Tag Archives: Appellate process

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000024

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

GARY note: The winning issue was relatively simple, but in affirming the overall conviction, the court shared several principles I thought worthy of reporting, even though many did not bear on the dual use of enhancements.

For the attempted murder of the victim in count 3, the trial court should have stayed the three-year enhancement for great bodily injury under section 12022.7 because it also imposed a term of 25 years to life under section 12022.53, subdivision (d), for personally and proximately causing great bodily injury with a firearm. We will modify the judgment so that it accords with the law.

First Holding:

Where multiple prison terms are improperly imposed as in this case, the reviewing court may modify the sentence to stay imposition of the sentence

Authority:

People v. Hunter (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1531, 1537

Second Holding:

It is improper to impose the enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.7 in addition to enhancement under section 12022.53(d), and it must be stayed.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 941, 949

People v. Hunter (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1531, 1537

Third Holding:

If an error violates a defendant’s federal constitutional rights, reversal is required unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2011) 51 Cal.4th 733, 745

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

People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591, 615

People v. Concha (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1087

Fourth Holding:

A harmless error analysis may include consideration of implausible defense testimony and closing argument to the jury.

Authority:

People v. Fayed (2020) 9 Cal.5th 147, 195

People v. Zambrano (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 228, 243

People v. Flores (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 855, 881

Fifth Holding:

With respect to errors alleged regarding the conviction of the murder, the error can be found to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt even under the Chapman standard, as the court concludes in this instance.

Authority:

People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 983-984

People v. Garcia (2001) 25 Cal.4th 744, 755

Wright v. West (1992) 505 U.S. 277, 296

Hanrahan v. Thieret (7th Cir. 1991) 933 F.2d 1328, 1340

Phelps v. Duckworth (7th Cir. 1985) 772 F.2d 1410, 1413-1414

Sixth Holding:

The standard of review on sufficiency of evidence is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime or special circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution.

Authority:

People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357

Seventh Holding:

Substantial evidence is evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value.

Authority:

People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357

Eighth Holding:

A conviction for attempted murder requires proof that the defendant intended to kill the victim and proof of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing that goal. But a finding of willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation requires more than a showing of an intent to kill.

Authority:

People v. Medina (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 146, 153

People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 282

Ninth Holding:

When reviewing a claim the trial court erred in denying a motion for a judgment of acquittal (sec. 1118.1) that was made at the close of the prosecution’s case-in-chief, the appellate court considers the evidence as it stood at that point,

Authority:

People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1212-1213

Tenth Holding:

It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error based on the appellate record and with meaningful legal analysis with adequate citation to the record.

Authority:

People v. Dauterman (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 603, 609

Eleventh Holding:

Arguments not raised below are forfeited.

Authority:

People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1022-1023

Twelfth Holding:

The court conducts de novo review to detemine if jury miscontrued or misapplied the law.

Authority:

People v. Shaw (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 833, 838

Thirteenth Holding:

Error in failing to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense is harmless when the jury necessarily decides the factual questions posed by the omitted instructions adversely to defendant under other properly given instructions.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 646

Fourteenth Holding:

Errors in the abstract of judgment may be corrected.

Authority:

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

 

Appellate Principles

Case 000019

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(GARY Note: There is not much discussion in this case. Benoit relief was granted on a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking a finding that the notice of appeal was deemed constructively filed timely. That process is potentially available to a defendant whose notice of appeal was NOT filed with the 60 days (for a felony, 30 days for a misdemeanor), if certain conditions exist.

(The conditions are:(a) the defendant has been incarcerated during the entire period that a notice of appeal may be filed; (b) during that period the defendant requested that the attorney file one (or the attorney has otherwise conveyed to the defendant that the attorney will file the notice of appeal); and (c) the attorney failed to timely file the notice of appeal. The defendant may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the appellate court and ask that the court deem the notice of appeal to have been constructively filed timely. Although not discussed in this case,

(Benoit relief is generally NOT granted if the defendant was NOT in custody the entire 60 days, OR if the defendant did not ask the attorney within that 60 days to file a notice of appeal. Other than the reference to the Benoit case, the opinion does not contain any authority. I have added the two pertinent rules from the Rules of Court and a few case citations, none of which appears in the opinion, but I think it’s valuable to understand the importance of meeting that jurisdictional requirement.)

First Holding:

Habeas relief can determine whether a notice of appeal should be deemed timely constructively filed.

Authority:

In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72

Second Holding:

In felony cases, the notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days. In appeals from guilty pleas, any required certificate of probable cause must also be filed within 60 days. No court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal.

Authority:

Rules of Court rule 8.308

Third Holding:

In misdemeanor appeals, the notice must be filed within 30 days.

Authority:

Rules of Court rule 8.393

Fourth Holding:

An untimely notice of appeal divests the appellate court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 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. [Gary note: Under Benoit, for an incarcerated person who, within that 60-day period, attempts to get the notice of appeal filed, a court that grants relief technically deems that the notice of appeal was constructively filed timely. Under that legal sense, it is not considered a late notice of appeal. In effect, the court is treating the timely attempts by the incarcerated defendant as the “functional equivalent”–MY description, NOT a court’s description–of filing a notice of appeal.]

Authority:

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

People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1094

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000018

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court violated the Sixth Amendment by imposing upper term sentences; the issue was not forfeited, and as the People concede, the court erred and the error was not harmless.

First Holding:

The Sixth Amendment right to jury trial applies to any factor that may increase the sentence or range of sentence. In Wiley, our Supreme Court addressed section 1170(b)(3)’s prior conviction exception in light of the holding in Erlinger. To avoid any application that would set section 1170(b)(3) at odds with the high court’s constitutional interpretation, the court interpreted] section 1170(b)(3)’s procedure in a manner that is coextensive with high court dictates. Thus, in accordance with Erlinger, 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

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

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1086

Second Holding:

Failure to object generally results in forfeiture and can apply to constitutional claims.

Authority:

People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1107, 1114 [The forfeiture doctrine is a well-established procedural principle that, with certain exceptions, an appellate court will not consider claims of error that could have been—but were not—raised in the trial court]

People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 406 [A party in a criminal case may not, on appeal, raise claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices if the party did not object to the sentence at trial]

People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593 [a constitutional right may be forfeited by failure to assert the right before the tribunal with jurisdiction to determine it]

People v. Achane (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1037

Third Holding:

A claim of violation of Sixth Amendment right to trial is not forfeited by lack of objection as it requires express consent in open court by both the defendant and the defense attorney.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

An appellate court can exercise discretion to address a forfeited issue.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party]

Fifth Holding:

Unless stipulated to by the defendant, before the factors in aggravation may be used to justify imposition of the upper term, the defendant has the right to a jury trial to determine whether the factors have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has engaged in violent conduct that indicates a serious danger to society or that defendant’s prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings are numerous or of increasing seriousness. 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, 1086

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 776

Appellate Principles

Case 000010

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appealed from the denial of his second petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6. The appellate court concluded that his petition is not barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and corresponding public policy considerations. He had never received notice of earlier denial. He is not barred from submitting a new petition.

First Holding:

Successive petitions for resentencing are not explicitly barred by section 1172.6 but may be barred by doctrine of collaterial estoppel. Application of collateral estoppel is not automatic, but is subject to public policy considerations.

Authority:

People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 950

Second Holding:

The court does not apply collateral estoppel with the hypertechnical and archaic approach of a 19th century pleading book, but with realism and rationality.

Authority:

People v. Yokely (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1273

Third Holding:

Because of the retroactive nature and ever-evolving interpretations of the law surrounding section 1172.6, defendants may avail themselves of potential eligibility for relief under the statute that was not previously available under other judicial interpretations.

Authority:

People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 951

People v. Lovejoy (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 860