Tag Archives: Discretion

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Standard of review

Case: 000244

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred by imposing a probation condition that required the defendant to submit to searches of her computers, recordable media, and electronic devices. The electronic search condition is not reasonably related to criminality. Because we conclude the electronic search condition is unreasonable under the Lent test, we do not consider whether it is unconstitutionally overbroad. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction in part and remand with instructions to strike the electronic search condition and consider whether a more narrowly tailored or alternative condition would be reasonable.

First Holding:

In Lent, the Supreme Court adopted a three-part test to determine whether a probation condition is reasonable and, therefore, statutorily valid. Generally, a condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. This test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term.

Authority:

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

Second Holding:

A probation condition that imposes limitations on a person’s constitutional rights must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad. The essential question in an overbreadth challenge is the closeness of the fit between the legitimate purpose of the restriction and the burden it imposes on the defendant’s constitutional rights—bearing in mind, of course, that perfection in such matters is impossible, and that practical necessity will justify some infringement.

Authority:

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

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

Third Holding:

We review conditions of probation for abuse of discretion. Specifically, we review a probation condition for an indication that the condition is arbitrary or capricious or otherwise exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000232

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion because substantial evidence did not support the court’s conclusion that his mental illnesses were not a significant factor in the commission of the underlying offenses.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature enacted provisions to create a pretrial diversion program for defendants with certain mental health disorders. Pretrial diversion allows for the suspension of criminal proceedings and potential dismissal of charges upon successful completion of mental health treatment. The statute expressly promotes increased diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety.

Authority:

PEN 1001.35

PEN 1001.36

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 133

Second Holding:

Section 1001.36 provides that a defendant is eligible for pretrial diversion if the defendant has been diagnosed with a specified mental disorder within the last five years by a qualified mental health expert, and the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense. If the defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, the court shall find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.

If the defendant is eligible, the court also must determine whether the defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion based on satisfaction of the following criteria: (1) In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder causing, contributing to, or motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment; (2) The defendant consents to diversion and waives the defendant’s right to a speedy trial; (3) The defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and (4) The defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in Section 1170.18, if treated in the community.

Authority:

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795

Third Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on a petition for pretrial mental health diversion for abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard, or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, we review a trial court’s factual findings in support of its ruling for substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

Fourth Holding:

The trial court failed to apply the presumption that, given the timely diagnoses of mental health disorders, the mental condition contributed to his behavior. The burden then was on the prosecution to rebut the presumption by producing clear and convincing evidence tha there was no causal connection.

Authority:

People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485, 490

Fifth Holding:

However, while eligibility and suitability are preconditions, mental health diversion remains discretionary even if they are met. Because of the existence of this residual discretion, the proper remedy is to remand with instructions for the trial court to consider both eligibility and suitability, along with making relevant findings, in accordance with the current law.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 888

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000230

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the defendant’s hearing on the recall of his sentence under section 1172.75, the court failed to recalculate his custody credits upon resentencing. We direct the trial court to correct the custody credits in the resentencing minute order and the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

Everyone sentenced to prison for criminal conduct is entitled to credit against his term for all actual days of confinement solely attributable to the same conduct. When a defendant is imprisoned and later resentenced, the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served, whether in jail or prison, and whether before or since he was originally committed and delivered to prison custody.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29-30, 37

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision not to strike a prior felony conviction for abuse of discretion. It is the defendant’s burden on appeal to show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. Absent such a showing, the trial court is presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on review. In addition, we will not reverse a trial court’s sentencing decision merely because reasonable people might disagree. An appellate tribunal is neither authorized nor warranted in substituting its judgment for the judgment of the trial judge.

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 371, 376-377

Abstracts and Minutes, Discretion, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000220

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant must be resentenced in light of enhancement-related errors and that the minute order from the bench trial on the defendant’s prior convictions requires correction. Therefore, we remand for resentencing and direct the minute order to be corrected.

First Holding:

Several of the errors raised involve the trial court’s exercise of discretion and were forfeited by the defendant’s failure to object below. Nonetheless, we have doubts about whether the trial court in fact exercised its discretion in failing to impose certain enhancements and making other sentencing choices, especially given discrepancies between the court’s tentative sentences and its final sentences. There also appears to be at least one error resulting in an unauthorized sentence that the parties do not raise. Under these circumstances, we find it appropriate to remand for both defendants to be fully resentenced so that the court can ensure the sentences reflect its intent in accordance with the law.

Authority:

People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 594

In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1130

Second Holding:

Weapon enhancements must be either imposed consecutively or stricken. Such an enhancement cannot be imposed concurrently.

Authority:

PEN 1385

PEN 12022

Third Holding:

Unless stricken, prior-serious-felony and prior-prison-term enhancements are added once to each count on which an indeterminate term is imposed and once for the combined counts on which an aggregate determinate term has been imposed.

Authority:

People v. Tua (2018) 18 Cal.App.5th 1136, 1141

People v. Minifie (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1256, 1260

Fourth Holding:

A sentencing court may not impose terms for both a prior-serious-felony enhancement and a prior-prison-term enhancement that are based on the same underlying conviction.

Authority:

People v. Scully (2021) 11 Cal.5th 542, 612

Fifth Holding:

If a prior-conviction enhancement or punishment for it is stricken in the interest of justice, the enhancement should not also be imposed and stayed under section 654.

Authority:

People v. Tang (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1003, 1008–1009

Sixth Holding:

The trial court should ensure that it sufficiently explains its discretionary sentencing choices on the record.

Authority:

Rules of Court, rule 4.406

Seventh Holding:

There were several errors in the minute order that must be corrected.

[Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for its directive that the abstract be corrected, but the law is very clear that it has that authority. I have cited some cases that the court could have relied on.]

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000210

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for full resentencing. The trial court abused its discretion when declining to fully strike the firearm enhancement or strike it and impose a lesser firearm enhancement. The trial court errantly focused only on the defendant’s past and present danger to public safety, and not whether striking the enhancement would endanger public safety in the future. The trial court erred in deciding whether striking the enhancement would endanger public safety because, as the record of the sentencing hearing indicates, it focused solely on defendant’s past conduct and the circumstances of the murder. In the context of section 1385, the key question is forward looking—whether striking the enhancement would likely endanger public safety. Thus, even if the trial court struck the enhancement, the defendant would still be serving an indeterminate 15-to-life term with parole eligibility subject to the Parole Board and Governor’s review. The trial court must consider this future-looking issue for purposes of public safety.

First Holding:

A trial court’s decision not to dismiss an enhancement pursuant to section 1385 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion arises if the trial court based its decision on impermissible factors or on an incorrect legal standard. A court acting while unaware of the scope of its discretion is understood to have abused it.

Authority:

People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 298

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 225

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 694 [reminding that a defendant is entitled to sentencing decisions made by a court exercising informed discretion]

Second Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022,Penal Code section 1385 was amended to specify factors that the trial court must consider when deciding whether to strike enhancements from a defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice. It reads, in part, “Notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so …. In exercising its discretion under this subdivision, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present. Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. Endanger public safety means there is a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others.” Subparagraphs (A) to (I) list nine distinct mitigating circumstances, including, as is relevant here, subparagraph (C) where the application of an enhancement could result in a sentence of over 20 years. Subparagraph (C) states in this instance, the enhancement shall be dismissed.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 674

Third Holding:

Although the current dangerousness of the defendant is an appropriate factor to consider, as it will have some bearing on whether dismissing the enhancement would endanger the public, a crucial part of the inquiry is how the dismissal of the enhancement will impact the length of the defendant’s sentence. For a defendant facing a lengthy indeterminate sentence, the inquiry should also take into account that the defendant’s release from prison is contingent on review by the Board of Parole Hearings (and for murder convictions, by the Governor), who will have the opportunity to assess the defendant’s dangerousness at that time. This future review will act as a safety valve against a release that would endanger the public and is relevant to a trial court’s analysis of whether the dismissal of an enhancement imposed on a defendant serving an indeterminate prison term will endanger public safety.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 228

 

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000202

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court’s finding that the People provided clear and convincing evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in his commission of the offenses was not supported by substantial evidence. We remand to the trial court for a new diversion eligibility hearing under section 1001.36. If the court determines that defendant is eligible for diversion, it may grant his application. If the court determines defendant is ineligible, defendant’s convictions and sentence shall be reinstated.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted sections 1001.35 and 1001.36 to authorize trial courts to grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendants with qualifying mental disorders. To be eligible for mental health diversion, a defendant must have been diagnosed within the past five years with a mental disorder identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the defendant’s mental disorder must be a significant factor in the commission of the offense. There is a presumption that a defendant’s mental disorder diagnosis, if the diagnosis occurred within the past five years, was a significant factor in the commission of the offense. Once a presumption is established, it is the People’s burden to provide clear and convincing evidence that defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to overcome it.

Authority:

PEN 1001.35

PEN 1001.36

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 678

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on an application for mental health diversion for an abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. A court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. By definition, ‘substantial evidence’ requires evidence and not mere speculation.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449

People v. Ramon (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 843, 851

Third Holding:

In reviewing a trial court’s finding that a fact has been proven by clear and convincing evidence, the question before us is whether the record contains evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the disputed fact was true. We view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence. Those inferences must be drawn from evidence rather than speculation

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401-402

People v. Ramon (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 843, 851

Fourth Holding:

The absence of evidence proving that defendant’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses is not substantial evidence supporting a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s mental disorder was not a factor in the commission of the offenses.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 404

Discretion, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000189

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by reimposing the upper term sentences based on aggravating factors that were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury as required under section 1170(b)(2). This error violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court failed to exercise its discretion under AB 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (regarding the choice of sentences to impose when section 654 permits sentencing on only one of the counts it applies to) at the resentencing hearing. The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the correct sentencing date and number of custody credits.

First Holding:

Under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments 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, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 1170(b)(2) similarly provides that the trial court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when circumstances in aggravation of the crime justify imposition of an upper term sentence, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt’ at a jury or court trial. This jury trial right is not merely a state law entitlement, but is constitutionally required for all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction, relied upon to justify an upper term sentence.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review. Under that standard, a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute. Lack of a jury trial is not harmless under Chapman if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.

Authority:

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

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

Third Holding:

Section 654 prohibits a court from punishing a defendant more than once for the same act or course of conduct. Prior to 2022, the statute required that an act or omission punishable in different ways by different statutes be punished under the provision that provided the longest potential term of imprisonment. (Former sec. 654(a).) AB 518 amended section 654 effective January 1, 2022, to grant a court discretion to punish such an act under either of such provisions. The trial court erroneously failed to exercise its discretion under Assembly Bill 518 at the resentencing hearing. Since we are again remanding this matter for resentencing under Senate Bill 567, the trial court should conduct a full resentencing as to all counts based on the law and circumstances that apply when resentencing occurs, including the amendments to section 654 under AB 518.

Authority:

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment will need to be corrected to reflect the correct sentencing date and number of custody credits.

[Gary note: The court did not cite authority for this obviously required order. There are many cases it could have cited. I have listed some of them below.]

Authority:

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

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000188

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court denied the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion under section 1001.36, and placed him on probation. The evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that his undisputed mental health disorders were not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor in his involvement in the crime. We will reverse the probation order due to insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s finding of ineligibility for mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36(b)(2). We will remand the matter for the trial court to exercise its discretion under Penal Code section 1001.36(c) regarding defendant’s suitability for mental health diversion.

First Holding:

Since 2018, Penal Code section 1001.36 has afforded trial courts discretion to grant criminal defendants suffering from certain recognized mental disorders pretrial diversion to receive mental health treatment. Diversion allows for the suspension of criminal proceedings and potential dismissal of charges upon successful completion of mental health treatment. The express purpose of the legislation was to increase diversion of eligible individuals, and later amendments have only confirmed the Legislature’s desire to expand mental health treatment through diversion. As currently enacted, a defendant accused of a qualifying offense is eligible for mental health diversion if the defendant has been diagnosed with a qualifying mental health disorder which was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense. A qualifying diagnosis creates a rebuttable presumption that the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense. The presumption can be overcome if there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113, 119

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 890

Second Holding:

We review for substantial evidence a decision that a qualifying mental health disorder (which the trial court found to exist here) was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor in the charged conduct—a finding that must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Given that standard, on appeal we must determine whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true. We also must view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.

Even considering the record in the light most favorable to the challenged ruling, we conclude it does not contain substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found it highly probable that defendant’s mental disorders were not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor in his involvement in the crime. A qualifying diagnosis creates a presumption that the defendant’s mental condition contributed to his criminal behavior. And the prosecution can only rebut this presumption by producing clear and convincing evidence that there was no causal connection. he statutory presumption is not overcome simply by the absence of evidence that the mental disorder was a motivating factor, or the absence of evidence that the defendant was actively experiencing symptoms while committing the crime. The statutory presumption is not overcome simply by the absence of evidence that the mental disorder was a motivating factor, or the absence of evidence that the defendant was actively experiencing symptoms while committing the crime.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401, 404

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 995–996

People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485

Equal protection, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000187

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant contends on this appeal that the trial court erroneously found he was not entitled to a Franklin hearing in his petition for writ of habeas corpus and erred in denying his Franklin motion as successive. In 2018, the defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting a Franklin hearing.

(The Franklin court had held that a defendant seeking to preserve evidence following a final judgment should be given an opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his youth offender parole hearing.. Franklin authorized trial courts to receive any documents, evaluations or testimony that may be relevant at an eventual youth offender parole hearing.)

That court (in 2018) denied that petition on the basis that he was not eligible for a youth offender parole hearing because he would already be released before reaching the 15 years’ threshold for youth offender parole. In 2024, the defendant filed a motion for a Franklin hearing under section 1203.01. The trial court denied that motion on the grounds that it was a successive motion. The People agree with defendant that the court erred when it denied his motion as successive. We conclude the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for a Franklin hearing as successive. We reverse the court’s order and remand for the court to consider defendant’s motion under Penal Code section 1203.01.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2014, SB 260 (2013–2014 Reg. Sess.) enacted sections 3051, 3046(c), and 4801(c) to provide a parole eligibility mechanism for youthful offenders. Defendants who were 25 years old or younger at the time they committed the offense and were convicted of a determinate term are entitled to a youth offender parole hearing during their 15th year of incarceration. The Franklin court had held that a defendant seeking to preserve evidence following a final judgment should be given an opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his youth offender parole hearing.. Franklin authorized trial courts to receive any documents, evaluations or testimony that may be relevant at an eventual youth offender parole hearing. For defendants whose judgments were final, the proper procedure to obtain a Franklin hearing is to file a motion in superior court under the original caption and case number, citing the authority of section 1203.01 and the Cook decision.

Authority:

PEN 1203.01

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261,283-284

People v. Perez (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 612, 618

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Second Holding:

There is no express bar to successive motions or requests for a Franklin hearing under section 1203.01. The defendant’s section 1203.01 motion should not have been denied as successive.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Third Holding:

The trial court’s order denying a defendant’s Franklin motion is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. In deciding whether the court abused its discretion we ask whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether its rulings of law are correct, and whether its application of the law to the facts was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Critical to the resolution of this case, we note that when a trial court’s decision rests on an error of law, that decision is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 459

People v. Benzler (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 743, 749

People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) (2008) 43 Cal.4th 737, 746

Fourth Holding:

Although defendant originally sought a Franklin hearing by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, as Cook explained, habeas corpus was not the proper procedure in the first instance. Accordingly, the court’s order denying the habeas petition did not bar the court from ruling on defendant’s subsequent Franklin motion, which was properly raised under section 1203.01 and Cook. As such, the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s Franklin motion on the sole basis he had already sought a Franklin hearing by filing a habeas petition. Therefore, the court abused its discretion when it denied defendant’s Franklin motion as successive.

Authority:

ADIn re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 457-458

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000178

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36. The People concede that the court erred in finding the him ineligible for diversion. The judgment is conditionally reversed, the order denying the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion is vacated, and the matter is remanded for the trial court to reconsider his diversion motion consistent with this opinion. If the trial court again denies the motion, the judgment shall be reinstated.

First Holding:

A trial court may grant mental health diversion to defendants who satisfy the eligibility and suitability requirements set forth in the statute. A defendant is eligible for diversion if he or she has been diagnosed with a qualifying mental disorder and that disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense. A defendant is suitable for diversion if the defendant’s symptoms would respond to mental health treatment, the defendant consents to diversion and waives the right to a speedy trial, the defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion, and the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s denial of mental health diversion for abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard, or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true. In making this assessment the appellate court must view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011

Third Holding:

Under the statute, a trial court must presume that a defendant’s diagnosed mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the crime, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. The prosecution bears the burden of presenting such clear and convincing evidence. The absence of evidence proving that a defendant’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses is not substantial evidence supporting a finding by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant’s mental disorder was not a factor in the commission of the offenses.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 404

Discretion, Duty of the court

Case: 000174

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After reviewing the petition and the parties’ briefing, we conclude that, at a pretrial hearing in May 2024, the court erred in denying petitioner’s request for a bail review hearing after petitioner showed changed circumstances entitling him to such a review. Therefore, we grant the petition and direct the trial court to hold a new bail review hearing. The court held that circumstances had changed between the former bail hearing and the current because a Court of Appeal published an opinion disagreeing with another appellate court’s conclusion that pretrial detention is the only option if bail is set at a level the defendant can reasonably afford but is not sufficient to protect the state’s compelling interests. In failing to address the conflict between the two opinions, the court abused its discretion.

First Holding:

Under section 1289, after a defendant has been admitted to bail upon an indictment or information, the court in which the charge is pending may, upon good cause shown, either increase or reduce the amount of bail. Such good cause must be founded on changed circumstances relating to the defendant or the proceedings.

Authority:

PEN 1289

In re Alberto (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 421, 430

Second Holding:

If the court properly determines nonfinancial conditions are insufficient to protect the state’s interests, but that imposing a money bail condition (alone or in combination with nonfinancial conditions) would adequately protect the public and the victims and ensure the arrestee’s presence in court, the court must consider the individual arrestee’s ability to pay and set bail at a level the arrestee can reasonably afford. If money bail set at a level the defendant can reasonably afford is not sufficient to protect the state’s compelling interests, then the trial court’s only option is to order pretrial detention, assuming the evidentiary record is sufficient to support the findings necessary to justify such an order.

Authority:

In re Brown (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 296

In re Humphrey (2021) 11 Cal.5th 135

Third Holding:

The appellate court held that circumstances had changed between the former bail hearing and the current because a Court of Appeal published an opinion disagreeing with another appellate court’s conclusion that pretrial detention is the only option if bail is set at a level the defendant can reasonably afford but is not sufficient to protect the state’s compelling interests. In failing to address the conflict between the two opinions, the court abused its discretion. The Kowalczyk court had disagreed with the Brown court’s earlier conclusion that a pretrial detention order is the only option when a bail amount the defendant can afford is insufficient to protect the public and ensure the defendant’s presence in court. The Kowalczyk court concluded that under Humphrey, if a court makes the findings necessary to support a detention, the court may set bail in an amount higher than a defendant can afford.

Authority:

In re Kowalczyk (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 667

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000170

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The sentence impose at the resentencing under section 1172.75 must be vacated because the court imposed unauthorized sentences on the two gun enhancements, thus requiring a remand for full resentencing. Any sentence imposed on the section 12022.5 enhancements shall be in accordance with the terms specified under current law.

First Holding:

Any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b) is legally invalid. When a judgment includes such an enhancement, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. Resentencing shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety. It shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed.

The statute requires the court to apply changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing. The court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the defendant’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

Section 1172.75 requires full resentencing for all defendants who qualify for recall of sentence under the statute. The court may revisit all prior sentencing decisions and has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the sentence, and not just the portion subjected to the recall.

Authority:

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 36

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424-425

Third Holding:

Though the term imposed for the firearm enhancements permitted the then-upper term of five years imposed at sentencing in 1984 under a triad of three years, four years or five years, the triad has since changed to three years, four years, or ten years. Reimposition of the five years is no longer an option because it is no longer part of the available triad. The court cannot impose the upper term of 10 years, because section 1172.75 specifies that the court may not impose a sentence longer than the original one. Further, imposition of a sentence higher than was available at the time of the offense would encounter ex post facto problems. Because of the unauthorized sentences on the firearm enhancements, the matter must be remanded for full resentencing, and the defendant will have another opportunity to seek the dismissal of his prior strike conviction.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. King (1993) 5 Cal.4th 59, 79-80 [ex post facto violated by imposing enhancements that could not have been imposed at the time of the offense]

People v. Trujeque (2015) 61 Cal.4th 227, 256-257 [permitting prosecution of a case that could not have been refiled under prior law violate ex post facto proscription]