Tag Archives: Discretion

Amelioration, Discretion, Duty of the court, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000842

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In the prior appeal, the appellate court reversed the denial of the defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 and ordered the trial court to grant the petition. On remand, the trial court granted the motion and redesignated the offense as three counts, and imposed the upper term.

It was error to resurrect and redesignate for sentencing counts that were dismissed in the original plea negotiations. It was also error to impose the upper term on circumstances in aggravation that were not submitted to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

When the trial court granted the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, his judgment became nonfinal and was subject to the retroactive application of AB 333. AB 333 made changes to the law on gang enhancements and narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang.

The defendant’s admission under the former law does not satisfy the elements now required under the current law. The stipulation at the preliminary hearing that the [named gang] was an ongoing street gang that engages in a pattern of criminal activity pursuant to section 186.22(f) is insufficient under any standard to prove either the gang enhancement or the gang offense under current law.

Authority:

People v. Trent (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 251, 262–263 [once petition for resentencing under sec. 1172.6 is granted, judgment is no longer final]

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 393 [AB 333 is retroactive to nonfinal judgments]

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740

People v. Silva (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 505, 526–527

Second Holding:

When a murder or attempted murder conviction is set aside under section 1172.6, the petitioner’s conviction shall be redesignated as the target offense or underlying felony for resentencing purposes if the murder or attempted murder was charged generically, and the target offense was not charged.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(e)

Third Holding:

Section 1172.6 does not define what constitutes an underlying felony or target offense, but our high court in Arellano held that the meaning of these terms is clear—an underlying felony refers to the felony underlying a felony-murder theory, and the target offense refers to the offense the natural and probable consequence of which was murder.

Authority:

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457

People v. Lara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1005 [the trial court erred by resurrecting counts dismissed in the parties’ plea agreement on resentencing]

Fourth Holding:

Application of the trial court’s resentencing discretion under section 1172.6(e) here is circumscribed by the prosecution’s exercise of charging discretion in the original proceeding. Here, that limitation is the district attorney’s election to dismiss all charges involving [victim 1] as well as the substantive gang count in return for the defendant’s plea to a single count of attempted second degree murder of [victim 2].

Authority:

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 476 [deeming it unlikely the Legislature intended to allow the prosecution to effectively revisit its charging decisions  every time a petitioner succeeds in setting aside a  conviction under section 1172.6]

People v. Lara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1005, 1026

Fifth Holding:

There is no dispute that there is no qualifying felony for which the prosecutor could have proceeded under a theory of felony murder in this case.

Thus when resentencing the defendant, the trial court was required to redesignate his offense as a target offense—the offense of which the natural and probable consequence was the attempted murder.

In this case, conviction for attempted murder of [victim 2] was properly redesignated as assault with a semiautomatic firearm on [victim 2]. We conclude that the trial court erred by resurrecting counts stemming from conduct that the district attorney plainly chose to dismiss as part of the negotiated settlement.

These dismissed counts cannot form the predicate for relief for the defendant’s petition for resentencing. Because the defendant did not plead to any other offenses than the attempted murder of [victim 2], the target offense underlying the attempted murder of one named person is not two assaults with a firearm on two persons. Courts may not impose uncharged and unproven sentence allegations or enhancements when resentencing a successful petitioner under section 1172.6e).

Authority:

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 475, 477

People v. Lara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1005, 1027

Sixth Holding:

Though not applicable here, had the prosecution alleged and proved a target offense in addition to the attempted murder, on successful petition under section 1172.6, the court would be limited to sentencing the defendant on the charged target offenses that were proved. The trial court under section 1172.6(d)(3) would not have been otherwise entitled to resentence the defendant on charges that could have been [but were not] established by the evidence.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(d)(3)

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 470

Seventh Holding:

The trial court erred by imposing an upper term for the count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm on [victim 2] without holding a jury trial as requested.

Under section 1170(b), when a statute specifies three possible terms, the trial court shall, in its sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, unless circumstances in aggravation that justify an upper term sentence have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

However, a trial court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)

Eighth Holding:

After the defendant’s resentencing, the California Supreme Court decided Wiley. Relying on Erlinger, our high court held that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury determination on aggravating factors related to a defendant’s criminal history, such as whether a defendant’s convictions were of increasing seriousness under rule 4.421(b)(2), and whether the defendant’s prior performance on probation was unsatisfactory under rule 4.421(b)(5).

Wiley concluded that a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm. 

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1086

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 834 [virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty plea]

Ninth Holding:

where a defendant was deprived of a jury trial on aggravating factors used at sentencing, we must apply the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard in Chapman.

Under this standard, we must reverse the judgment unless we conclude 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.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1087

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

Tenth Holding:

The trial court relied on the defendant’s rap sheet to determine that the crimes were of increasing seriousness and were numerous under rule 4.421(b)(2). According to defendant’s rap sheet, he had a juvenile adjudication in 2007 [for specified offenses], 2010 juvenile adjudications for [different offenses] and a 2014 conviction for [a different offense].  

Based on these series of offenses, a rational jury could have disagreed as to whether it demonstrated criminal conduct of increasing seriousness. Likewise, a rational jury could have also found that the defendant’s prior convictions were not particularly numerous. The failure to submit these aggravating factors to the jury was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant is entitled to reversal of the upper term sentence.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1089

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 848

 

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000837

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing following the defendant’s earlier appeal, the court misunderstood the scope of discretion with regard to striking or reducing the term imposed for firearm enhancements.

It also erred in imposing the upper term based on circumstances in aggravation that should have been, but were not, either stipulated to by the defendant or submitted to a jury for determination beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

When an accusatory pleading alleges and the jury finds true the facts supporting a greater firearm enhancement, the court may impose a lesser included, uncharged statutory enhancement. Further, a trial court may strike a defendant’s enhancement under section 12022.53 and impose a lesser uncharged enhancement authorized elsewhere in the Penal Code, that is, outside of section 12022.53.

Authority:

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 697, 700

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1030

Second Holding:

We consider a trial court’s sentencing decisions under an abuse of discretion standard. 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 not supported by substantial evidence.

A ruling otherwise within the trial court’s power will nonetheless be set aside where it appears from the record that in issuing the ruling the court failed to exercise the discretion vested in it by law.

Authority:

People v. Moseley (2004) 105 Cal.App.5th 870, 874

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 887

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 694

Third Holding:

Unless the record affirmatively demonstrates otherwise, the trial court is deemed to have considered all the relevant sentencing factors. A silent record does not demonstrate a lack of awareness of the court’s full sentencing discretion.

Even if the sentencing court was unaware of its discretion, remand is not necessary when 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.

It appears from the record in this case that the court believed that its only choices were to impose the section 12022.53 enhancement or to strike it entirely. It appears that the court was unaware that it also had the option to impose a firearm enhancement under a lesser statute, section 12022.5.

Authority:

People v. Parra Martinez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 317, 322

People v. Knowles (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 757, 765

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

Fourth Holding:

The court erred in imposing the upper term based on a circumstance in aggravation that was not submitted to a jury for determination beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant’s (specifically, that the defendant’s prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings are numerous or of increasing seriousness).

Authority:

PEN 1170

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

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

Fifth Holding:

A trial court’s sentencing decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

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

Sixth 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.

Authority:

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

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

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000825

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude the finding of unreasonable risk to public safety is not supported by substantial evidence and the trial court abused its discretion in finding the defendant unsuitable for diversion.

(Gary note: I have set out the various holdings and authorities below that represent the applicable law and principles, but I have not recited the court’s analysis of the facts in this case on which it based there was no substantial evidence to support the court’s conclusion that the defendant was a danger to the community. Suffice it to say, the appellate court found the court’s reasoning inadequate to support denial of the request for mental health diversion.)

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 authorizes courts to grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendants who meet six qualifying requirements. The stated purpose of the diversion statute is to promote all of the following: (a) Increased diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety. (b) Allowing local discretion and flexibility for counties in the development and implementation of diversion for individuals with mental disorders across a continuum of care settings. (c) Providing diversion that meets the unique mental health treatment and support needs of individuals with mental disorders.

If the defendant successfully completes diversion, including having in place a plan for long-term mental health care, the criminal charges shall be dismissed. However, if after diversion is granted, a qualified mental health expert concludes the defendant is performing unsatisfactorily in the assigned program, the court shall, after notice to the defendant, hold a hearing to determine whether criminal proceedings should be reinstated or treatment modified.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

PEN 1001.35

People v. Williams (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 990, 995

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 626

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1149–1150

Second Holding:

Effective January 1, 2023, mental health diversion requires the trial court to find that the defendant is both eligible for diversion and suitable for the program. A defendant is eligible if they meet two criteria: first, the defendant must have been diagnosed with a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, within the last five years, by a qualified mental health expert.

Second, the disorder must be a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense. 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.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

Third Holding:

This presumption cannot be overcome by the mere absence of evidence demonstrating the defendant’s mental illness was a factor in the alleged offenses. If a mere absence of evidence were sufficient, the court would effectively be impermissibly shifting the burden to the defendant to affirmatively prove that his mental disorder contributed to the offenses.

Authority:

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

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 688–689

Fourth Holding:

If the defendant satisfies the statutory eligibility requirements, the court must then consider whether the defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion. The four criteria to assess suitability are grouped in section 1001.36, subdivision (c). As with the diagnosis eligibility requirement, the first of these relies on input from a medical professional, in this instance the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, that the symptoms of defendant’s mental disorder would respond to mental health treatment.

The second and third requirements are satisfied if the defendant agrees to waive their speedy trial rights and to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion. Only the fourth requirement necessitates a trial court finding, to wit, that the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892–894

Fifth Holding:

Even here, however, the Legislature has narrowly defined the applicable criteria. Borrowing from sections 1170.18(c) and 667(e)(2)(C)(iv), an unreasonable risk to public safety means a likelihood that the defendant will commit one of the violent felonies specifically enumerated in the statute.

The listed felonies are colloquially known as “super strikes.” Super strikes are a narrowly drawn subset of violent felonies involving extreme violence. We note that the lack of a criminal record is strong evidence that a defendant is unlikely to commit a future super strike offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892

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

People v. Moine (2011) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 450

People v. Hoffman (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1304, 1310

Sixth Holding:

Assuming the defendant is both eligible and suitable, the trial court must also be satisfied that the recommended inpatient or outpatient program of mental health treatment will meet the specialized mental health treatment needs of the defendant. This is not an additional eligibility or suitability requirement the defendant must meet. Rather, section 1001.36(f)(1) read as a whole appears to contemplate an ongoing assessment to assure that defendant will receive appropriate treatment for their particular conditions as part of the diversion program.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(f)(1)(A)(i)

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1079

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892

Seventh Holding:

Finally, even if a defendant has made a prima facie showing that all the express statutory eligibility and suitability requirements are met, the court may still exercise its discretion to deny diversion. But this residual discretion is not unfettered; it must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law. Where the court chooses to exercise that residual discretion to deny diversion, its statement of reasons should reflect consideration of the underlying purposes of the statute and explain why diversion would not meet these goals.

Authority:

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 891

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892

Eighth Holding:

We review the trial court’s factual findings as to the enumerated statutory criteria for substantial evidence. Under this deferential standard of review, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. Although we must ensure the evidence is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, nonetheless it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts on which that determination depends.

Authority:

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1079

Ninth Holding:

We review the trial court’s ultimate decision whether to grant mental health diversion for an abuse of discretion. By its terms, section 1001.36 is designed to encourage trial courts to broadly authorize pretrial mental health diversion, providing treatment for qualifying mental disorders that result in criminal behavior. As with any principled exercise of discretion, the court must utilize the appropriate criteria consistent with the principles and purposes of the governing law, only drawing conclusions supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1080

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000815

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to impose a condition of probation that the defendant must submit to chemical testing for the use of alcohol at any time as directed by probation officer or other law enforcement officer.

First Holding:

As an initial matter, we address and reject the Attorney General’s argument that the defendant’s failure to object to the alcohol testing condition forfeited the issue on appeal. Neither forfeiture nor application of the forfeiture rule is automatic, and appellate courts have discretion to review otherwise forfeited challenges. Here, we exercise our right to decide the appeal on its merits, in order to eliminate the need to address the defendant’s alternative ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We now turn to the reasonableness of condition

Authority:

People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 928

Second Holding:

The defendant challenges the imposition of probation condition 13, which required him to submit to alcohol testing, as unreasonable under Lent. He contends the condition does not make sense because the trial court struck condition 12 that prohibited him from consuming or possessing alcohol.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

We review conditions of probation for abuse of discretion. That is, a reviewing court will disturb the trial court’s decision to impose a particular condition of probation only if, under all the circumstances, that choice is arbitrary and capricious and is wholly unreasonable.

Authority:

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

People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 403

Fourth Holding:

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. The Lent test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term.

The conditions of probation aimed at rehabilitating the offender need not be so strictly tied to the offender’s precise crime as long as they are reasonably directed at curbing an offender’s future criminality. But there must be a strong connection between the burdens imposed by the challenged condition and a probationer’s criminal conduct or personal history.

Authority:

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

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

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1120

Fifth Holding:

Notably, when asked to strike the condition requiring the defendant to abstain from drinking alcohol, the sentencing court freely did so without any apparent reservation. This striking shows the court was not concerned that the defendant’s alcohol consumption had the potential for abuse or was likely to lead to future criminality.

As such, because the defendant was allowed to possess and consume alcohol, there was no rational need to test the defendant for alcohol consumption as a condition of probation. Therefore, we conclude the testing condition here has no deterrent effect on the defendant’s future criminality and is unreasonable.

Authority:

People v. Kiddoo (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 922, 928, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 236–237 [court struck a probation condition that appellant not possess or consume alcohol or frequent places where alcohol was sold because there was no factual indication in the record that the proscribed behavior is reasonably related to future criminal behavior]

Sixth Holding:

Because the court’s imposition of condition 13 was therefore an abuse of discretion, we order it stricken.

Authority:

In re Malik J. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 896, 901 [In an appropriate case, a probation condition that is not sufficiently precise or narrowly drawn may be modified in this court and affirmed as modified]

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000811

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to order a stay-away order upon sentencing the defendant. Otherwise, we affirm the court’s sentencing choices.

First Holding:

Under section 136.2, when the court has a good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur, the court is authorized to issue a restraining order. Orders made under section 136.2 are operative only during the pendency of criminal proceedings and as prejudgment orders. The only purpose of a section 136.2 protective order is to protect victims and witnesses in connection with the criminal proceeding in which the restraining order is issued in order to allow participation without fear of reprisal.

Authority:

PEN 136.2

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324–1325

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 383, 384 [Where the Legislature authorizes a specific variety of available procedures, the courts should use them and should normally refrain from exercising their inherent powers to invent alternatives.]

Second Holding:

We also observe that courts must, at the time of sentencing for certain crimes, consider issuing a protective order prohibiting a defendant from contacting a victim. None of these other statutes are applicable in this matter. The order issued against the defendant therefore transcended the authorization of section 136.2 and must be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 136.2(i)(1)

PEN 273.5

PEN 646.9(k)

People v. Stone (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 153, 160
We review the trial court’s sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. Under this standard of review, the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.

Authority:
People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847

Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711–712

Third Holding:

To prove an abuse of discretion, the burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. In the absence of 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

Authority:

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

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377 [a sentencing court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it]

Fourth Holding:

Section 1170(b)(6) does not mandate a presumption in favor of the lower term in every case in which the defendant generally falls under one of the categories enumerated in the subdivision. Rather, the statute is clear that childhood trauma (or one of the other two categories in subdivision (b)(6)) must be a contributing factor to the offense in order to qualify for a presumption of the low term in sentencing. On this record, we cannot say that the court failed to consider section 1170(b)(6), or that its decision to impose the middle term notwithstanding the provision was so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.

Authority:

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 988, 991 [In the absence of 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.]

People v. Hilburn (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 189, 204, fn. 6

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983 [Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it]

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