes on probation as a mitigating factor and his failures as an aggravating factor. This mixed view of performance on probation is what leads us to conclude that a rational jury could have disagreed with the trial court’s finding that his prior performance on probation was unsatisfactory. Therefore, the error here with respect to this allegation was prejudicial under Chapman

Authority:

Washington v. Recuenco (2006) 548 U.S. 212

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

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

Third Holding:

The right to have the jury decide the truth of a prior conviction allegation stems from section 1025(b), not from the jury trial provision of article I, section 16 of the California Constitution or the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Absent an objection to the discharge of the jury or commencement of court trial, defendant is precluded from asserting on appeal a claim of ineffective waiver of the right to jury trial of prior prison term allegations. Here, by failing to object, the defendant forfeited any claim that the trial court improperly denied him his right to a jury trial by failing to take his express waiver of that right.

Authority:

PEN 1025

People v. Vera (1997) 15 Cal.4th 269, 277

People v. Grimes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 698, 737–738 [defendant forfeited a claim of involuntary waiver of jury trial on prior conviction allegations based on failure to object in the trial court]

Fourth Holding:

But even assuming an error with respect to his right to a jury trial on the prior strike allegation, the error is subject to the harmless error analysis under the Watson standard. The question under this standard is whether it is reasonably probable that a different result would have obtained had the prior strike allegation been tried before a jury. There is no such probability here.

To prove the prior strike conviction, the People produced as evidence his certified RAP sheet, a certified printout of the docket showing his conviction for that offense, the complaint associated with that prior, the waiver of rights and plea form, and the probation terms related to that conviction. For his part, the defendant never claimed he did not commit the offense, and he presented no evidence regarding this allegation. There is no reasonable probability the jury would have failed to find the allegation true under the evidence presented. Accordingly, we reject his claim that the trial court’s true finding on the prior strike allegation must be vacated.

Authority:

People v. Epps (2001) 25 Cal.4th 19, 29

Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000148

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Where the trial court intended to impose the minimum restitution fine, but mistakenly believed the minimum was $600 rather than $300, the appellate court modified the restitution fine to $300 and directed the trial court to prepare an amended minute order following sentencing and an amended abstract of judgment reflecting these amounts. Here, the record makes clear that the trial court intended to impose the statutory minimum fine. We therefore modify the judgments to impose a $300 restitution fine with a matching, suspended parole revocation restitution fine in each case.

First Holding:

In every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. The restitution fine shall be set at the discretion of the court and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. If the person is convicted of a felony, the fine shall not be less than three hundred dollars ($300) and not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(b)(1)

Second Holding:

[GARY NOTE: The court did not cite any authority for its jurisdiction to modify the mistaken order of the court below, but it does have that authority under PC 1260.]

Authority:

PEN 1260 [The court may reverse, affirm, or modify a judgment or order appealed from, or reduce the degree of the offense or attempted offense or the punishment imposed, and may set aside, affirm, or modify any or all of the proceedings subsequent to, or dependent upon, such judgment or order, and may, if proper, order a new trial and may, if proper, remand the cause to the trial court for such further proceedings as may be just under the circumstances.]

Abstracts and Minutes, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case: 000147

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) believed the abstract of judgment was ambiguous because the felony complaint had specifically alleged defendant’s offense was committed under circumstances that would have rendered it a violent felony pursuant to section 667.5(c)(21), but it is not clear from the Minute Order or the Abstract whether the allegation was found true.

The trial court responded by amending the abstract of judgment to check the box indicating that the offense for which petitioner was convicted constituted a violent felony and by forwarding a copy of the amended abstract of judgment to CDCR. We conclude the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the abstract of judgment in the manner that it did after execution had commenced, requiring vacatur of the amended abstract of judgment and reinstatement of the original abstract.

First Holding:

Where a trial court fails to make a necessary finding on a special allegation and imposes a sentence as if the finding were not true, we presume the omission was deliberate and the trial court’s silence operates as a not true finding. In Candelario, the defendant admitted the truth of a special allegation that he suffered a prior conviction at the time he entered his plea, but the trial court omitted any reference to the allegation in its minute order and abstract of judgment, although the printed form contained a box specifically for such entries.

In evaluating the effect of the omission, our high court explained that admission of the prior offense did not thereby relieve the court of its responsibility to pronounce judgment finding petitioner guilty of the substantive offense with a prior conviction, and to have such judgment entered in the official records of the court. If the record is silent in that regard, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it may be inferred that the omission was an act of leniency by the trial court. In such circumstances the silence operates as a finding that the prior conviction was not true. Even when the defendant admits the prior conviction, the court is not compelled to make a finding on the charge.

Authority:

In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702

Second Holding:

The failure to check the box in the abstract of judgment form indicating that defendant’s conviction constituted a violent felony may have been erroneous, but under Candelario and other cases, any such error would have been upon judicial error and not an error in the abstract of judgment. Instead, the abstract of judgment appears fully consistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment omitting a true finding on the special allegation and imposing a sentence consistent with a conviction for a nonviolent felony.

Authority:

In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702

People v. Hartsell (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 8, 14-15 [failure to mention prior conviction at the time judgment is pronounced must be interpreted as deliberate act of leniency]

People v. Gutierrez (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1440 [When no words are used and the trier of fact fails to make a finding the effect is the same as a finding of not true]

People v. Burnett (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 257, 260-261 [On a silent record, the Court of Appeal will presume that the trial court’s failure to impose a statutorily mandated fine was a result of making factual findings in support of a statutory exception to imposition of the fine]

People v. Farias (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 619, 635-636 [In the absence of any mention of necessary findings under the three strikes law at the time of sentencing or in the abstract of judgment, we treat defendants as if the trial court concluded the strike allegations were not true]

Third Holding:

Given our conclusion that the trial court’s original judgment in 2017 should be interpreted as a conviction for a nonviolent felony, the trial court had no jurisdiction to amend the judgment to add a true finding. As the California Supreme Court has repeatedly explained, under the general common law rule, a trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has commenced. And a judgment for imprisonment ordinarily is deemed executed when a certified copy of the minute order or abstract of judgment is furnished to the officer whose duty it is to execute the judgment.

Authority:

People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344

People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081, 1089

Fourth Holding:

The exceptions to the rule are limited and do not apply here. This was not a clerical error that could be corrected at any time. This was not a request by CDCR for resentencing under section 1172.1 (which would prohibit a sentence greater than the initial sentence). Because the failure to make any finding on the special allegations pursuant to section 667.5 operates as a finding of not true on the allegation, the sentence was not unauthorized, so there is no need to enter the debate on the authority of a court to correct an unauthorized sentence at any time, even when the matter has not vested jurisdiction.

Authority:

People v. Farias (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 619, 635-636

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 1120 [holding a trial court that imposes an unauthorized sentence retains jurisdiction to correct the sentence at any time the error comes to its attention]

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, at pp. 67-68 [disagreeing with Codinha, stating that no cases hold that trial courts can act to correct unauthorized (or unlawful or invalid) sentences outside of some other posture where they independently have jurisdiction to do so]

People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, at pp. 634-642 [The unauthorized sentence doctrine does not itself create jurisdiction for a trial court to rule on an incarcerated defendant’s motion to correct an alleged illegal sentence]

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 797

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Discretion, Plea bargains, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000130

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Following remand from the defendant’s prior appeal, the trial court declined to strike a firearm enhancement. The court did not realize the impact of recent changes in the law on gang criminal activity, asserting that its jurisdiction was limited to the scope defined in the remittitur (which remanded for reconsideration of the request to dismiss the firearm enhancement). We reverse the judgment and remand the matter for the trial court to rule on defendant’s motion to dismiss the gang enhancements, and to reconsider its determination declining to dismiss the firearm enhancements under section 1385 under the standard more recently articulated by the Supreme Court.

First Holding:

The scope of the superior court’s jurisdiction as defined by a remittitur does not prevent the retroactive application of ameliorative laws. We review associated questions of statutory construction de novo. Whether a statute applies retroactively is a question of statutory construction we review de novo. We review for abuse of discretion the trial court’s exercise of discretion under section 1385(c).

Authority:

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

People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 242

People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 319

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1033

Second 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. 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(c)

Third Holding:

Absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a court retains the discretion to impose or dismiss enhancements provided that it assigns significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances, when they are present. In other words, if the court does not find that dismissal would endanger public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

The Legislature amended PC 186.22(g) to redefine the phrase “benefit, promote, further, or assist” a criminal street gang for the purposes of section 186.22. The phrase now means “to provide a common benefit to members of a gang where the common benefit is more than reputational.” Those elemental changes apply retroactively to all nonfinal cases such as this one.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(e)(1)

PEN 186.22(g)

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

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745

Fifth Holding:

Where a statute is silent regarding retroactivity, we employ the ordinary presumptions and rules of statutory construction to discern the Legislature’s intent. Ordinarily, statutes are presumed to apply only prospectively, unless the Legislature expressly declares otherwise. Estrada, however, held that an amendment to a statute that lessened punishment for a crime gave rise to an inference of contrary legislative intent; that is, that the Legislature must have intended that the amendment mitigating punishment would apply retroactively to every case to which it constitutionally could apply. The Estrada rule rests on an inference that the Legislature intends an amendment reducing punishment under a criminal statute to apply as broadly as possible, distinguishing only as necessary between sentences that are final and sentences that are not.

Authority:

Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, LLC (2006) 39 Cal.4th 223, 230

People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, 7

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

People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 308

Sixth Holding:

If the trial court exercises its discretion to dismiss the gang enhancements, the prosecution will be entitled to the same remedy as the defense (i.e., withdrawal from the plea agreement) and the trial court may withdraw its approval of the plea agreement as well. In that event, the trial court must restore the parties to the status quo ante, including permitting the prosecution to request to reopen the preliminary hearing and present evidence on the new elements of the gang allegations or to proceed without those charges.

Authority:

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 707-708

People v. Superior Court (Garcia) (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 256

Mendoza v. Superior Court (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 42

Seventh Holding:

Penal Code section 1016.7 provides that, in the interest of justice and to reach a just resolution during plea negotiations, the prosecutor shall consider whether the defendant has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, whether the defendant is or was a youth at the time of the commission of the offense, and whether any of those considerations contributed to the commission of an alleged offense. The statute defines youth as any person under 26 years of age on the date of the offense. But it is not retroactive. It does not reduce punishment for a criminal offense, create discretion to reduce punishment, narrow the scope of criminal liability, or create a concrete avenue for certain individuals charged with a criminal offense to be treated more leniently or avoid punishment altogether.

Authority:

People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, 13

Appellate Principles

Case: 000124

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Petitioner seeks permission to file a belated notice of appeal under the doctrine of constructive filing. The People do not oppose the request. Granted. [GARY NOTE: the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth holdings and their authorities are provided by GARY and did not appear in the opinion, but are important enough to mention in the context of the filing of a notice of appeal. The summary for Case 000085 contains a more thorough discussion of the Benoit rule regarding what would otherwise be untimely filings of the notice of appeal.]

First Holding:

Where a defendant is incarcerated and has requested his attorney to file a notice of appeal within the time to file a notice, the court may deem the otherwise late notice of appeal to have been constructively filed timely.

Authority:

Authority:
In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72, 81–82

Second Holding:

The Attorney General’s concession on behalf of the People is deemed to constitute an agreement that the requested relief ought to be granted without further proceedings

Authority:

People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 740, fn. 7

Third Holding:

In felony cases, a notice of appeal and any statement required by Penal Code section 1237.5 must be filed within 60 days after the rendition of the judgment or the making of the order being appealed. Except as provided in rule 8.66 [which deals with when catastrophes happen], no court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal.

Authority:

Rules of Court, rule 8.308

Fourth Holding:

In misdemeanor cases, the notice of appeal under this article must be filed within 30 days after the rendition of the judgment or the making of the order being appealed.

Authority:

Rules of Court, rule 8.393

Fifth Holding:

As used in rule 8.304(a)(1) regarding the filing of a notice of appeal in the superior court in a felony case, “felony case” means any criminal action in which a felony is charged, regardless of the outcome. A felony is “charged” when an information or indictment accusing the defendant of a felony is filed or a complaint accusing the defendant of a felony is certified to the superior court under Penal Code section 859a. A felony case includes an action in which the defendant is charged with: (A) A felony and a misdemeanor or infraction, but is convicted of only the misdemeanor or infraction; (B) A felony, but is convicted of only a lesser offense; or (C) An offense filed as a felony but punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor, and the offense is thereafter deemed a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17(b).

Authority:

Rules of Court, rule 8.304(a)(2)

Sixth Holding:

An untimely notice of appeal divests the appellate court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal

Authority:

AD

In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119

People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1094 [An untimely notice of appeal is wholly ineffectual. The delay cannot be waived, it cannot be cured by nunc pro tunc order, and the appellate court has no power to give relief, but must dismiss the appeal on motion or on its own motion.]

Appellate Principles, Jury trial

Case: 000118

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The judgment must be reversed because the trial court deprived the defendant of his statutory rights under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 when it failed to sustain defense counsel’s objections to the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to two prospective jurors. We reverse the judgment and remand the matter for a new trial.

First Holding:

At its core, Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 precludes either party from using a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of the prospective juror’s race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or the perceived membership of the prospective juror in any of those groups.

Once the objection is made, the trial court must evaluate the reasons given to justify the peremptory challenge in light of the totality of the circumstances. It must consider only the reasons actually given and not speculate on, or assume the existence of, other possible justifications for the use of the peremptory challenge. If the court determines there is a substantial likelihood that an objectively reasonable person would view race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or perceived membership in any of those groups, as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge, then the objection shall be sustained.

The court need not find purposeful discrimination to sustain the objection. The court shall explain the reasons for its ruling on the record.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(d)(1)

Second Holding:

The statute acknowledges that unconscious bias, in addition to purposeful discrimination, has resulted in the unfair exclusion of potential jurors in the State of California. It defines ‘unconscious bias’ to include both implicit and institutional biases.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(d)(2)(C)

Third Holding:

A peremptory challenge for any of certain enumerated reasons is presumed to be invalid unless the party exercising the peremptory challenge can show by clear and convincing evidence that an objectively reasonable person would view the rationale as unrelated to a prospective juror’s race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or perceived membership in any of those groups, and that the reasons articulated bear on the prospective juror’s ability to be fair and impartial in the case.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(e)

Fourth Holding:

The term “clear and convincing” refers to the degree of certainty the factfinder must have in determining whether the reasons given for the exercise of a peremptory challenge are unrelated to the prospective juror’s cognizable group membership, bearing in mind conscious and unconscious bias. To determine that a presumption of invalidity has been overcome, the factfinder shall determine that it is highly probable that the reasons given for the exercise of a peremptory challenge are unrelated to conscious or unconscious bias and are instead specific to the juror and bear on that juror’s ability to be fair and impartial in the case.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(f)

Fifth Holding:

Section 231.7(g) provides a list of reasons for peremptory challenges that have historically been associated with improper discrimination.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(g)(1)(A) and (B)

Sixth Holding:

he denial of an objection made under section 231.7 shall be reviewed by the appellate court de novo, with the trial court’s express factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence.

The appellate court shall not impute to the trial court any findings, including findings of a prospective juror’s demeanor, that the trial court did not expressly state on the record. The reviewing court shall consider only reasons actually given under subdivision (c) and shall not speculate as to or consider reasons that were not given to explain either the party’s use of the peremptory challenge or the party’s failure to challenge similarly situated jurors who are not members of the same cognizable group as the challenged juror, regardless of whether the moving party made a comparative analysis argument in the trial court.

Should the appellate court determine that the objection was erroneously denied, that error shall be deemed prejudicial, the judgment shall be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(j)

Seventh Holding:

[GARY NOTE: The opinion examined the details of the voir dire and procedures followed, and cited several published opinions as examples of resolutions of the problem. Rather than write a full tome, I have chosen simply to list the published cases, which you may want to read if you have a similar issue in your case(s).]

Authority:

People v. Caparrotta (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 874, 892 [the role of the two-step procedure set forth in section 231.7, subdivision (g)(2) is to determine whether the presumption of invalidity has been rebutted]

McDaniel v. Superior Court (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 228, 243 [discussing racial disparities in charging decisions]

People v. Aranda (2012) 55 Cal.4th 342, 364 [the high court has identified as structural error constitutional violations such as racial discrimination in jury selection]

People v. Cahill (1993) 5 Cal.4th 478 [certain structural errors require reversal notwithstanding the strength of evidence in a particular case]

Eighth Holding:

[GARY NOTE: Amicus curiae filed a brief that, in essence, challenged the legality of section 231.7, an issue not raised by either party in the appeal.] The second issue regarding the Legislature’s ability to require reversal was not raised by either party, either before the trial court or in this appeal. Amicus curiae must accept the issues made and propositions urged by the appealing parties, and any additional questions presented in a brief filed by an amicus curie will not be considered.

Authority:

People v. Hannon (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 94, 105

Appellate Principles

Case: 000110

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

[Gary note: This appeal was dismissed as moot, and there was no “victory,” even in my very broad definition. But it contains a decent discussion on mootness that might provide some insight into the appellate process.] The defendant complains of terms set on his mandatory supervision. But he has completed his term of mandatory supervision. Because we conclude that the issue raised by the defendant is capable of being reviewed in other cases and any ruling in this case would fail to provide the defendant with any relief, his appeal challenging the term of mandatory supervision is moot. We will therefore dismiss it.

First Holding:

A case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief. Consequently, when, pending an appeal from the judgment of a lower court, and without any fault of the opposing party, an event occurs which renders it impossible for the court, if it should decide the case in favor of the defendant, to grant him any effectual relief whatever, the court will not proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal as moot.

Authority:

People v. Rish (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1380

People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 645

Second Holding:

Where a defendant has completed a sentence, their claims of error as to that sentence are moot because a reviewing court’s resolution of the issues could offer no relief regarding the time he spent on mandatory supervision or in custody. A defendant must demonstrate sufficiently concrete consequences to avoid a finding of mootness. Speculative consequences do not support the conclusion that a legally sufficient controversy exists. Complaining of stigma alone is insufficient to sustain an appeal. The stigma must be paired with some effect on the legal status that is capable of being redressed by a favorable court decision. The moral stigma of a judgment which no longer affects legal rights does not present a case or controversy for appellate review.

Authority:

People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 645, 646, fn. 2

In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 277

People v. Armas (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 350, 357

Third Holding:

The defendant urges us to consider the merits of his appeal despite its mootness, because the issue raised is likely to recur, might otherwise evade appellate review given the “relatively fleeting nature of mandatory supervision,” and is of continuing public interest, within the meaning of Morales. We decline to do so. Many published California cases have shown varying terms of supervision, many of which cannot be characterized as fleeting. Because we conclude that the issue raised by the defendant is capable of being reviewed in other cases and any ruling in this case would fail to provide appellant with any relief, his appeal challenging the term of mandatory supervision is moot.

Authority:

People v. Morales (2016) 63 Cal.4th 399, 409

People v. Nixon (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 947, 950 [five years of mandatory supervision]

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 988 [three years of mandatory supervision]

People v. Martinez (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 885, 890 [two years eight months of mandatory supervision]

People v. Conatser (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 1223, 1225 [six years of mandatory supervision]

People v. Mendoza (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1044, 1050 [four years of mandatory supervision]

People v. Samuels (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 962, 965 [five years of mandatory supervision]

People v. Millan (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 450, 452 [five years of mandatory supervision]

People v. Bollaert (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 699, 704 [10 years of mandatory supervision]

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000103

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude the concurrent sentences on two counts constitute multiple punishment proscribed by section 654. Accordingly, we modify the judgment to stay the sentence on the second of those two counts.

First Holding:

An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. An acquittal or conviction and sentence under any one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other. Section 654 proscribes multiple punishment for crimes arising from a single act. This statutory protection has also been extended to proscribe punishment for multiple crimes arising from an indivisible course of conduct.

Authority:

PEN 654

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

Second Holding:

Errors in the applicability of section 654 are corrected on appeal regardless of whether the point was raised by objection in the trial court or assigned as error on appeal. This is an exception to the general rule that only those claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal. This exception is not required by the language of section 654, but rather by case law holding that a court acts in excess of its jurisdiction and imposes an unauthorized sentence when it fails to stay execution of a sentence under section 654.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

The accepted procedure where section 654 applies is to sentence defendant for each count and stay execution of sentence on certain of the convictions to which section 654 is applicable. Accordingly, the sentence for either of the two counts should be stayed instead of running concurrent as the court did here.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

An appellate court has the discretion to modify a judgment to stay sentences that should have been stayed. An appellate court may reverse, affirm, or modify a judgment, or may remand for further proceedings as may be just under the circumstances.

Authority:

PEN 1260

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