Tag Archives: Discretion

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000749

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion in denying mental health diversion by basing its denial on findings not supported by substantial evidence and by exercising its discretion in a manner inconsistent with the principles and purpose of the statute.

(Gary’s note: The conclusion that the court abused its discretion relied extensively on facts reviewed by the Court of Appeal. These summaries are designed more to recite the various principles than to ferret out exactly how the principles achieved the result in the particular case. Sometimes it is obvious, but many times the outcome is very fact-dependent. Since these unpublished opinions cannot be cited as authority, it serves little purpose to recite the extensive details that led to the result in a particular case.)

First Holding:

We review a trial court’s order denying 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.

Authority:

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 135

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

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448

Second Holding:

Mental health diversion under section 1001.36 requires the trial court to find the defendant both eligible for diversion and suitable for the program. A defendant is eligible for mental health diversion if both of the following criteria are met: (1) defendant presents evidence he or she has been diagnosed with a mental disorder by a qualified mental health expert, identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSMD), within the last five years and (2) defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

A court may consider any relevant and credible evidence, including, but not limited to, police reports, preliminary hearing transcripts, witness statements, statements by the defendant’s mental health treatment provider, medical records, records or reports by qualified medical experts, or evidence that the defendant displayed symptoms consistent with the relevant mental disorder at or near the time of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

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

Third Holding:

As to suitability, each of the following criteria must be met: (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 their 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.

In determining whether the defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, the court may consider the defendant’s treatment plan, the defendant’s violence and criminal history, the current charged offense, and any other factors that the court deems appropriate.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Fourth Holding:

Even where defendants make a prima facie showing that they meet all the express statutory requirements, the court may still exercise its discretion to deny diversion. This residual discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law.

Authority:

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

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

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 134-135

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 891 [court’s discretion must be informed by legal principles and purpose of statute]

People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 977, superseded by statute on other grounds as indicated in People v. Lynall (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1108 [all exercises of legal discretion must be grounded in reasoned judgment and guided by legal principles and policies appropriate to the particular matter at issue]

Fifth Holding:

The stated purpose of mental health diversion is to keep people with mental disorders from entering and reentering the criminal justice system while protecting public safety, to give counties discretion in developing and implementing diversion across a continuum of care settings, and to provide mental health rehabilitative services. That purpose includes a strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders because of the benefits of such treatment to both the offending individual and the community.

A trial court’s denial of mental health diversion using its residual discretion should be limited to those situations where the purposes of the statute would not be achieved. Where the court chooses to exercise this 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 those goals.

Authority:

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

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892-893

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 138

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 891-892

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

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Jury trial, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000746

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by discharging Juror No. 1 without good cause in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment. Our review of the record does not reveal it was a demonstrable reality that the discharged juror refused to deliberate. Rather, the juror listened to all the evidence, participated to some extent in the discussions in the jury room, and remained willing and able to vote concerning the verdict. The judgment is reversed.

First Holding:

If at any time, whether before or after the final submission of the case to the jury, a juror dies or becomes ill, or upon other good cause shown to the court is found to be unable to perform his or her duty, or if a juror requests a discharge and good cause appears therefor, the court may order the juror to be discharged. In most circumstances, section 1089 is applied to remove a juror “who becomes physically or emotionally unable to continue to serve as a juror due to illness or other circumstances. However, section 1089 also has been applied “to permit the removal of a juror who refuses to deliberate, on the theory that such a juror is unable to perform his duty.

Authority:

PEN 1089

People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466, 474

Second Holding:

The removal of a seated juror for failing to deliberate is a serious matter that implicates a defendant’s state and federal constitutional right to a unanimous decision by the jury. Accordingly, great caution is required when deciding to excuse a sitting juror. The requirement of a unanimous criminal verdict is an important safeguard, long recognized in American jurisprudence. This safeguard rests on the premise that each individual juror must exercise his or her own judgment in evaluating the case. The fact that other jurors may disagree with a panel member’s conclusions, or find disagreement frustrating, does not necessarily establish misconduct.

Authority:

People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 Cal.5th 432

People v. Allen and Johnson (2011) 53 Cal.4th 60, 71

Third Holding:

If a juror’s willingness or ability to continue deliberating is unclear, the trial court must take care that its investigation is neither too cursory nor intrudes too deeply into the jury’s deliberative process to avoid invading the sanctity of the deliberations or creating a coercive effect on those deliberations.

The circumstance that a juror does not deliberate well or relies upon faulty logic or analysis does not constitute a refusal to deliberate and is not a ground for discharge. Similarly, the circumstance that a juror disagrees with the majority of the jury as to what the evidence shows, or how the law should be applied to the facts, or the manner in which deliberations should be conducted does not constitute a refusal to deliberate and is not a ground for discharge.

Authority:

People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466, 485

Fourth Holding:

When reviewing the dismissal of a juror, the California Supreme Court has adopted a heightened standard of review that protects the defendant’s fundamental rights to due process and a fair trial. The juror’s inability to perform his or her duty must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality. This test is more comprehensive and less deferential than the substantial evidence test. Under both tests, the appellate court reviews the entire record and does not reweigh the evidence.

However, under the substantial evidence test, the court reviews the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and upholds it if there is credible evidence that could reasonably support the trial court’s decision to remove a juror. Under the demonstrable reality test, by contrast, we must determine whether the trial court actually did rely on evidence that supports removing the juror.

This heightened and “ore stringent demonstrable reality standard more fully reflects an appellate court’s obligation to protect a defendant’s fundamental rights to due process and to a fair trial by an unbiased jury. Under the more comprehensive and less deferential review applicable here, we consider the reasons that the trial court provided, identify the evidence on which the court actually relied, and determine whether the evidence manifestly supports the court’s conclusion that a juror is refusing to deliberate.

Authority:

People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 Cal.5th 432, 450-451

People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 1052, 1053

People v. McGhee (2025) 17 Cal.5th 612, 634 [a juror’s ability to describe to the court the views of the challenged juror showed there was some discussion going on]

People v. Engelman (2002) 28 Cal.4th 436, 446 [Jurors can be expected to disagree, even vehemently, and to attempt to persuade disagreeing fellow jurors by strenuous and sometimes heated means; it is not required that jurors deliberate well or skillfully]

People v. Barton (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 496, 515 [juror’s refusal to change her mind and her decision to no longer attempt to explain that decision to the other jurors did not amount to misconduct]

Fifth Holding:

An abuse of discretion in discharging a juror under section 1089 requires reversal only if it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached but for the error.

Authority:

Authority
People v. Bowers (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 722, 736 [applying the Watson standard]

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836

People v. Henderson (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 530, 565 [discussing prejudice requirement]

Sixth Holding:

In some instances, removal of a juror was upheld. In Dixon, the discharged juror was not merely disagreeing with the other jurors. The trial court found that the juror was upset by a relative’s illness or by intimidation by the other jurors, and this emotional state inhibited the juror’s ability to deliberate. Based on its observation of the discharged juror’s demeanor, the court assessed that the juror had not been candid with the court about these effects on her ability to deliberate.

In Lomax, the discharged juror had prejudged the case but refused to share any of his reasoning with the other jurors, and the juror himself had said he was not able to consider the evidence or take part in the deliberations because of his conscientious objection to the death penalty.

In Samuels, discharge of a juror was upheld where the juror was distressed, asked to be removed, and told the court she could not follow her oath and lacked courage to impose the death penalty even if she were convinced the case required it.

Authority:

People v. Diaz (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 695, 705,

People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, 591

People v. Samuels (2005) 36 Cal.4th 96, 131–133

Seventh Holding:

While a jury is instructed to try to achieve a unanimous verdict, the possibility of a hung jury is an inevitable by-product of our unanimous verdict requirement.

Authority:

People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Cal.3d 675, 683

Eighth Holding:

It cannot be said a juror has refused to deliberate so long as a juror is willing and able to listen to the evidence presented in court, to consider the evidence and the judge’s instructions, and to finally come to a conclusion and vote. This is precisely what Juror No. 1 did.

Applying the heightened standard of review that governs our assessment of a trial court’s decision to discharge a juror, and based on our examination of the record as a whole, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in discharging Juror No. 1 because her inability to perform her duty as a juror does not appear in the record as a demonstrable reality.

Authority:

People v. Barton (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 496, 514

Ninth Holding:

On the facts in this case, there is no double jeopardy bar to retrial of the case.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 454 1, 9

Discretion, Due process, Duty of the court, Standard of review

Case 000745

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion and violated his right to due process when it denied a continuance to investigate and file a motion for a new trial after granting his motion to represent himself.

First Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision granting or denying a continuance for an abuse of discretion. Absent a showing of an abuse of discretion and prejudice, we will not reverse the trial court’s decision.

Authority:

People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1118

People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 450

Second Holding:

A trial court’s decision that is deemed an abuse of discretion has been described as a decision that exceeds the bounds of reason or as one that is arbitrary, capricious, patently absurd, or even whimsical. A court’s discretion, however, is not a whimsical, uncontrolled power. T

he scope of discretion always resides in the particular law being applied, i.e., in the legal principles governing the subject of the action. The court’s proper exercise of its discretion, therefore, requires knowledge and consideration of the legal principles essential to an informed, intelligent and just decision.

Where a ruling transgresses the confines of the applicable principles of law defining the scope of discretion, the court abuses its discretion.

Authority:

People v. Seigler (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 596, 609

People v. Jacobs (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 728, 737

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

People v. Lara (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 139, 165

Third Holding:

In deciding whether to grant a continuance, trial courts may not exercise their discretion in such a manner as to deprive the defendant or defendant’s counsel of a reasonable opportunity to prepare.

That counsel for a defendant has a right to reasonable opportunity to prepare for a trial is as fundamental as is the right to counsel. The opportunity to prepare is no less fundamental when a defendant elects to proceed pro se.

While it is true that a defendant, who chooses to conduct his defense in pro. per. does so subject to the disabilities normally attendant upon the status as a prisoner, a pro se defendant must be given a reasonable opportunity to prepare a defense.

The denial of a continuance after a trial court grants a defendant’s request for self-representation could deprive a defendant of the opportunity to prepare a defense. To deny him that opportunity would be to render his right to appear in propria persona an empty formality, and in effect deny him the right to counsel.

Therefore, when a trial court grants a defendant’s request to proceed pro se, it has been held an abuse of discretion and a denial of due process to deny a request for a reasonable continuance to allow the in propria persona defendant to prepare a defense.

Authority:

People v. Sakarias (2000) 22 Cal.4th 596, 646

People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647, 652, 653-655

People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308, 324

People v. Wilkins (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 299, 304-305

People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744, 756, 757

Fourth Holding:

Courts have made an exception only where the record demonstrates the trial court expressly conditioned the granting of an untimely Faretta motion on the defendant’s express waiver of a continuance.

Authority:

Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806

People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1038 [court warned the defendant that a request for a continuance would be a basis for denying Faretta motion, and the defendant accepted pro se status on the understanding that no additional time would be granted]

People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 110 [court granted Faretta motion only after the defendant “expressly represented he was able to proceed without a continuance], overruled on other grounds in People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 462

People v. Rudd (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 620, 626 [Faretta motion granted only after the defendant expressly stated he would be able to proceed without a continuance]

Fifth Holding:

The denial of a continuance may be so arbitrary as to deny due process. There are no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process. Instead, the answer must be found in the circumstances present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied.

Authority:

People v. Beames (2007) 40 Cal.4th 907, 921

Sixth Holding:

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. Such an abuse of discretion occurs when the court bases its decision on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Iraheta (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 611, 619

Seventh Holding:

To be sure, the text of section 1181 expressly limits the grant of a motion for new trial to the nine grounds enumerated in the statute. And ineffectiveness of trial counsel is not one of them.

Trial courts, however, have a duty to ensure that a trial is conducted with solicitude for the essential rights of the accused. That includes the right to effective counsel.

The Legislature has no authority to limit by statute a court’s constitutional obligation to ensure that a defendant is accorded due process. Therefore, our Supreme Court has stated that section 1181 should not be read to limit the constitutional duty of trial courts to ensure that defendants be accorded due process of law.

In appropriate circumstances, the trial court should consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a motion for new trial, because justice is expedited when the issue of counsel’s effectiveness can be resolved promptly at the trial level.

Authority:

People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 582

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 630

People v. Watts (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 102, 117

Eighth Holding:

We take issue with the trial court’s determination that the defendant could raise the issues of ineffective assistance of counsel and late discovered evidence on appeal. Unless the record on appeal includes an explanation as to why trial counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, or unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, a claim on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective is at risk of being rejected.

Under the circumstances in this case, the trial court abused its discretion and deprived the defendant of his right to due process. We remand the matter and direct the trial court to grant the defendant a reasonable continuance to investigate and file a motion for new trial.

Authority:

People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267 [claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are often more appropriately litigated in a habeas corpus proceeding]

Amelioration, Gary Musings, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000723

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court was required to revisit whether the gang enhancement attached to the felony assault charge was still valid in light of changes to the gang criminal activity statutes under AB 333. When asked to strike the enhancement, the trial court stated that it did not have discretion to relitigate the facts underlying the gang enhancement. This was error.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 rendered legally invalid any prior prison term enhancement imposed before January 1, 2020 (unless the enhancement was imposed for a prior sexually violent conviction), and it created a resentencing procedure for defendants who are currently serving sentences that include such an enhancement. Section 1172.75(c) requires a court to strike any now-invalid prior prison term enhancement and recall the defendant’s sentence.

Section 1172.75(d) provides instructions for resentencing. Among other things, the provision requires the court to resentence the defendant under current law, including any changes in law that reduce sentences.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily and capriciously, relies on improper matters, or is unaware of the scope of its discretion such that it does not exercise its discretion at all. We independently review questions of statutory interpretation implicated by the trial court’s decisions.

Authority:

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

People v. Mathis (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 359, 366

Third Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 333 made several changes to the law governing the gang enhancement.

First, AB 333 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, it changed the requirement that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity to now require that any such pattern be collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, it narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal gang activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date of the currently charged offense; (2) the pattern offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the pattern offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) none of the pattern offenses is the same as the currently charged offense.

Finally, 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. Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational, under the amended provision, include, but are not limited to, financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting a perceived or actual gang rival, or intimidation or silencing of a potential current or previous witness or informant.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

Fourth Holding:

AB 333’s amendments to section 186.22 apply retroactively to the defendant’s case because they are ameliorative changes and the defendant’s case became nonfinal when the court vacated and recalled his sentence under section 1172.75.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 163

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 396–400

Fifth Holding:

In Stamps, the Supreme Court held that a trial court may not modify a plea agreement because a plea agreement is, in essence, a contract between the defendant and the prosecutor to which the court consents to be bound. But, as the Supreme Court explained in Doe v. Harris, the terms of the plea agreement can be affected by changes in the law. By implementing such changes, the trial court is not altering the terms of the plea bargain.

Thus, under Doe, the defendant’s 2016 plea agreement is deemed to incorporate the Legislature’s subsequent enactment of AB 333. Consequently, requiring the parties compliance with changes to section 186.22 made retroactive to the defendant does not violate the terms of the plea agreement. We therefore conclude that the gang-related enhancement findings must be vacated and the matter remanded to give the People the opportunity to prove the applicability of the enhancements under the amendments to section 186.22.

Authority:

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 701

Doe v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 64, 73-74

People v. Harrell (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 161, 168

People v. Lopez (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 327, 346

Extensive Gary Note, NOT In The Opinion:

Gary note: I think I first noted this in my summary for Case 000532. But effective 1/1/2025, section 1171 provides that a resentencing under any ameliorative provisions cannot result in an order to set aside a plea bargain in which the sentence was specified. In other words, section 1171 appears to have overturned the Stamps decision with respect to allowing the lower court or the prosecution to set aside a plea bargain if the ameliorative provisions apply to change the sentence in a way that the prosecutor or court do not like.

This question was granted review in a case that originally issued a published opinion in 2024 (100 Cal.App.5th 768), where it defined the issue as “Is the prosecution entitled to rescind a plea agreement when a defendant receives a full resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728) and the trial court intends to reduce the sentence beyond eliminating the prior prison term enhancements?”

On 12/18/2024, the Supreme Court transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal on the People’s motion for the Court of Appeal to vacate its earlier decision [which, in fact, concluded that the prosecutor could NOT rescind the agreement] and reconsider its opinion in light of the passage of AB 2483, which enacted section 1171. It also ordered the Court of Appeal’s original opinion to be depublished.

On remand, the Court of Appeal set aside its earlier opinion and issued a new opinion in which it said, “At the hearing, Montgomery may seek relief under any provision of section 1172.75, and neither the prosecutor nor the court may rescind the plea agreement due to a resulting sentence reduction.”

The original Court of Appeal opinion was published, and it provides an analysis of why a review of the legislative history of AB 483 (which enacted section 1172.75)–including uncodified portions of AB 483– compelled it to conclude that Stamps did not apply. But the subsequent opinion following the Supreme Court’s transfer relied solely on section 1171, and the opinion was not published.  As I stated, the “published” opinion also was wiped off the books when the Supreme Court ordered it depublished.

In the recent decision People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, the Supreme Court indicated its awareness of section 1171–as it obviously did when it transferred the Montgomery case–but declined to apply it where the case was a direct appeal from the judgment itself, in which the appellant challenged the stipulated sentence–in which he agreed to and received an upper term before section 1170 was amended to require jury findings for upper terms.

See Mitchell’s footnote 9. Keep in mind that section 1171 was created to guide courts in the handling of newly enacted ameliorative legislation. The Supreme Court in Mitchell seems to have left open the question where the appeal is from the original judgment itself, rather than an appeal from an attempt at securing relief from ameliorative statutes. Its footnote 9 ends, “We decline to consider this argument because we have concluded that Mitchell is entitled to a remand under our established precedent in Stamps. We express no view on the applicability of section 1171 to this case or how it might affect the options described above. Mitchell may raise this issue in the Court of Appeal or the trial court in the first instance.”

And for the rest of the story, the Court of Appeal has since, in an unpublished sentence, remanded the matter to the trial court to permit the defendant to seek relief under the ameliorative provisions.  At that time, the defendant may present the argument that section 1171 bars the prosecution or the court from seeking that the plea agreement be set aside if either the prosecutor or the court is not satisfied with any resulting modification of the sentence.

Authority:

Gary has no authority, just musings.

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000722

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A jury found the defendant guilty of selling cocaine base and possessing cocaine base for sale. Under section 654, it was error to sentence the defendant on each, to run concurrently. The sentence on one of the counts must be stayed.

First Holding:

Section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for the same act or indivisible course of conduct. Before 2022, when a single act or omission was punishable under multiple provisions, the court was required to impose sentence under the provision carrying the longest potential term. Effective January 1, 2022, Assembly Bill No. 518 amended section 654 to afford trial courts discretion to impose punishment under either applicable provision.

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

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

Second Holding:

Multiple punishments violate section 654 because the defendant’s possession of cocaine base for sale and the sale of cocaine base arose from an indivisible course of conduct with a single objective. Under the amended statute, the trial court has discretion to impose the sentence on either count 1 or count 2, including the option of selecting the shorter term.

Authority:

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379