Tag Archives: Briefing

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Jury trial, Sentencing

Case 001075

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in imposing and staying enhancements under section 12022.7(e) on counts 2, 3, and 4, and under section 12022.7(a) on count 2, because the jury did not find those allegations true.

Holding:

In their appellate briefing, the parties agree that the trial court erred in imposing and staying enhancements under section 12022.7, subdivision (e) on counts 2, 3, and 4, and under section 12022.7, subdivision (a) on count 2, because the jury did not find those allegations true. In keeping with the parties’ concessions, we strike these four enhancements.

Authority:

Williams v. Superior Court (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 666, 674 [An express concession or assertion in a brief is frequently treated as an admission of a legal or factual point, controlling in the disposition of the case.]

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 001058

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Among many other offenses committed during related incidents over a period of time, the defendant was convicted of two counts of being in possession of an assault weapon and two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. We reverse one of each of those counts.

First Holding:

Possession of a firearm by a felon is a continuing offense. The concept of a continuing offense is well established. Ordinarily, a continuing offense is marked by a continuing duty in the defendant to do an act which he fails to do. The offense continues as long as the duty persists, and there is a failure to perform that duty.

Thus, when the law imposes an affirmative obligation to act, the violation is complete at the first instance the elements are met. It is nevertheless not completed as long as the obligation remains unfulfilled. The crime achieves no finality until such time.

In the case of continuing offenses, only one violation occurs even though the proscribed conduct may extend over an indefinite period. As the evidence does not support any conclusion but continuing possession, one of the defendant’s convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm must be reversed and one of his convictions for possession of an assault weapon must be reversed.

Authority:

People v. Mason (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 355, 365

Second Holding:

It is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate error that justifies reversal of the judgment. To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis that supports the claim of error. We are not required to examine undeveloped claims or to supply arguments for the litigants.

Authority:

Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609

In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408

United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153 [to demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis]

Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52

Third Holding:

Cases are not authority for points not considered.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934, 945, fn. 7

Fourth Holding:

Reversal of the two counts means that the defendant must be resentenced. When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 37, 45-46

Fifth Holding:

One of the defendant’s arguments on a different count is forfeited because it was not raised in the trial court. The parties did not address forfeiture in their appellate briefing, but they had the opportunity to address it, a rule always implicated when an argument is raised for the first time on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Alice (2007) 41 Cal.4th 668, 679 [The parties need only have been given an opportunity to brief the issue decided by the court, and the fact that a party does not address an issue, mode of analysis, or authority that is raised or fairly included within the issues raised does not implicate the protections of Government Code section 68081.]

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 798, fn. 6.

Sixth Holding:

A failure to object to a jury instruction does not forfeit the issue on appeal if the alleged error concerns elements of the offense, but the forfeited argument here is at least one step removed from an argument about the elements of the crime in question. And the general rule is that an argument not raised in the trial court is forfeited on appeal, including constitutional arguments.

Authority:

People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1011-1012

People v. Marchand (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1056, 1060-1061 [ruling that an argument under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 was forfeited because it was not raised in the trial court]

Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001050

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court improperly imposed fines and ancillary costs without considering the defendant’s ability to pay. The ancillary fees imposed on the defendant are vacated, and this matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to consider whether the defendant has the ability to pay the court operations assessment and the court facilities assessment imposed in his sentence.

First Holding:

We review the imposition of fines and assessments for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1043

Second Holding:

The respondent argues that the defendant forfeited the issue regarding his ability to pay because defense counsel did not object to the fines or assessments imposed. The defendant states that he personally objected that he was unable to pay, preserving the issue for appeal, or his counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object.

In light of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits of the defendant’s challenge.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

Kopp divided court-ordered payments into three categories: fines, ancillary costs, and victim restitution.

Addressing fines, Kopp held that fines (including restitution fines under section 1202.4) are punitive in nature, that fines should be analyzed under the excessive fines clauses in the United States and California Constitutions, and that courts need not hold a hearing on a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing all fines.

By contrast, Kopp continued, ancillary costs (including court facilities fees under Government Code section 70373 and court operations fees under section 1465.8) are not punitive in nature, and equal protection principles require a rational basis for treating ancillary fees for indigent criminal defendants differently than indigent civil litigants. Finding no such basis, Kopp concluded that, when requested, trial courts must consider a defendant’s ability to pay ancillary costs.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 18-24, 25, 28, 30

Fourth Holding:

Points perfunctorily asserted in briefing on appeal without argument in support are not properly raised.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 206

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

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).