Tag Archives: Discretion

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001010

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In resentencing the defendant, the court abused its discretion in not giving proper consideration to whether to strike prior strike convictions. Remanded for proper consideration.

First Holding:

Under section 1172.1, a trial court may recall and resentence “at any time” upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of Parole Hearings, the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, or the Attorney General if the Department of Justice originally prosecuted the case.

Effective January 1, 2024, a trial court may recall a sentence and resentence a defendant 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.

Once a trial court decides to recall and resentence, it may either reduce the sentence by modification or vacate the conviction and impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense, whether or not that offense was charged in the original pleading.

In resentencing the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced, the resentencing court shall consider if the defendant has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence, and whether those circumstances were a contributing factor in the commission of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1

Second Holding:

Section 1385(c)(1) provides that, notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute.

Section 1385(c)(2) further provides that, 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. Accordingly, if the court finds that dismissal of an enhancement would endanger public safety, then the court need not consider the listed mitigating circumstances.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 296

Third Holding:

A court’s decision not to strike a prior serious felony enhancement is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Shaw (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 582, 585

People v. Jefferson (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 235, 242–243 [a trial court’s exercise of discretion must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice]

Fourth Holding:

Absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a court retains the discretion to impose or dismiss enhancements provided that it assigns significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances when they are present.

In other words, if the court does not find that dismissal would endanger public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that ‘may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024,1029

Fifth Holding:

A trial court has discretion under the Three Strikes law to dismiss or vacate prior conviction allegations or findings in the furtherance of justice. In exercising its discretion, the court may give no weight whatsoever to factors extrinsic to the Three Strikes scheme.

Instead, preponderant weight must be accorded to factors intrinsic to the scheme, such the nature and circumstances of the defendant’s present felonies and the prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his background, character, and prospects. In considering these intrinsic factors the court must determine whether the defendant may be deemed outside the scheme’s spirit, in whole or in part, and hence should be treated as though he had not previously been convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felonies.

While the purpose of the Three Strikes law was to ensure longer prison sentences, the “overarching consideration” and “underlying purpose” in striking prior conviction allegations is the avoidance of unjust sentences.

Authority:

PEN 1385(a)

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 530-531

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

People v. Garcia (1999) 20 Cal.4th 490, 498–500

Sixth Holding:

Abuse of discretion in failing to strike a prior conviction occurs in limited circumstances: where the trial court is not aware of its discretion; where the trial court considers impermissible factors; or where applying the Three Strikes law would produce an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd result under the specific facts of a particular case.

A reviewing court’s disagreement with the trial court’s weighing of proper factors (as distinct from the trial court’s reliance on improper factors in the weighing process) does not constitute an abuse of discretion.

We conclude from this record that the trial court failed to balance the appropriate factors set forth in Williams, that is, the defendant’s personal background, character, and prospects, and the specifics of his criminal history, the characteristics of the present offense for which he was being resentenced, or if a shorter sentence would accommodate risks to public safety.

Significantly, courts have reversed the denial of dismissal of prior strikes in instances where the prior strikes were far more serious than the defendant’s.

(Gary note: I have left out the appellate court’s recitation of facts peculiar to this defendant and the facts in this case, but court determined that the lower court had not given proper consideration of those factors. It remanded for a proper consideration.)

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 378-379

People v. Dryden (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1029

People v. Avila (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1134, 1140–1141 [defendant’s three previous strikes were two robberies and assault with a knife]

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 001007

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This is an appeal after resentencing under section 1172.75. The court erred in believing that the original sentence was unauthorized because full consecutive sentences on two of the counts had been mandatory. Thus, it was error for the court to vacate the original imposition of concurrent sentences and impose them consecutively.

Holding:

The trial court was mistaken in its determination that the original sentence was unauthorized because full consecutive sentences on both counts were mandatory.

Both crimes were committed on the same occasion on the same victim. Therefore, while section 667.6(c) authorized consecutive sentencing on these two offenses, imposing full consecutive sentences for both offenses was not mandatory. Similarly, at resentencing, the court was not required to impose a full consecutive sentence.

The trial court appears not to have been aware of its discretion in this regard. We therefore remand to permit the court to resentence the defendant pursuant to section 1172.75.

Authority:

PEN 667.6(c)

People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 596–597, 600 [remanding for resentencing where trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion to impose concurrent sentences and erroneously believed consecutive sentences were mandatory]

People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371, 431–432 [when a trial court misunderstands or is unaware of the scope of its sentencing discretion, a reviewing court must remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion]

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000999

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court abused its discretion by denying the defendant’s request for mental health diversion because its finding that he is ineligible for diversion is not supported by substantial evidence.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted sections 1001.35 and 1001.36 to authorize trial courts to grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendants diagnosed with qualifying mental disorders. To be eligible for mental health diversion, a defendant must meet two requirements.

One, the 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 two, the defendant’s mental disorder must be a significant factor in the commission of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 677

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

Second Holding:

Among the express purposes of the diversion program is to increase diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety.

Under section 1001.36(b), the court must find a causal connection unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. Eligibility no longer turned on findings to the court’s satisfaction.

The statute requires the court to find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor unless clear and convincing evidence demonstrates otherwise. And it is the prosecution’s burden to provide clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption.

Authority:

Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 67, 80

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

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891

People v. Cabalar (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 41, 52

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 688

Third Holding:

Once a defendant meets the eligibility requirements, the trial court must then determine whether a defendant is suitable for diversion using the four criteria outlined in section 1001.36(c): (1) A qualified mental health expert has determined the defendant’s symptoms would respond to mental health treatment; (2) the defendant has consented to diversion and waived the right to a speedy trial; (3) the defendant has agreed to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion, and (4) the court has determined the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400-401

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on an application for mental health diversion for 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 express or implied factual 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

Fifth Holding:

In reviewing a trial court’s finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before us is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the dispute] fact was true.

More specifically, in this context, 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 defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. To answer that question, we review 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.

(Gary note: The balance of the decision discusses the conclusions drawn by the trial court that it relied on to conclude that the mental disorder did not contribute to the offense. The appellate court concluded that the inferences the trial court drew were not substantial evidence to overcome by clear and convincing the presumption that the mental disorder was a contributing factor, and reversed the denial. It remanded for the court to reconsider the defendant’s application for mental health diversion consistent with the appellate court’s opinion.)

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Discretion, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000984

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court erred in imposing the firearm enhancement on count 2.

First Holding:

In affirming the trial court’s decision to deny the defendant’s request for dismissal of the firearm enhancement attached to count 1, we review the trial court’s sentencing decision at a section 1172.75 resentencing for an abuse of discretion, including a court’s determination of dangerousness. Section 1172.75(d) vests the superior court with broad discretion based on an inherently factual inquiry.

Under an abuse of discretion standard, 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.

A court also abuses its discretion if the decision is made without the sentencing court’s informed discretion or if the court is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers.

The burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary.

A defendant’s citation to a silent record is insufficient to meet his burden to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. We assume the trial court was aware of and followed applicable law.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 856–857

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 988

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

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

People v. Calhoun (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 117, 126 [a court’s sentencing decision implies requisite subsidiary findings]

Second Holding:

On count 2, the defendant had been convicted of section 246 (shooting at an occupied vehicle), enhanced under section 12022.53(d) for an additional 25 years to life. (In the prior appeal from the conviction, the appellate court struck the enhancements on count 2 under sections 12022.53(b) and (c), because section 246 is not one of the crimes listed in 12022.53(a) that subdivisions (b) and (c) can apply to.) At the 1172.75 resentencing hearing, the court imposed the lesser enhancement on count 2, under section 12022.53(c), for an enhancement of a determinate term of 20 years instead of the indeterminate 25 years to life he was serving under section 12022.53(d).

Because section 246 is not a crime listed under section 12022.53(a) to which subdivisions (b) and (c) can be applied, it was error to reduce the section 12022.53(d) enhancement to 12022.53(c).

While the trial court could dismiss the section 12022.53(d), firearm enhancement as to count 2, it could not impose a lesser enhancement under section 12022.53(c). We vacate the sentence as to count 2 and remand for resentencing as to that count only.

(Gary note: The court did not mention it as an option, but the trial court can dismiss the section 12022.53 (as the appellate court stated) and impose an enhancement on a lesser included enhancement, such as section 12022.5.

(Under People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, the Supreme Court extended its holding of Tirado (which held that a court could exercise its discretion to impose a lesser section 12022.53 enhancement to the one that was found true) to expressly permit striking section 12022.53 and imposing a lesser included, uncharged enhancement authorized elsewhere in the Penal Code, outside section 12022.53. Under McDavid, the court in this case could strike the 12022.53(d) enhancement and impose an enhancement under section 12022.5, for example. In other words, the court is not faced with a choice of it’s either all or nothing.)

Authority:

PEN 12022.53(a)

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 699, fn. 12

(People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015)

Discretion, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000981

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court abused its discretion by denying diversion after finding that the defendant is NOT likely to commit a super strike offense.

We reverse the judgment and direct the court to vacate its order denying mental health diversion and enter a new order granting the motion unless there is evidence of changed circumstances that provide a basis for denying the motion.

First Holding:

The defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause and appealed the denial of his motion for mental health diversion. Appeal lies from the judgment.

Authority:

PEN 1237.5 [appeal may be taken after a no contest plea if the court issues a certificate of probable cause]

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

Second Holding:

We review the diversion denial order for abuse of discretion, meaning the decision is arbitrary or capricious, applied the wrong legal standard, or is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

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

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

Third Holding:

The diversion law promotes increased diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety. The potentially ameliorative benefit for criminal defendants who suffer from a qualifying mental disorder is balanced against protecting public safety. The law is intended to apply as broadly as possible.

Authority:

PEN 1001.35(a)

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 630-631

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1149

Fourth Holding:

A defendant charged with a felony may be referred to a program of mental health treatment utilizing existing inpatient or outpatient mental health resources” for up to two years. If the defendant performed satisfactorily in diversion, at the end of the period of diversion, the court shall dismiss the defendant’s criminal charges that were the subject of the criminal proceedings at the time of the initial diversion.

In other words, the arrest upon which the diversion was based shall be deemed never to have occurred. If the defendant performs unsatisfactorily in a treatment program or engages in criminal conduct, the court may reinstate criminal proceedings.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(f)(1)(A)(ii) and (C)(i), (g), and (h)

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 631

Fifth Holding:

A defendant is eligible for diversion if a mental health expert diagnoses the defendant with a qualifying mental disorder that was a significant factor in commission of the charged offense. A defendant is suitable for diversion if

(1) the expert opines that the defendant would respond to treatment;

(2) the defendant consents to diversion and waives the right to a speedy trial;

(3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment; and

(4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b) and (c)

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 452

Sixth Holding:

The only disputed issue in this appeal is public safety. The Legislature defined “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” by incorporating section 1170.18. Section 1170.18(c) defines “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” as an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony listed in section 667. The relevant violent felonies in section 667 are super strikes. Burglary–the charge the defendant faced–is not a super strike.

Courts limit discretion to deny diversion on “public safety” grounds to instances where a defendant is likely to commit a super strike.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449–450

People v. Williams (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 990, 1001

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1151

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896

People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113, 121

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 798–799

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 690–691

Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 67, 83, 87–88

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 454–455

Seventh Holding:

The Legislature is presumed to know about existing case law when it amends a statute. The Legislature amended section 1001.36 seven times between 2022 and 2026 without eliminating the reference to section 1170.18, despite the decisions cited above, which require a finding that the defendant poses a risk of committing super strikes.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1062

People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, 743

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 634

Eighth Holding:

Beginning in 2027, courts applying section 1001.36 will no longer use the old definition of “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” from section 1170.18. Instead, they will apply a new standard: “substantial and undue risk to the physical safety of another person.” Regardless of the forthcoming changes to section 1001.36, the version of the law applying to this defendant required a super strike finding.

The trial court found he did not pose a risk of committing super strikes, only that he poses an unreasonable risk of committing further residential burglaries. The court could not deny diversion based on a risk the defendfant will commit burglaries, thereby discounting the need to find public safety is imperiled by likely super strike offenses. The Legislature has specifically defined what constitutes ‘an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety’ under the statute, limiting it to the danger the defendant will commit a super strike.

Authority:

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 455

Ninth Holding:

Courts recognize “residual discretion” to deny diversion. However, while it is clear a trial court retains residual discretion to deny diversion even if all the threshold requirements are met, that does not mean, as the court suggested here, that it could reject a request for diversion based on an alternative meaning of public safety inconsistent with the specific statutory definition in section 1001.36(c)(4). In the guise of exercising its residual discretion, a court is not permitted to redefine public safety in a manner inconsistent with the Legislature’s expressed intent.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896

Tenth Holding:

Reasons the court might exercise discretion to deny diversion include lack of a treatment program; a defendant’s history of failed treatment or misconduct in prior programs; or the availability of a better program for the defendant’s needs.

Authority:

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 457

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 889–890

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

Case 000978

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to impose the normal base term for several of his offenses in addition to the life terms under the Three Strikes law for those same offenses. The court failed to update the credit for time served. And the abstract of judgment misidentifies a second degree robbery as in the first degree, and must be corrected.

First Holding:

Where, as here, a defendant’s current sentence includes prison prior term enhancements rendered invalid under section 1172.75(a), the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely the striking of newly invalid enhancements.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

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

Second Holding:

The Three Strikes law is a penalty provision, not an enhancement. It is not an enhancement because it does not add an additional term of imprisonment to the base term. Instead, it provides for an alternate sentence (25 years to life) when it is proven that the defendant has suffered the requisite number of convictions, prior and present. (At least two prior serious felony convictions, and the current offense being a qualifying offense for invocation of Third Strike sentencing.)

Authority:

People v. Williams (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 733, 744

Third Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391

Fourth Holding:

When a trial court pronounces an unauthorized sentence, the sentence may be set aside and is no bar to the imposition of a proper judgment thereafter, even though it is more severe than the original unauthorized pronouncement.

Authority:

People v. Vizcarra (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 422, 431–432

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1036, fn. 21

Fifth Holding:

The trial court erred in failing to update his presentence credits at the time of resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

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

Sixth Holding:

The amended abstract of judgment incorrectly lists the defendant’s conviction in count 3 as one for first degree robbery, when in fact the conviction should be identified as one for second degree robbery. The abstract of judgment must be corrected.

(Gary note: Though the court discussed the need for amending the abstract of judgment for various reasons through the opinion, it did not cite authority for its order that it be corrected. There is plenty of authority available, of course. I have set out some cases the court could have drawn from, but there are undoubtedly many others.)

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

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000975

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing because the trial court erroneously believed the law required it to impose consecutive sentences for every count.

First Holding:

Under section 667.61(i), consecutive sentences are mandatory only to offenses listed in section 667.61(c), paragraphs (1) through (7). The crime of which the jury found the defendant guilty is described in 667.61(c), paragraph (8).

Thus, consecutive sentencing was not mandatory.

Authority:

PEN 667.61(c)

Second Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court, and a court that is unaware of its discretionary authority cannot exercise its informed discretion.

When a sentencing court was not aware of the full scope of its discretionary powers at the time the defendant was sentenced, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Belmontes (1983) 34 Cal.3d 335, 348, fn. 8

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 419

Third Holding:

The Attorney General argues that the defendant forfeited his sentencing contention by failing to object below to the court’s error, and that the defendant cannot show his counsel was ineffective for failing to object because it was not reasonably likely the court would have imposed anything less than the 150-year sentence that it did.

We exercise our discretion to reach the question, notwithstanding forfeiture.

Authority:

People v. Leon (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1003 [the trial court’s erroneous understanding that it had no discretion to impose concurrent sentences may fall within a narrow class of sentencing issues that are reviewable in the absence of a timely objection, and in any event, we would exercise our discretion to resolve the claim in the interests of fairness and judicial economy and to forestall unnecessary ineffective assistance of counsel claims.]

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 162, 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:

The trial court’s repeated references to section 667.61(i)’s requirement that it impose consecutive sentences leaves no doubt that the court here did not know it retained the discretion to impose concurrent sentences per victim.

The court provided no other reason for imposing consecutive sentences, including no comment that the aggravating factor warranted a maximum sentence or any similar comment.

We therefore cannot conclude that the record clearly indicates the court would have imposed the same sentence if it had understood its full sentencing discretion. We accordingly remand the matter for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 419

Appellate Principles, Discretion

Case 000968

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In denying the petition, the trial court stated the law compelled it to find the defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community because of the seriousness of the charged offenses.

The trial court abused its discretion in failing to apply the correct legal standard. Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the judgment, reverse the order denying the defendant’s petition, and remand the case for the trial court to reconsider the defendant’s petition.

First Holding:

To qualify for mental health diversion, a defendant must meet eligibility and suitability criteria. If a defendant is both eligible and suitable, the court may, in its discretion grant diversion. Thus, a diversion order is expressly discretionary with the court, even when all of the criteria are met.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(a)

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 685

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891

People v. Doron (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1, 9

People v. Cabalar (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 41, 53

Second Holding:

A defendant is eligible for diversion if he suffers from a qualifying mental disorder that was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

A defendant is suitable for diversion if (1) a qualified mental health expert opines the defendant’s symptoms will respond to treatment, (2) the defendant consents to diversion and waives the right to a speedy trial, (3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment, and (4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

As to the last suitability requirement, a defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety only if there is an unreasonable risk he will commit a violent felony known as a super strike.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449–450

Third Holding:

Nothing precludes a trial court from relying primarily, or even entirely, on the circumstances of the charged offense or offenses in denying a motion for diversion. However, no matter how serious the charged offenses, the court retains discretion to find the defendant does not pose an unreasonable danger.

Authority:

People v. Bunas (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 840, 862

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 799 [the court acted within its discretion in determining that the nature and manner of defendant’s charged crimes—and particularly, the two super strikes—rendered her likely to commit another super strike; section 1001.36 grants broad discretion to the court to consider any factors it deems appropriate when assessing dangerousness.]

Fourth Holding:

It appears here that the court applied the wrong standard in assessing the risk of danger to public safety. The court stated it was “here to consider the seriousness of the charges,” and “based on the seriousness of the charges,” the law “compels” it to find the defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

These comments suggest the court erroneously believed, because of the seriousness of the charges, it lacked discretion to find in the defendant’s favor on the dangerousness issue.

Given that the court did not discuss the circumstances of the offenses or identify any other factors it considered in reaching its decision, we are not sufficiently confident that it understood it had discretion.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449 [a court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard]

Fifth Holding:

A court unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no more exercise that informed discretion than one whose decision is or may have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant’s record.

Under these circumstances, the proper remedy is to remand unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Doron (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1, 10

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 451-452 [remanding for reconsideration where court erroneously found defendant failed to meet dangerousness suitability requirement]

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 [remand for resentencing is required when a court is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers, unless the record clearly indicates the court would have reached the same conclusion had it been aware of its discretion]

Sixth Holding:

Here, the record does not clearly indicate how the court would have ruled had it applied the correct standard on the dangerousness issue. Indeed, the court expressed some regret that the law compelled it to find the defendant posed an unreasonable risk of danger.

Moreover, the Attorney General does not argue the defendant otherwise was ineligible or unsuitable for diversion as a matter of law. Accordingly, the proper remedy is a conditional reversal and remand with directions to reconsider the petition under the correct standard.

Authority:

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 640 [approving Court of Appeal’s decision to conditionally reverse a defendant’s convictions and sentence with instructions to conduct a hearing to consider eligibility for mental health diversion]

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000966

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The great bodily injury enhancement in connection with the kidnapping of the victim and the corporal-injury-on-a-child count both concern the same conduct, such that one of the sentences must be stayed under section 654.

Holding:

The great bodily injury enhancement in connection with the kidnapping of the victim and the corporal-injury-on-a-child count both concern the same conduct, such that one of the sentences must be stayed under section 654. We remand because the trial court has discretion where an act that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law to punish a defendant under either of such provisions.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 351

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000958

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court abused its discretion by denying diversion because its finding that the defendant is ineligible for diversion is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we conditionally reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to reconsider defendant’s application for mental health diversion.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted Penal Code sections 1001.35 and 1001.36 to authorize trial courts to grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendants diagnosed with qualifying mental disorders. To be eligible for mental health diversion, a defendant must meet two requirements.

One, the 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 two, the defendant’s mental disorder must be a significant factor in the commission of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)(1) and (b)(2)

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 677

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

Second Holding:

Among the express purposes of the diversion program is to increase diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety.

The court must find a causal connection unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.

Eligibility no longer turned on findings to the court’s satisfaction. The statute requires the court to find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor unless clear and convincing evidence demonstrates otherwise.

And it is the prosecution’s burden to provide clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption.

Authority:

PEN 1001.35(a)

PEN 1001.36(b)

Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 67, 80

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

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891

People v. Cabalar (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 41, 52

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 688

Third Holding:

Once a defendant meets the eligibility requirements, the trial court must then determine whether a defendant is suitable for diversion using the four criteria outlined in section 1001.36(c): (1) A qualified mental health expert has determined the defendant’s symptoms would respond to mental health treatment; (2) the defendant has consented to diversion and waived the right to a speedy trial; (3) the defendant has agreed to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion, and (4) the court has determined the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400-401

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on an application for mental health diversion for 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 express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. By definition, substantial evidence requires evidence and not mere speculation.

Authority:

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

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

Fifth Holding:

In reviewing a trial court’s 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 this context, 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 defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.

To answer that question, we review 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.

(Gary note: The opinion goes on to recite details specific to this case on the question whether the mental disorder contributed to the offense, and concluded that there was not clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that it did. The details are fact-specific and of no value in the context of these summaries, because unpublished decisions cannot be cited for comparison or authority or any other purpose.)

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000937

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In this appeal by the People following the resentencing of the defendant under section 1172.75, we affirm the lower court’s granting of a new trial on the gang-related special circumstances and gang enhancement allegations in light of AB 333.

First Holding:

The People contend the trial court erred in granting respondent’s motion for new trial because the evidence at trial demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury would have rendered the same verdict absent the instructional error created by the passage of AB 333.

The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a new trial motion, and its decision will be disturbed only for clear abuse of that discretion. The People recognize this general rule, but contend independent review is more fitting given that the court below was not the original trial judge and based its review on a cold transcript and exhibits.

Authority:

People v. Ault (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1250, 1260

Second Holding:

Presumptions on appeal are in favor of the order, and the appellate court does not independently redetermine the question whether an error was prejudicial. As our Supreme Court explained in Ault, the trial court’s order granting a new trial will not be disturbed if fairly debatable, even if a reviewing court itself, addressing the issues de novo, would not have found a basis for reversal. We will review the trial court’s order for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Ault (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1250, 1262-1263

Third Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature passed AB 333, which became effective January 1, 2022. The new legislation made several changes to the definition of section 186.22 gang enhancements.

First, it narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons.

Second, whereas section 186.22, former subdivision (f) required only that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang, AB 333 requires that any such pattern have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang. (

Third, AB 333 also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Fourth, AB 333 narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be ‘more than reputational.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

Fourth Holding:

Although AB 333 does not expressly address the gang-murder special circumstance set forth in section 190.2(a)(22), the latter statute defines criminal street gang by express cross-reference to section 186.22(f). The same is true for a firearm enhancement alleged pursuant to section 12022.53(e)(1).

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 461

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 746

Fifth Holding:

When a substantive change occurs in the elements of an offense and the jury is not instructed as to the proper elements, the omission implicates the defendant’s right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment, and reversal is required unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same in the absence of the error. To prove harmless error under the Chapman standard, it is not enough to show that substantial or strong evidence existed to support a conviction under the correct instructions. Rather, the question is whether the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the omitted element.

(Gary note: The court then proceeded to examine the written opinion of the trial judge, and discussed the judge’s reasoning and statements of findings that led the trial court to the conclusion that a new trial was warranted. Those facts and that analysis are beyond what these summaries are designed to present, because the facts relied on in an unpublished opinion cannot be related to control a result in another case, and neither can the trial court’s reasoning be cited as authority, persuasitive or otherwise.)

Authority:

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

People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 504

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 668

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 449

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 417

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

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000934

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It is not clear whether the court intended to run count 2 concurrently or consecutively. The court stated it was to be run concurrently, but when stating the sentence imposed, it appeared to run the counts consecutively. We remand for clarification of the court’s actual intended sentence.

Holding:

In the course of explaining the sentence to be imposed, the trial court stated that, under section 1170.15, but the trial court said that under Woodworth, it had discretion to impose a concurrent sentence (it said a “current” sentence), and that it was doing so.

On all the remaining counts, the court imposed the sentences concurrently. But when the court announced the sentence, the calculation was based on running count 2 full term consecutively. It appears appropriate under these circumstances to reverse the sentence and remand the matter to permit the trial court to clarify its sentence.

Authority:

Pen 1170.15

People v. Woodworth (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1473

People v. Garcia (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 834, 838-839