Tag Archives: Appellate process

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000724

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The victim restitution award for expenses paid by the Victim Compensation Board violates the defendant’s right to due process and is reversed because the prosecution did not present bills to establish the amount paid as required pursuant to section 1202.4(f)(4)(B). The matter is remanded for the court to hold a new restitution hearing. Additionally, The abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the defendant was sentenced to 40 years to life (rather than 50 years to life).

First Holding:

The only evidence presented at the restitution hearing was the set of California Victim Compensation Board forms submitted by the prosecution, over the objection of counsel. No certified copies of the bills were introduced, nor was a declaration under penalty of perjury by the custodian of records. Restitution for expenses paid by the California Victim Compensation Board requires proof established by copies of bills submitted to the Board, reflecting the amount paid, pursuant to section 1202.4(f)(4)(B).

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)(4)(B)

Second Holding:

In California, crime victims have the right to receive restitution for losses attributable to the defendant’s actions. Indeed, in every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court.

Section 1202.4 does not, by its terms, require any particular kind of proof. However, the trial court is entitled to consider the probation report, and, as prima facie evidence of loss, may accept a property owner’s statement made in the probation report about the value of stolen or damaged property. This is so because a hearing to establish the amount of restitution does not require the formalities of other phases of a criminal prosecution.

When the probation report includes information on the amount of the victim’s loss and a recommendation as to the amount of restitution, the defendant must come forward with contrary information to challenge that amount.

Authority:

Cal. Const. art. I, sec 28(b)(13)(B)

PEN 1202.4(a)(1)

People v. Lockwood (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 91, 96

People v. Holmberg (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1320

Third Holding:

However, section 1202.4(f)(4) includes special provisions that are applicable when, as here, state funds are used to provide assistance to or on behalf of a victim.

The amount of assistance provided by the Restitution Fund shall be established by copies of bills submitted to the California Victim Compensation Board reflecting the amount paid by the board and whether the services for which payment was made were for medical or dental expenses, funeral or burial expenses, mental health counseling, wage or support losses, or rehabilitation.

Certified copies of these bills provided by the board and redacted to protect the privacy and safety of the victim or any legal privilege, together with a statement made under penalty of perjury by the custodian of records that those bills were submitted to and were paid by the board, shall be sufficient to meet this requirement.

The section 1202.4(f)(4)(B) restitution order lacks the necessary evidentiary support and must be vacated and the case remanded for a new restitution hearing.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)(4)

People v. Lockwood (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 91, 96

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment states defendant was sentenced to a term of 50 years to life on count 1. It also reflects defendant was sentenced to 25 years on the section 12022.53(d) enhancement. However, defendant was sentenced to 15 years to life on count 1 and 25 years to life for the section 12022.53(d) firearm enhancement.

When an abstract of judgment does not reflect the actual sentence imposed in the trial judge’s verbal pronouncement, this court has the inherent power to correct such clerical error on appeal, whether on our own motion or upon application of the parties. On remand, the trial court is instructed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Racial Justice Act, Standard of review

Case 000720

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant’s petition for writ of mandate is granted. Filed as a habeas corpus petition, the People aver that the instant petition should be treated as a petition for writ of mandate from the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s discovery motion and concede that the defendant established a plausible factual foundation for discovery.

The People assert, and the defendant agrees, the matter should be remanded for development of the record on the relevant factors governing Racial Justice Act [RJA] discovery and for the trial court to consider those factors in the first instance.

We conclude the trial court misapplied the applicable legal standards and erred by denying the defendant’s motion. We therefore grant the petition, direct the trial court to vacate its denial of the defendant’s discovery motion, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

First Holding:

We have the discretion to treat a petition for writ of habeas corpus as a petition for writ of mandate. Writ review is appropriate where a petition raises novel legal issues of widespread interest. The RJA remains fairly new legislation and has been amended several times since its inception. Though laudable in its purposes, the Act has proven challenging to the courts in its implementation. Given there are few appellate decisions interpreting the Act thus far, several appellate courts have found writ review appropriate in addressing issues raised under the RJA.

Authority:

People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 340

Escamilla v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 498, 509

Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1612

Brandt v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 813, 816

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 147, 156 [the RJA’s command is simple, but the implementation is somewhat complex; writ review appropriate to address questions of first impression including how to interpret the RJA’s discovery provision]]

Jackson v. Superior Court (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 372, 382

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 46 [writ of mandate issued and matter remanded for the trial court to determine if the defendant was entitled to the appointment of counsel]

Mosby v. Superior Court (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 106, 133 [writ of mandate issued, and the trial court’s order denying the petitioner a hearing vacated after the appellate court determined the petitioner met his burden and could proceed to an evidentiary hearing]

Second Holding:

Here, the parties agree without objection that the defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus should be treated as a petition for writ of mandate. We therefore exercise our discretion to construe the petition as a petition for writ of mandate of the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s RJA discovery motion and address the court’s order on the merits.

Authority:

People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 335

People v. Payne (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 933, 937 [appeal from nonappealable order treated as application for writ of mandate and addressed on the merits]

Third Holding:

Two courts of appeal have concluded, albeit with different reasoning, that a trial court’s order denying a request for discovery under the RJA is not appealable. Both courts recognized, however, that such an order may be challenged by a petition for writ of mandate.

Authority:

In re Montgomery (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1071–1072, 1076 review dism. Dec. 30, 2025, S287339

People v. Serrano (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 276, 292, 293, review dism. Dec. 30, 2025, S288202

In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682, 692 [denial of a sec. 1054.9 discovery motion may be challenged by a petition for writ of mandate]

Fourth Holding:

A discovery order is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion because management of discovery lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. We review the factual underpinnings of a discretionary determination for substantial evidence, but where such a determination rests on incorrect legal premises, our review is de novo.

The scope of discretion always resides in the particular law being applied. If the court’s decision is influenced by an erroneous understanding of applicable law or reflects an unawareness of the full scope of its discretion, the court has not properly exercised its discretion under the law. Therefore, a discretionary order based on an application of improper criteria or incorrect legal assumptions is not an exercise of informed discretion and is subject to reversal.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 156

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

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 36, 55

Sargon Enterprises Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 773

Fifth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2021, the Legislature enacted the RJA (Assembly Bill No. 2542 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) to eliminate racial bias from California’s criminal justice system; to ensure that race plays no role at all in seeking or obtaining convictions or in sentencing; and to ensure that individuals have access to all relevant evidence, including statistical evidence, regarding potential discrimination in seeking or obtaining convictions or imposing sentences. To achieve these objectives, the RJA added section 745 to the Penal Code and amended sections 1473 and 1473.7.

Authority:

AB 2542

PEN 745

PEN 1473

PEN 1473.7

Sixth Holding:

Section 745(a) proclaims that the state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. It specifies four categories which, if proven by a preponderance of the evidence, constitute a violation of the RJA.

As relevant here, a violation occurs under section 745 (a)(3) where the defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the evidence establishes that the prosecution more frequently sought or obtained convictions for more serious offenses against people who share the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin in the county where the convictions were sought or obtained.

Also relevant here, a violation occurs under section 745(a)(4)(A) where a longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for that offense on people that share the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin than on defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins in the county where the sentence was imposed.

Authority:

PEN 745

Seventh Holding:

A defendant in custody may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging a violation of the RJA. Specifically, section 745(b) provides that a defendant may file a motion pursuant to this section, or a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion under Section 1473.7, in a court of competent jurisdiction, alleging a violation of subdivision (a). The RJA also amended section 1473, which identifies bases for prosecuting a petition for writ of habeas corpus, to add a subdivision governing the litigation of RJA claims.

Authority:

People v. Wilson (2024) 16 Cal.5th 874, 945

Eighth Holding:

If a habeas petition makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief under the RJA, the trial court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing. If, after a hearing, the court finds a violation of section 745(a) by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall impose a remedy specific to the violation pursuant to section 745(e).

Authority:

PEN 1473(e)

Ninth Holding:

If a court finds after judgment has been entered that a conviction was sought or obtained in violation of section 745(a), the court shall vacate the conviction and sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and order new proceedings consistent with section 745(a). If the court finds that the only violation of section 745(a) that occurred is based on paragraph (3) of section 745(a), the court may modify the judgment to a lesser included or lesser related offense.

If a court finds after judgment has been entered that only the sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed in violation of section 745(a), the court shall vacate the sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and impose a new sentence. On resentencing, the court shall not impose a new sentence greater than that previously imposed.

Authority:

PEN 745(e)

Tenth Holding:

The RJA contains a discovery provision in section 745(d). If a defendant believes a violation of the RJA has occurred, he or she may file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of subdivision (a) in the possession or control of the state. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall order the records to be released.

Authority:

PEN 745(d)

Eleventh Holding:

In Young, the Court of Appeal addressed what constitutes good cause for purposes of discovery under section 745(d). The court conducted a comprehensive analysis of the RJA’s enactment, as well as general provisions governing discovery in criminal cases.

Drawing on the Pitchess standard for discovery of law enforcement personnel records, the Young court held that in order to establish good cause for discovery under the RJA, a defendant is required only to advance a plausible factual foundation, based on specific facts, that a violation of the RJA could or might have occurred in his case.

This standard for discovery under section 745(d) is even more relaxed than the Pitchess standard in two respects. First, while a Pitchess motion must be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth a reasonable belief that the requested discovery is material to the subject matter of the case, there is no comparable affidavit requirement for discovery under the RJA. Second, unlike in a Pitchess motion, an RJA discovery motion has no materiality requirement, at least not in the sense that the defendant must show a logical link between some defense and a pending charge.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 149-160

Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531

Twelfth Holding:

The RJA’s counterpart to Pitchess materiality is relevance to a potential violation of section 745(a). Since a section 745(a) violation may be proved up in several different ways based on a variety of direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination under subdivision (a)(1)–(4), the threshold showing for good cause must be commensurately broad and flexible.

The limiting factor is relevance in the discovery sense—that is, each request for disclosure must be reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence probative of a section 745(a) violation. This subject matter limitation on the scope of discoverable material creates an outer boundary that, if crossed, may justify an order narrowing or otherwise limiting the obligation to respond. And as always in the context of discovery, the trial court has ample discretion to manage where the discovery-relevance boundary lies.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 160

Thirteenth Holding:

The Young court found support for its articulated good cause standard for discovery in the escalating burdens of proof within section 745. The burden at the discovery stage is a good cause showing, the burden at the prima facie stage is higher, and the burden at the evidentiary hearing is higher still—proof of an RJA violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

As the least onerous of the statute’s burdens of proof, the plausible justification standard should not be difficult to meet. Accordingly, where the defendant makes a showing of plausible justification that there was or could have been a violation of the RJA, thus triggering access to all relevant evidence concerning a potential violation of section 745(a), it will likely be an abuse of discretion to totally foreclose discovery.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 160-161, 168-169

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 36, 61

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000710

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There was insufficient evidence to support the count 4 conviction. The court erred by imposing the additional 25-year-to-life terms on counts 1 through 3. Section 1170(b) requires remand and resentencing on count 8 on which the court imposed the upper term. The court must correct the error in the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

To prove that a defendant committed attempted murder, the prosecution must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the intent to kill.T]he intent to kill element must be examined independently as to each alleged attempted murder victim; an intent to kill cannot be transferred from one attempted murder victim to another under the transferred intent doctrine.

As there was no evidence that the defendant had the intent to kill, there was insufficient evidence of attempted murder. We reverse the defendant’s attempted murder conviction on count 4, and double jeopardy principles bar retrial of the charge. A finding of insufficient evidence is the functional equivalent of a judgment of acquittal, upon which retrial is prohibited.

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 455, 456

Second Holding:

We cannot reduce the defendant’s attempted murder conviction to one for the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter or the lesser related offense of assault with a firearm. To prove the crime of attempted voluntary manslaughter, the prosecution must introduce evidence demonstrating that the defendant intended to kill—evidence absent from the record here. And we are authorized to reduce a conviction only to a lesser included offense, not a lesser related offense.

Authority:

People v. Goolsby (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1225 [when a trial or appellate court concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction of a greater offense, it can reduce the conviction to a lesser included offense that is supported by the evidence]

People v. Montes (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1543, 1545–1547

People v. Hamilton (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 673, 685

People v. Parks (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1, 5–7 [assault with a firearm is not a lesser included offense of attempted murder]

Third Holding:

Double jeopardy principles prohibit retrying the defendant on these lesser offenses.

Authority:

People v. Anderson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 92, 103–104 The double jeopardy bar protects against a second prosecution for the same offense following an acquittal and both federal and California law generally treat greater and lesser included offenses as the same offense for purposes of double jeopardy]

People v. Goolsby (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1224–1226 [double jeopardy principles prohibit retrial on a lesser related offense where, as here, the court instructs on the lesser offense and the jury is discharged without rendering a verdict on the offense]

Fourth Holding:

In addition to sentencing the defendant to LWOP on each of counts 1 through 3, the court imposed terms of 25 years to life under the Three Strikes law on each count. This was improper. The finding of a special circumstance eliminates the possibility of a 25-year-to-life sentence and leaves only the sentencing options of death or LWOP. We therefore direct the trial court on remand to strike the terms of 25 years to life imposed on each of counts 1 through 3.

Authority:

PEN 190.2(a)

People v. Rodriguez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 157, 164

Fifth Holding:

A defendant’s citation to a silent record is insufficient to meet his burden to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Coleman (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 709, 725

Sixth Holding:

Once the court elected to impose the greater section 12022.53(d) enhancements on counts 1 through 7, it erred by failing to stay or strike the lesser section 12022.53(b) and (c) firearm enhancements. We therefore direct the trial court on remand to stay or strike the lesser firearm enhancements found true by the jury.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1122–1123 [after a trial court imposes punishment for the section 12022.53 firearm enhancement with the longest term of imprisonment, the remaining section 12022.53 firearm enhancements and any section 12022.5 firearm enhancements that were found true for the same crime must be imposed and then stayed]

People v. Vizcarra (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 422, 432 [failure to pronounce sentence for an enhancement represents an unauthorized sentence]

Seventh Holding:

The trial court violated section 1170(b) and ran afoul of the defendant’s constitutional due process and jury-trial rights by relying on unproven aggravating circumstances in imposing an upper term sentence on count 8. Under section 1170(b)(1), when a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the statute specifies three possible terms, the court shall, in its sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2).

Paragraph (2), in turn, provides that the court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

Thus, section 1170(b), by its terms, governs sentences imposed pursuant to a statutory triad. It does not apply to indeterminate terms. But it does apply to count 8. The court failed to comply with section 1170(b)(5)’s requirement that it set forth on the record the facts and reasons for choosing the sentence imposed on count 8. Without any statement of reasons, we cannot properly review the propriety of the court’s selection of the upper term.

Accordingly, we direct the trial court on remand to resentence the defendant on count 8, consistent with section 1170(b). We express no opinion concerning how the court should exercise its sentencing discretion on remand, apart from requiring that it set forth the facts and reasons for choosing the sentence imposed.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(1) and (b)(5)

People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729

People v. May (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 836, 838 [the absence of a statement of reasons for a sentencing decision may impede appellate review]

Eighth Holding:

Although the trial court orally awarded the defendant [more than 1300] days of actual custody credit, the last page of the written abstract of judgment reflects only [less than 300] such credits. Accordingly, we direct the court on remand to recalculate the defendant’s actual custody credits and to prepare an amended abstract of judgment that accurately reflects the court’s award of such credits.

[Gary note: the court did not separately list any citations for its order regarding the abstract of judgment. The opinion characterized the error as a clerical error in the abstract, and does not actually claim that the trial court did not adequately calculate the credits. So for your convenience, I have added below Buckhalter some additional authorities not cited by the court for its power to order the correction of abstracts of judgment.]

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23 When an appellate remand results in modification of a felony sentence during the term of imprisonment, the trial court must calculate the actual time the defendant has already served and credit that time against the subsequent sentence]

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

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000705

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1170.1, the trial court erred in relying on factors in aggravation that were not presented to a jury for proof beyhond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

A trial court generally loses resentencing jurisdiction once execution of the sentence has begun. Because of this rule precluding postjudgment motions, a trial court generally lacks jurisdiction to hear one unless the Legislature has expressly authorized the motion. Effective January 1, 2024, the Legislature amended section 1172.1 to expand the court’s ability to recall and resentence a defendant on its own motion.

Now, a court still may recall a sentence on its own motion within 120 days of commitment for any reason rationally related to lawful sentencing. But it also may recall the sentence on its own motion at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law.

This recall-and-resentencing may be initiated by the original sentencing judge, a judge designated by the presiding judge, or any judge with jurisdiction in the case. Section 1172.1 permits a trial court to apply changes in law even where the Legislature has not made a change retroactive. Yet the law does not allow a court to recall-and-resentence where the applicable sentencing laws have not changed since the last sentencing.

If the court can and does resentence, though, the proceeding is not limited to the change in the law. Rather, the defendant is resentenced in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced provided the new sentence, if any, is no greater than the initial sentence. As in most postconviction proceedings, the court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the defendant’s sentence. As in any sentencing, the prosecution has a right to oppose relief. A victim of the crime has the chance to be heard.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1

People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687, 694–695

Second Holding:

Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by a jury, not a judge, and established beyond a reasonable doubt. Effective January 1, 2022, section 1170 was amended to limit a court’s discretion to impose the upper term of a sentencing triad.

Under amended section 1170, the court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

Virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty plea).

Authority:

PEN 1170

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 757, 773

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

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 834

Third Holding:

Assuming, without deciding, forfeiture applies, we nevertheless choose to exercise our discretion to reach defendant’s Sixth Amendment challenge given our Supreme Court’s recent opinions in Lynch and Wiley clarifying the scope of the right to jury trial with respect to aggravating factors.

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]

Fourth Holding:

In imposing the upper term sentence, the court identified as aggravating factors, including that the defendant’s prior convictions are numerous and the fact that he was on parole when the charged crimes were committed. (The court’s references to rule 4.421 were somewhat unclear, as the court’s statements did not match the rules cited.) Regardless of the confusion as to its rule of court references, it is clear the trial court erred in finding defendant was on parole when the charged crimes were committed.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1085-1086

Fifth Holding:

There is one exception to the mandate that all facts underlying an aggravated sentence must be found by a jury or stipulated to by the defendant. The court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury, per Almendarez-Torres.

In Erlinger, the United States Supreme Court recently reemphasized the narrowness of the Almendarez-Torres exception, stating that it has reiterated, to the point of downright tedium, that a judge may do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of, and nothing else.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(3)

Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998) 523 U.S. 224

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 838

Sixth Holding:

Wiley declined to decide whether trial court’s “numerical tally” of the defendant’s prior convictions—“at least four prior felonies”—falls within the Almendarez-Torres exception. It appears that one of the two aggravating factors the trial court relied on here was the extent of defendant’s criminal record, or stated another way, simply the numerical tally of his convictions.

In our view, this aggravating factor entails only a narrow factual finding that the convictions were sustained and does not entail any imprecise quantitative or comparative evaluation of the facts, and therefore can be permissibly found by a trial court under subdivision (b)(3) of section 1170.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1085

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 775-776

Seventh Holding:

Aggravating factors based on the “increasing seriousness” of a defendant’s prior convictions and “unsatisfactory performance on probation” involve something more than a narrow factual finding that the convictions were sustained and what elements were required to prove them, and thus these aggravating factors cannot be considered by the sentencing court unless found true by a jury or stipulated to by the defendant.

The trial court therefore erred in finding as an aggravating factor that defendant was on parole at the time he committed the offenses of which he was convicted. And in light of this error, the new sentence violates defendant’s Sixth Amendment jury trial right.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082-1083, 1085

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

Eighth Holding:

A Sixth Amendment sentencing violation is 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 current statutory requirements.

Otherwise, applying the Chapman standard of review, the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing. Given the lack of evidentiary citations to the record in this case, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found the unproven aggravating factors true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

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

 

 

Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000703

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in imposing two $30 criminal conviction assessment fees and two $40 court operations assessment fees without first determining whether the defendant had the ability to pay those fees.

First Holding:

The imposition of ancillary payments raises equal protection issues. Upon request, a court must consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment (Pen. Code, sec. 1465.8(a)(1)) or a court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373(a)(1)).

In making this determination, a court must allow the parties to present any relevant evidence or argument on the matter. For these reasons, we vacate the $80 court operations assessment fees and $60 criminal conviction assessment fees and remand the matter to afford the trial court an opportunity to determine in the first instance whether the defendant has the ability to pay those costs.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1

Second Holding:

To avoid passing upon whether the defendant’s trial attorney failed to provide constitutionally adequate assistance, we exercise our discretion to excuse the defendant’s forfeiture of his challenge to the imposition of the ancillary costs.

Authority:

People v. Torres (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 88, 92 [noting that a reviewing court may reach the merits of a forfeited claim t forestall a defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel]

Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000702

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Defendant’s sentence is vacated, and the matter is remanded for resentencing with directions that the trial court exercise its sentencing discretion without considering aggravating factors that were not found true by the jury.

First Holding:

The court relied on circumstances in aggravation that were not submitted to the jury. The trial court’s authority to impose an upper term sentence is addressed in section 1170(b), which authorizes an upper term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

There was no objection, and the upper term sentence could have been imposed based on only the aggravating factors of victim vulnerability and taking advantage of a position of trust, which were found true by the jury. Therefore, the upper term is not a sentence that could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.

Thus, the unauthorized sentence exception to the forfeiture rule may not apply under the facts in this case. However, to forestall a future claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we exercise our discretion to excuse any possible forfeiture and address defendant’s claim on the merits.

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354, 355–356 [holding defendant waived claim that trial court abused its discretion in aggravating his sentence based on factors that were inapplicable, duplicative, and improperly weighed]

People v. Achane (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1037, 1043

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161–162, fn. 6

Second Holding:

Section 1170(b) triggers the Sixth Amendment jury trial right with respect to every aggravating factor (other than a prior conviction) the trial court uses to justify an upper term sentence, and under the current statute 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:

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

Third Holding:

Such a violation is 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 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 Chapmn standard of review, the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing.

Authority:

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

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

Fourth Holding:

Applying these principles, we find the trial court erred in relying on the defendant’s continuing failure to take accountability for his actions. This additional aggravating factor was not decided by the jury but, rather, was a conclusion made by the trial court based on both defendant’s trial testimony and his continuing claim of innocence at sentencing.

Although the jury did not believe defendant’s testimony as to six of the nine counts charged, it was never asked to decide the issue of his lack of accountability, and since the jury was excused before sentencing, it obviously could not have made a finding that defendant continued to fail to take accountability. Only when aggravating facts have been proven as the Constitution requires may the court then rely on them to conclude, in its discretion, that those facts justify an upper term.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1084

Fifth Holding:

The People did not prove, and could not have proved, a lack of remorse or lack of accountability without burdening defendant’s constitutional right to testify at trial and maintain his innocence.

Authority:

People v. Key (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 888, 900 [lack of remorse may not be used as aggravating factor when defendant denies guilt and evidence is conflicting]

People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 356 [at penalty phase of capital crime prosecutor may properly comment on a defendant’s lack of remorse as relevant to whether remorse is present as a mitigating circumstance but may not suggest that lack of remorse is an aggravating factor]

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Gary Musings, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case 000701 and Gary Musings

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred when it failed to order joint and several liability for the victim’s restitution. The co-defendant was tried separately and sentenced by a different judge in an earlier proceeding.

First Holding:

In the co-defendant’s proceedings, the court ordered joint and several liability for the victim’s restitution, but in sentencing the defendant in this proceeding, the court (a different judge) made no mention of joint and several liability. A joint and several direct victim restitution order under section 1202.4(f) is not expressly permitted by statute, but is also not prohibited. The trial court therefore has discretion to make the obligation of multiple codefendants joint and several.

Authority:

People v. Arnold (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1099

People v. Neely (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 787, 800

People v. Madrana (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1049, 1051–1052

Second Holding:

A restitution order is intended to compensate the victim for the actual loss he or she incurred; however, it is not intended to provide the victim with recovery greater than that amount. When multiple defendants are culpable, the issue of double recovery is avoided when the trial court holds codefendants jointly and severally liable for the full amount of a crime victim’s economic loss.

Authority:

People v. Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1172

People v. Fortune (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 790, 794–795

People v. Leon (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 620, 622 [a court may impose liability on each defendant to pay the full amount of the economic loss, as long as the victim does not obtain a double recovery]

Third Holding:

An abstract of judgment may be modified to reflect that the victim restitution order is a joint and several obligation.

Authority:

People v. Cornejo (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 36, 43

People v. Neely (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 787, 800–801 [ordering modification of the judgment to expressly state that the restitution order is joint and several as to the defendant and the codefendant]

People v. Blackburn (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1520, 1535 [to avoid double recovery, appellate court modified judgment to provide expressly that the direct victim restitution ordered is joint and several]

Fourth Holding:

As a matter of equity, and because there is no double recovery, the matter should be remanded so that the court can modify the restitution order to make liability joint and several. Section 1202.46 confers continuing jurisdiction to modify an order for victim restitution.

Authority:

PEN 1202.46

People v. Blackburn (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1520, 1535

Gary Musings, Triggered By Third Holding:

Gary Musings note: I think the “Third Holding” and the authorities cited by the court demonstrate a prime example of the importance of reading the cases cited, and do not simply rely on what I have written in these summaries. A critical component of this decision that causes me pause is that the trial court did NOT make an order for joint and several liability; it apparently made no comment on it at all. This is not a case where the record shows that the court did so order but the order didn’t get reported properly in the abstract of judgment or minute order. It is not a case where the judge made comments indicating an intent to order joint and several liability, but the order was not expressed by the court. This is a case where the judge simply gave no indication at all regarding joint and several liability with the co-defendant who had been sentenced in a different proceeding.

First, I do not doubt that the Court of Appeal has the authority to modify the judgment OR the abstract of judgment. Section 1260 states, “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.”

But if I had submitted a brief that relied on the Cornejo, Neely, and Blackburn cases as authority for the court to actually change a judgment by ordering modification of the abstract of judgment, I think I could legitimately expect the opposition to point out the following rebuttals.

(A.) One cannot tell from the Cornejo decision whether the trial court had ordered joint and several liability but it wasn’t reflected in the abstract, or whether the trial court was silent and the appellate court simply modified the judgment by modifying the abstract (which is what happened in this Case 000701). Thus, we cannot determine whether the modification simply recorded the actual order in the abstract of judgment or the appellate modified the judgment. We don’t know.

(B.) In Neely, the trial court DID order joint and several liability, and the abstract simply did not reflect that, so the appellate court ordered the abstract amended to reflect what the trial court ordered. (That is NOT what happened in this Case 000701.)

(C.) In Blackburn–a case somewhat similar to this Case 000701 in that both defendants were sentenced at different times–the appellate court concluded that the trial court DID intend joint and several liability. Blackburn said, “The trial court had the authority to order direct victim restitution paid by both defendants jointly and severally. It seems glaringly obvious that is what it did here. In this light, there is no double recovery; nor is Jackson entitled to have Blackburn’s restitution obligation credited against his. Of course, each defendant is entitled to a credit for any actual payments by the other. To make sure this is clear (though out of an excess of caution), we will modify the judgment so as to provide expressly that the direct victim restitution ordered is joint and several.”

In other words, Blackburn approached it by clarifying what was “glaringly obvious”–that the trial court actually did order joint and several liability.

I think this points out the importance of actually reading the cases that you, as the defense attorney, intend to rely on, AND of actually reading the cases that your opposition cites.

And don’t stop there. Suppose Case 000701 was actually a published opinion, and you wanted to rely on it to get the appellate court in your client’s case to modify the abstract of judgment. If all you cited was the published decision in People v. Case 000701, you MIGHT prevail. But if your opposing party delved deeper, it could respond with an argument discounting the authority of People v. Case 000701, because Case 000701 (arguably) relied on cases that were not authority because they really did not have the same situation as People v. Case 000701. Remember the appellate principle: A case is not authority for propositions not considered. (People v. Chavez (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 477, 480).

 

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000698

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to deny the defendant’s petition for recall under section 1172.6 on the grounds that he had previously filed a petition that was denied. Because the record demonstrates that the defendant is prima facie eligible for relief under case law that has emerged since his original petition was denied in 2020, we remand the matter to the trial court with directions to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6(d).

First Holding:

Although the elements of collateral estoppel are satisfied, an equitable exception to that doctrine arises when there has been a significant change in the law since the initial ruling that warrants reexamination of the issue.

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 454

Second Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature, through SB 1437, amended section 188 to eliminate the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it applies to murder and to require, with certain exceptions under the felony murder rule, that a defendant act with malice to be convicted of murder. In 2021, through SB 775 the Legislature clarified that the amendments made by SB 1437 were also intended to eliminate any other theory of imputed-malice murder liability.

A defendant seeking relief under section 1172.6 must attest to the following: (1) A complaint, information, or indictment was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of murder under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime. (2) The petitioner was convicted of murder following a trial at which the petitioner could have been convicted of murder. (3) The petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder under current law.

Upon receipt of a facially sufficient petition, the trial court shall appoint counsel for petitioner if requested. The trial court then assesses whether the petitioner is prima facie eligible for relief. If the court determines that the petitioner has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing at which the prosecution bears the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder under current law.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957

Third Holding:

In general, whether a prior finding will be given conclusive effect in a later proceeding is governed by the doctrine of issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel. The doctrine is intended to protect litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy while promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation.

Collateral estoppel has five elements.

First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be identical to that decided in a former proceeding.

Second, this issue must have been actually litigated in the former proceeding.

Third, it must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding.

Fourth, the decision in the former proceeding must be final and on the merits.

Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding. While satisfaction of these elements is necessary to invoke the equitable doctrine of collateral estoppel, it is not always sufficient. Even if the elements are satisfied, the doctrine will not be applied if such application would not serve its underlying fundamental principles of promoting efficiency while ensuring fairness to the parties.

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 451-452, 454

Fourth Holding:

In denying the defendant’s earlier petition, the court stated that at no time did the defense or prosecution argue the theory of natural and probable consequences at trial. The only homicide theory the parties argued to the jury] was that the defendant was an aider and abettor of a planned assassination. Three years after that denial of the petition, Lee held that, despite the prosecution (in Lee) arguing a single theory to the jury, the instructions were not so limited and permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty on a theory not argued by the prosecution.

The Lee court did not know if, based on the evidence, the jury might have convicted Lee on this latter theory, because it did not have the full record before it. The Lee court was therefore unwilling to conclude, based solely on the prosecution’s closing argument and summary of the evidence, that the jury necessarily convicted Lee as a provocateur as opposed to a nonprovocateur accomplice. The same reasoning applies in the instant case.

Authority:

People v. Lee (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1164, 1188

Fifth Holding:

Lee constitutes a significant development or clarification of the law. Because the trial court did not have the benefit of Lee when it issued its order, foreclosing a re-examination of the defendant’s arguments would be unfair.

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 454 [an exception to collateral estoppel is when there is a significant change in the law]

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000681

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was not foreclosed from filing a new petition for recall of his sentence under section 1172.6. The matter is remanded with directions to the court to issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 1172.6(d).

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 altered the substantive law of murder in two areas.

First, the bill narrowed the scope of the felony-murder rule so that a participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a specified felony in which a death occurs can be liable for murder only if (1) the person was the actual killer, or (2) the person was not the actual killer, but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree, or (3) the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Second, the bill eliminated liability for murder as an aider and abettor under the natural and probable consequences doctrine by requiring that, except in cases of felony murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought to be convicted of murder. Now, malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.

Additionally, SB 1437 added section what is now 1172.6, to provide a procedure for those convicted of a qualifying offense to seek relief where the two substantive changes described above affect a defendant’s conviction. Under section 1172.6, an offender seeking resentencing must first file a petition in the sentencing court, and the sentencing court must determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that he or she is entitled to relief. If the sentencing court determines the petitioner has made a prima facie showing, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold a hearing to determine whether to vacate the murder conviction.

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 188(a)

PEN 189(e)

PEN 1172.6

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448-449

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 467–468

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

Second Holding:

In general, whether a prior finding will be given conclusive effect in a later proceeding is governed by the doctrine of issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel. This doctrine bars relitigation of issues earlier decided only if several threshold requirements are fulfilled.

First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be identical to that decided in a former proceeding.

Second, this issue must have been actually litigated in the former proceeding.

Third, it must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding.

Fourth, the decision in the former proceeding must be final and on the merits.

Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding. The party asserting collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing these requirements.

Authority:

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 715

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 452

Third Holding:

Even if the threshold requirements are satisfied, the doctrine will not be applied if such application would not serve its underlying fundamental principles of promoting efficiency while ensuring fairness to the parties. One well-settled equitable exception to the general rule of issue preclusion holds that preclusion does not apply when there has been a significant change in the law since the factual findings were rendered that warrants reexamination of the issue.

This exception ensures basic fairness by allowing for relitigation where the change in the law is such that preclusion would result in a manifestly inequitable administration of the laws. It also reflects a recognition that in the face of this sort of legal change, the equitable policies that underlie the doctrine of issue preclusion–preservation of the integrity of the judicial system, promotion of judicial economy, and protection of litigants from harassment by vexatious litigation—are at an ebb.

Authority:

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 716

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 454

Fourth Holding:

We independently review a trial court’s issue preclusion ruling.

Authority:

People v. Beaudreaux (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1227, 1238–1239

Fifth Holding:

In 2022, after the rulings on the defendant’s initial petitions, the law changed. As relevant here, section 1172.6 was amended, effective January 1, 2022, so as to provide that, at the hearing to determine whether the defendant is entitled to relief, the court may consider the procedural history of the case recited in any prior appellate opinion. Subsequently, multiple Courts of Appeal interpreted this provision to prohibit a trial court from considering the factual summary in a prior appellate opinion, even at the prima facie stage. This is a significant and relevant change in the law.

Authority:

People v. Bratton (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1100, 1113

People v. Beaudreaux (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1227, 1238

People v. Lee (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1164, 1183

Sixth Holding:

The record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry, allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless. However, the prima facie inquiry is limited. At this stage, a court must accept as true a petitioner’s allegation that he or she could not currently be convicted of a homicide offense because of changes to section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019, unless the allegation is refuted by the record. And this allegation is not refuted by the record unless the record conclusively establishes every element of the offense.

A court should not engage in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971-972

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 463

Seventh Holding:

We independently review a trial court’s decision to deny a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

People v. Gaillard (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1206, 121

Eighth Holding:

The defendant has prima facie established that he is eligible for relief because of the changes made to sections 188 and 189, and the record of conviction shows that both he and another individual were charged with murdering the victim. This alone is ordinarily enough to establish a prima facie case. Here, there is nothing in the record of conviction that demonstrates the defendant is ineligible for relief.

Authority:

People v. Mares (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1158, 1173 [If a defendant who faced a murder charge before SB 1437 pled guilty and the record contains any indication he had an accomplice who may have been the killer, a prima facie case ordinarily would be readily established, even by conclusory assertions in a form petition]

People v. Muhammad (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 268, 280 [same]

Ninth Holding:

The charging document did not specify any particular theory of first degree murder, nor did it need to. Only a single statutory offense of murder exists. It has long been the law in this state that an accusatory pleading charging murder need not specify the manner in which the murder was committed. Nor does an accusatory pleading need to specify the theory of murder on which the prosecution relies at trial. Specifically, neither felony murder nor murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine need be separately pleaded. Accordingly, the complaint allowed the prosecutor to proceed under now-invalid theories.

Authority:

People v. Estrada (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 328, 338

People v. Muhammad (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 268, 277

TENTH Holding:

The People refer to the probation report to establish that the defendant is not eligible. But it is not clear that the probation report can even be considered at this stage of the proceeding. The People have not cited a single case, nor are we aware of one, holding that a probation report is part of the record of conviction that can be considered at the prima facie stage. In fact, while in a different context, courts have held otherwise.

Authority:

People v. Burnes (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1458 [A probation report ordinarily is not part of the record of conviction]

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Jury trial, Pleading, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000680

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court committed three errors requiring reversal. It improperly imposed the upper term on the felony offense by considering an aggravating factor that the jury did not find. It improperly refused to award the defendant certain sentencing credits without giving him notice that it might do so. The defendant’s conduct can support only one conviction for drawing and exhibiting a firearm in an angry or threatening manner, not three convictions.

First Holding:

After the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, the prosecution presented evidence and argument to the jury on the aggravating factors that his unlawful possession of a firearm (1) was of increasing seriousness in relation to his earlier misdemeanor conviction and (2) occurred while he was on probation.

The jury found only the latter aggravating factor true. In selecting the upper term, the court relied on factors including that the defendant was armed and engaged in violent conduct, which indicates a danger to society, as well as the jury’s finding that he was on probation at the time of the offenses.

The trial court clearly erred by relying on an aggravating circumstance that the jury did not find—i.e., that the defendant engaged in violent conduct, which indicates a danger to society.

Authority:

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(1)

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1076 [criminal defendants are entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose them to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm]

Second Holding:

We do not have enough confidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found that circumstance in aggravation true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we remand for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087 [this kind of sentencing error requires reversal and remand unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all aggravating facts relied on to justify the upper term; the error is not harmless if the record contains evidence that could rationally support a contrary finding regarding the aggravating fact at issue]

Third Holding:

A circumstance that is an element of the substantive offense cannot be used as a factor in aggravation. This prohibition applies only if the crime as defined by statute cannot be accomplished without performance of the acts which constitute such factor.

Authority:

People v. Burbine (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1261-1262

Fourth Holding:

The People contend that the defendant forfeited his claims of improper sentencing by not raising them in the trial court. We exercise our discretion to consider them in the interests of justice.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1143 [in the interests of justice we have decided to overlook forfeiture, and remand the matter for resentencing]

Fifth Holding:

A single act of brandishing a firearm in the presence of multiple people can support only a single conviction for brandishing. Brandishing a deadly weapon in the presence of another person is not a crime of violence upon that person, but is committed in someone’s presence, a single act of brandishing can only support a conviction of a single count no matter how many people witness the act. Two of the three brandishing counts are reversed.

Authority:

In re Peter F. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 877, 881

Sixth Holding:

The general rule is that on remand for resentencing the trial court may reconsider all sentencing choices.

Authority:

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976

Seventh Holding:

The trial court erred in denying section 4019 conduct credits to the defendant at sentencing without giving him notice that it might do so.

Authority:

People v. Lara (2012) 54 Cal.4th 896, 906 [defendant is entitled to notice of the facts that restrict his ability to earn credits and, if he does not admit them, a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present a defense]

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Plea bargains

Case 000679

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Count ten as pled created a legal impossibility requiring reversal of the trial court’s acceptance of defendant’s plea agreement.

First Holding:

A claim not presented in the opening brief and was first raised in the appellant’s reply brief is deemed waived.

Authority:

People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 550, fn. 9

Second Holding:

Generally, a guilty or no contest plea precludes appellate consideration of issues related to guilt or innocence, including the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. Nonetheless, a defendant may still assert that his, her, or their admission included a legal impossibility.

Authority:

People v. Palmer (2013) 58 Cal.4th 110, 114

People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1365

Third Holding:

The term ‘legal impossibility,’ as applied to a choate [sic] crime, is merely a catch phrase for saying that, as a matter of law, the statute under which the defendant is charged does not prohibit his, her, or their conduct. Put another way, legal impossibility exists when the facts as admitted cannot constitute the crime pled to, such as where the victim’s characteristics fall outside of the statutory definition.

Authority:

People v. Jerome (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1094, 1099 [setting aside plea to oral copulation of a minor under 14 where the victim was 15]

People v. Richardson (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 360, 371-375 [setting aside no contest plea to human trafficking of a minor where victim was not a minor]

People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781 [a death certificate is not an instrument within the meaning of section 115, so it was legally impossible for the defendant to be guilty of section 115 for attempting to forge a death certificate]

Fourth Holding:

We conclude that because section 134 [essentially, falsifying a document for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose] is not one of the specifically enumerated offenses in section 653f(a) [solicitation of another to commit specified crimes] and given that the elements of a section 134 offense do not necessarily establish one of the specifically enumerated offenses, defendant’s plea to violating section 653f(a) by committing a violation of section 134 has resulted in a legal impossibility requiring reversal.

Authority:

People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781, 784, 786

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000674

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court should have stayed the sentence on count 3 under section 654.

First Holding:

Section 654(a) provides that 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. The statute is intended to ensure that the defendant is punished commensurate with his culpability. It expressly prohibits separate punishment for two crimes based on the same act, but has been interpreted to also preclude multiple punishment for two or more crimes occurring within the same course of conduct pursuant to a single intent.

Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

However, the temporal proximity of the two offenses is insufficient by itself to establish that they were incident to a single objective. If the defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives which were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct. Furthermore, multiple crimes are not one transaction where the defendant had a chance to reflect between offenses and each offense created a new risk of harm.

Authority:

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

People v. Vargas (2014) 59 Cal.4th 635, 642

People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 885

People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, 507, overruled in part on another ground in People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56 at pp. 103–104
People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 354

People v. Porter (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 34, 38

People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 639

People v. Tom (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 250, 260

People v. Lopez (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 698, 717

People v. Felix (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 905, 915

Second Holding:

Under the facts of this case, the court should have stayed the sentence on count 3. We may modify the judgment on review to reflect the sentence is stayed. In the absence of any other errors requiring remand, we exercise our discretion to do so.

Authority:

PEN 1260

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

People v. Flores (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 420, 453 [we need not remand a matter when it would be an idle act wasteful of judicial resources]