Tag Archives: Discretion

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

Case 000926

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude that the juvenile court erred when it found all five statutory criteria weigh in favor of transferring the minor to criminal court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(a)(3)(A)–(E)), and when it found him not amenable to rehabilitation.

(Gary note: After setting out the holdings I have listed below, the opinion goes into great detail analyzing the evidence in the case under the criteria required to be considered by the juvenile court in deciding whether to retain the minor in juvenile court or to transfer the minor to adult court. The analysis is quite extensive and completely fact-heavy. Since an unpublished opinion cannot be cited as authority, the court’s analysis could not be used in any briefing to compare and contrast with any other defendant’s scenario. So I have not included that portion of the opinion.)

First Holding:

With respect to whether the minor can be rehabilitated within the two-year period the juvenile court may exercise jurisdiction over him given his age and the success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor, the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving these criteria favor transfer to criminal court and, therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings in the prosecution’s favor on these issues.

Although the weight to be given each of the five criteria is within the juvenile court’s discretion, and the court has the discretion to conclude that one or more of the five criteria predominate so as to determine the result, even though some or all of the other criteria might point to a different result, the juvenile court’s ultimate finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 159

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 417

Second Holding:

Where, as here, the juvenile court has abused its discretion in evaluating the evidence and applying the operative legal standards, it is appropriate to remand the matter so the court may reconsider the evidence and its ultimate determination through the lens of amenability to rehabilitation.

Authority:

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 162

In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1288

J.N. v. Superior Court (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 706, 714–715 [exercises of discretion must be guided by applicable legal principles]

Third Holding:

When a minor age 16 or older is alleged to have committed a felony, the prosecution may move to transfer the minor to criminal court. Upon the motion, the juvenile court must order the probation officer to submit a report on the minor’s behavioral patterns and social history. The parties may submit other relevant evidence’ in connection with the transfer motion. In determining whether to transfer a minor to criminal court, the juvenile court shall consider the criteria specified in subparagraphs (A) to (E) of section 707, subdivision (a)(3).

These criteria are: (1) the degree of criminal sophistication by the minor; (2) whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction; (3)the minor’s previous delinquent history; (4) the success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor; and (5) the circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in the petition to have been committed by the minor.

Section 707 also sets forth a nonexhaustive list of factors relevant to each of the five criteria. And consideration of these factors is now mandatory rather than discretionary.

Authority:

WIC 707

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 158-159, 160

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 164-165

Fourth Holding:

As amended by AB 2361, section 707 now provides that in order to find that the minor should be transferred to a court of criminal jurisdiction, the court shall find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

This changed the finding a juvenile court must make before ordering a transfer in two ways: (1) raising the standard of proof; and (2) requiring a new specific finding regarding amenability to rehabilitation.

It also amended section 707 to require the court to recite the basis for its decision in an order that includes the reasons supporting the court’s finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1284

Fifth Holding:

The weight to be given to each of these criteria is within the court’s discretion. However, to transfer a minor to criminal court, the juvenile court must ultimately find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

The prosecution bears the burden of proof. Nothing in section 707 indicates that the court is required to give equal weight to each of the five criteria or that it would necessarily be an abuse of discretion to find that one criterion outweighed the other criteria.

This standard requires a finding of high probability The evidence must be so clear as to leave no substantial doubt; sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.

Authority:

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 186

D.W. v. Superior Court (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 109, 116

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 159, 161

C.S. v. Superior Court (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1009, 1035

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 167

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 417

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998, fn. 2

In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1286

Sixth Holding:

We review the juvenile court’s ruling on a transfer motion for abuse of discretion. The court’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.

A decision based on insufficient evidence or the court’s erroneous understanding of applicable law is subject to reversal. But we do not reweigh the evidence and we do not substitute our discretion for the discretion exercised by the trial court.

We draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court’s findings, not against them. We are concerned only with whether the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings. When evidence reasonably justifies the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.

Authority:

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165, 169

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 187

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 211

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Racial Justice Act, Standard of review

Case 000916

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant filed a habeas corpus petition in the superior court, alleging that his 1992 convictions for first degree murder and robbery were obtained “on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin” in violation of the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (RJA). He also requested, pursuant to the RJA, appointment of counsel and disclosure of evidence to support his claims.

The trial court denied the discovery request and the habeas petition, concluding that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case for relief under the RJA.

The court erred. We grant the petition and issue a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying the habeas petition, appoint counsel for the defendant, and conduct a new hearing to reconsider his discovery request in a manner consistent with this opinion.

(Gary note: The court outlined in several paragraphs the specific allegations the defendant set forth in his petition that, if true, arguably demonstrated that his arrest and prosecution were affected by factors disallowed by the RJA. As these summaries are designed to highlight principles and the cases or statutes supporting the principles, I am not going to include the facts of the case on which the appellate court concluded that the defendant had demonstrated a sufficient showing to warrant appointment of counsel and discovery.)

First Holding:

Ordinarily, mandate does not lie to correct judicial errors by the superior court in habeas corpus proceedings.

However, where, as here, the trial court failed to perform its required duty to conduct an independent assessment of whether the petitioner was entitled to have counsel appointed under newly adopted procedures enacted by the Legislature, then mandate may be used to compel the performance of that duty.

Authority:

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 46-47

Second Holding:

Several have concluded that writ review of the trial court’s discovery rulings in RJA cases is appropriate because such rulings involve novel legal issues of widespread interest.

The RJA is a recent legislation that has been amended multiple times since its inception, and although its command is simple, its implementation is somewhat complex.

We therefore agree with the court in Young that exercising our discretion to review discovery rulings under the RJA is appropriate to provide general guidelines for future cases.

(Gary note:  I find that last sentence regarding guidelines for future cases a bit amusing, because this is an unpublished opinion, and the only “future case” it will ever affect is THIS particular defendant’s instant case.  But hey.  Maybe the “to publish or not to publish” colloquy occurred after the opinion was written.)

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 147, 156

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 36, 53-54

McDaniel v. Superior Court (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 228, 238

Third Holding:

Because management of discovery lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, we review discovery rulings for abuse of discretion. We review the factual underpinnings of a discretionary determination for substantial evidence, but where such a determination rests on incorrect legal premises, our review is de novo.

A discretionary order based on an application of improper criteria or incorrect legal assumptions is not an exercise of informed discretion and is subject to reversal.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 156

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 36, 55

Fourth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2021, the Legislature enacted the RJA (AB 2542 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.)) to eliminate racial bias from California’s criminal justice system; to ensure that race plays no role at all in seeking or obtaining convictions or in sentencing; and to ensure that individuals have access to all relevant evidence, including statistical evidence, regarding potential discrimination in seeking or obtaining convictions or imposing sentences.

To achieve these objectives, the RJA added and amended Penal Code sections to allow defendants whose judgments are final or who are no longer in custody, respectively, to seek relief for RJA violations.

Authority:

PEN 745

PEN 1473

PEN 1473.7

In re Lynex (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 756, 767

People v. Wilson (2024) 16 Cal.5th 874, 945

Fifth Holding:

The RJA provides that the state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. The statute further sets forth four categories of conduct, any of which, if proved, is enough to establish a violation of the RJA.

Authority:

PEN 745(a)

Sixth Holding:

The court shall appoint counsel if the petitioner cannot afford counsel and the petition alleges facts that would establish a violation of section 745(a). In AB 1071, the Legislature reaffirmed that this threshold is extremely low. (Stats. 2025, ch. 721, sec. 1, subd. (b).)

AB 1071 states that courts have imposed on RJA petitioners higher burdens than the Legislature intended to meet the threshold to secure counsel and denied counsel to litigants raising RJA claims far more than they have appointed counsel.

The new legislation clarifies that the court shall appoint counsel to all indigent postconviction litigants who allege a plausible claim of an RJA violation, which does not require a prima facie showing and should be construed as a minimal pleading requirement.

Authority:

PEN 1473(e)(5)

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33

Seventh Holding:

The RJA defines a prima facie showing to mean that the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation of the RJA occurred.

By contrast, to be entitled to counsel in RJA habeas proceedings, petitioners are required only to allege facts that would establish a violation of the RJA.

Authority:

PEN 745(h)(2)

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 45

Eighth Holding:

Regarding the showing necessary for discovery, a defendant is required only to advance a plausible factual foundation, based on specific facts, that a violation of the RJA could or might have occurred in his case.

The burden at the discovery stage is a good cause showing, the burden at the prima facie stage is higher, and the burden at the evidentiary hearing is higher still—proof of an RJA violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

As the least onerous of the statute’s burdens of proof, the plausible justification standard should not be difficult to meet. Where the defendant makes a showing of plausible justification that there was or could have been a violation of the RJA, thus triggering access to all relevant evidence concerning a potential violation of section 745(a), it will likely be an abuse of discretion to totally foreclose discovery.

Authority:

PEN 745(c), (d), and (e)

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 159, 168-169

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 36, 61

Ninth Holding:

At the discovery stage, as at the prima facie stage, the court should not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations, except in the rare case where the record irrefutably establishes that the allegations are false.

Authority:

Finley v. Superior Court (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 12, 23–24

McDaniel v. Superior Court (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 228, 246, fn. 8 [A trial court’s review of supporting evidence at the discovery stage, which imposes even a lower burden of proof on defendants than the prima facie stage, must be more lenient]

Tenth Holding:

Although the defendant has offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate a plausible factual foundation for discovery under the RJA, a question remains regarding the appropriate scope of his request.

When determining if a petitioner is entitled to the requested discovery, the court must still consider and balance the so-called Alhambra factors:

(1) whether the material requested is adequately described;

(2) whether the requested material is reasonably available to the governmental entity from which it is sought (and not readily available to the defendant from other sources);

(3) whether production of the records containing the requested information would violate (i) third party confidentiality or privacy rights or (ii) any protected governmental interest;

(4) whether the defendant has acted in a timely manner;

(5) whether the time required to produce the requested information will necessitate an unreasonable delay of the defendant’s trial; and

(6) whether the production of the records containing the requested information would place an unreasonable burden on the governmental entity involved.

Authority:

City of Alhambra v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1118, 1134

Eleventh Holding:

In addition, the court must consider whether the requests for disclosure may give rise to relevant evidence, meaning that the court must determine whether they are reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence probative of a section 745(a) violation.

The trial courts in exercising their discretion should keep in mind that the Legislature has suggested that, where possible, the courts should impose partial limitations rather than outright denial of discovery.

Authority:

McDaniel v. Superior Court (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 228, 248

Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 559

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000915

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court’s finding that he was unsuitable for diversion is unsupported by substantial evidence. We direct the trial court to vacate the order denying the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion and to enter a new order granting the motion unless there is evidence of changed circumstances that provide a basis for denying the motion consistent with this opinion. If the court finds changed circumstances, it shall hold a further hearing on the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion.

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 gives trial courts the discretion to grant pretrial diversion for individuals suffering from certain mental health disorders. The primary purposes of the legislation are 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.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

PEN 1001.35(a)-(c)

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

People v. Doron (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1, 7

Second Holding:

Section 1001.36(b) provides that a defendant is eligible for pretrial diversion if two criteria are met.

First, the defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, such as the one with which defendant was diagnosed, within the last five years by a qualified mental health expert.

Second, the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

If the defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, the court shall find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

Third Holding:

If a defendant meets these eligibility requirements, the defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion if four criteria are satisfied:

(1) In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder causing, contributing to, or motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment.

(2) The defendant consents to diversion and waives the defendant’s right to a speedy trial.

(3) The defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion.

(4) The defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in section 1170.18, if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Fourth Holding:

The proper inquiry for determining whether the fourth criterion is satisfied is whether there is an unreasonable risk the defendant will commit a super strike if treated in the community.

Super strikes include sexually violent offenses, child molestation, homicide, attempted homicide, solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a peace officer or fire fighter, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, or a violent felony punishable by life imprisonment or death.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

PEN 1170.18(c)

PEN 667(e)(2)(C)(iv)

Fifth Holding:

Section 1001.36 provides the trial court with discretion to deny mental health diversion even if it finds a defendant meets the statutory eligibility and suitability criteria. Such discretion is commonly referred to as a court’s residual discretion.

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:

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

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

Sixth Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on a petition for pretrial mental health diversion for abuse of discretion.

A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard, or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

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

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

Seventh Holding:

(Gary note: The court then described facts specific to this defendant this case that led it to the conclusion that the court abused its discretion in concluding the defendant posed an unreasonable risk of danger to the public safety. One of the elements of the trial court’s concern was the defendant’s need for medication. I have listed the authority cited by the court on that point, but I see no value in detailing the facts specific to this case.)

Authority:

Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 67, 84, 87 [holding no substantial evidence supported denying diversion even though there were two instances of defendant declining treatment and the offense took place while defendant was being treated pursuant to diversion]

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 136−137 [holding no substantial evidence that defendant was unsuitable for diversion even though defendant had sustained periods of psychotropic medication non-compliance and resisted talking about his mental health]

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000906

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the trial court struck the one-year prior but otherwise declined to reduce the defendant’s sentence. The trial court did not apply the correct standard of law and therefore abused its discretion. We reverse the order.

First Holding:

SB 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess. amended section 667.5b) to allow courts to impose one-year prior prison term enhancements only for specified sexually violent offenses. Thereafter, SB 483 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) made the amendment retroactive to final cases and added what is now section 1172.75.

Section 1172.75 sets forth the process for recalling sentences and resentencing. If a judgment includes a qualifying enhancement, the trial court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. Resentencing shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed inclusive of the enhancements unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.

At resentencing, the court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the defendant’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.

Authority:

PEN 667.5(b)

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

Unless the court originally imposed the upper term, the court may not impose a sentence exceeding the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and those facts have been stipulated to by the defendant, or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

At a hearing under section 1172.75, the resentencing court shall apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(2)

Third Holding:

As relevant here, SB 81 (2021–2022) effected a change in law by adding subdivision (c) to section 1385. That subdivision 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. 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.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)

Fourth Holding:

Section 1385(c) sets forth several mitigating circumstances for consideration. Two of them are relevant in this case. Under section 1385(c), 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.

Stated simply, if the court does not conclude that dismissal would endanger public safety, then mitigating circumstances strongly favor dismissing the enhancement. But ultimately, the court must determine whether dismissal is in furtherance of justice.

This means that, absent a danger to 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:

PEN 1385(c)

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1029, 1038

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s sentencing decision under section 1172.75 for abuse of discretion and 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.

We similarly review a trial court’s decision not to dismiss a sentencing enhancement for an 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:

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

Nazir v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 478, 490

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

Sixth Holding:

We reject the Attorney General’s argument that the defendant forfeited this contention because he failed to raise it below. The defendant did not have to ask the trial court to apply the correct standard of law to preserve a claim on appeal that the trial court applied an incorrect one. Rather, a defendant is entitled to sentencing decisions based on the sentencing court’s informed discretion, including one informed by the correct law. In any event, we may review any question of law involved in any ruling or order that affects the defendant’s substantial rights, even if the defendant did not object below.

(Gary note: The court proceeded to analyze the trial court’s treatment or lack thereof of facts specific to this defendant that demonstrated the abuse of discretion.)

Authority:

PEN 1259

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424

Amelioration, Discretion, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000905

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court lacked potential information relevant to exercising its discretion at the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75. We reverse the judgment and remand for a new resentencing hearing.

First Holding:

On the date ultimately set for the hearing, the defendant’s attorney informed the court that he did not know the hearing on the petition was going to be held, and he needed a continuance to prepare for presenting mitigating information. The court denied the motion for continuance and held the hearing, striking the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement but otherwise making no changes to the sentence.

This was error. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements. Thus, in a case such as this, the resentencing court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the sentence, and not just the portion subjected to the recall.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

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

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

Second Holding:

Section 1172.75 provides that when a court resentences a defendant under the statute, it shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

The court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the defendant’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(2), (d)(3)

Third Holding:

Section 1385(a) grants the superior court discretion, in furtherance of justice, to order an action to be dismissed. This includes the authority to strike a sentence enhancement. To apply this discretion, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of several mitigating circumstances 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.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Barboza (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 955, 965

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. One factor to consider is whether a continuance would be useful. Here, a continuance was merited because it would have allowed defense counsel to obtain potential evidence relevant to resentencing regarding childhood trauma and mental capacity.

This was apparently the defendant’s first request for a continuance, and the burden on the court of a continuance was minimal because there would have been no need to reschedule witnesses or consider juror inconvenience. 

(Gary note: The appellate court then outlined several factors specific to this defendant that the trial court failed to give any consideration to, leading to the appellate court’s decision to remand. The details are not useful for this summary.)

Because the court lacked evidence of all relevant mitigating factors identified in section 1385, we must remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the court would have reached the same conclusion even had it considered the mitigating factors.

Authority:

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

People v. Grajeda (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 829, 839–840

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

Fifth Holding:

Although a court is presumed to have considered all of the relevant factors in the absence of an affirmative record to the contrary, when it expressly states the basis for its decision and declines to consider other factors, we will not infer it weighed the other factors. Because the court expressly considered only the circumstances of the defendant’s crime, we cannot infer that it also considered mitigating circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Myers (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 305, 310

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000904

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court denied the defendant’s application for mental health diversion, finding that although defendant was eligible for diversion, he was not suitable because he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

There is insufficient evidence of an unreasonable risk that defendant will commit a super strike offense if treated in the community. We will reverse the judgment and remand the matter for a new hearing on defendant’s present suitability for mental health diversion.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 1001.36 gives a trial court discretion to grant pretrial diversion for individuals with certain mental health disorders. The trial court can postpone prosecution at any time in the judicial process, either temporarily or permanently, to allow the defendant to undergo treatment. The Legislature intended the mental health diversion program to apply as broadly as possible.

Authority:

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

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147-1149

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

Second Holding:

A defendant must be both eligible and suitable for mental health diversion. A defendant is eligible under section 1001.36 (b) if (1) the defendant has been diagnosed by a qualified mental health expert with a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the DSM; and (2) the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

Authority:

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

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

Third Holding:

As for suitability, four circumstances must be satisfied: (1) in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert the defendant’s mental disorder would respond to treatment; (2) the defendant consents to diversion and agrees to waive his or her speedy trial rights; (3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment requirements; and (4) if treated in the community, the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as defined in section 1170.18.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(1)-(4)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891-892

Fourth Holding:

A defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety under section 1170.18(c) if there is an unreasonable risk that the defendant will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv), otherwise known as a super strike.

The enumerated super strike offenses include murder, attempted murder, solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a police officer, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, a serious or violent felony punishable by death or life imprisonment, a sexually violent offense, or a sexual offense committed against a minor under the age of 14.

Authority:

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 679

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for mental health diversion for abuse of discretion. A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary decision by applying the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.

There is no evidence defendant had been previously charged with a super strike offense, and his current offense is not a super strike. Defendant’s criminal history consists of two nonviolent felonies and four misdemeanor offenses. At the time of the hearing on his application, defendant was doing well in an outpatient program. He had successfully engaged in a treatment program for six months, he was maintaining housing and a job, he had not reoffended, and his treatment provider recommended defendant continue treatment in the community.

On this record, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of an unreasonable risk that defendant will commit a super strike offense if treated in the community.

Authority:

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

Discretion, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000899

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The electronic-data conditions are unreasonable under People v. Lent. We therefore strike them and remand for the juvenile court to consider whether to impose revised conditions. We also agree with the parties that the association condition should be modified to include a knowledge requirement.

First Holding:

When a ward of the juvenile court is placed on probation, the court may make any and all reasonable orders for the conduct of the ward, including conditions of probation that (1) are individually tailored, developmentally appropriate, and reasonable; (2) impose a burden that is proportional to the legitimate interests served by the conditions; and (3) are determined by the court to be fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced. A condition of probation that is impermissible for an adult criminal defendant is not necessarily unreasonable for a juvenile receiving guidance and supervision from the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 730(b)

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

Second Holding:

We review conditions of probation for an abuse of discretion, which occurs only if the condition is arbitrary or capricious or otherwise exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances. To determine whether a probation condition is reasonable, we apply a three-part test under Lent.

A condition cannot be held invalid under Lent unless it meets all three of the following prongs: it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not related to future criminality.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118-1119

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

Third Holding:

In addition to being reasonable, a probation condition must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated, or else it is void for vagueness. And when a probation condition imposes limitations on a probationer’s constitutional rights, it must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition—the person’s reformation and rehabilitation—to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

Whether a term of probation is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad presents a question of law, which we review de novo.

Authority:

In re David C. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 657, 661

Fifth Holding:

We conclude that the conditions are invalid under Lent. As to the first prong of Lent, there is no question that restricting the use of electronics The minor’s conduct involved asking the victim for her phone number, and asked the victim to put his number in her phone contacts list–which she did, but later deleted it. These acts do not establish the requisite relationship between the challenged probation conditions and the minor’s offense (sexual battery by restraint). Generally, decisions finding a sufficient connection between electronics search conditions and an offense rely on the probationer’s use of electronic devices to facilitate the offense.

In Appleton, the defendant met the minor victim online and later sexually assaulted him. The Court of Appeal held that the nexus between the offense and the probation condition at issue was sufficient even though it was somewhat attenuated. In Flores, the Court held that there was a reasonable relationship between the condition at issue and the defendant’s drug offense because the defendant used a website and an online program to arrange drug sales through a disguised phone number. Here, in contrast, there is no evidence that electronic devices played any role in facilitating the offense.

Here, in contrast, there is no indication that the minor ever actually contacted the victim through an electronic device. Indeed, he did not even have the ability to do so, as he never obtained her contact information. Nor is there any evidence that the victim attempted to communicate with the minor after the offense. The first two prongs of Lent have been met–the condition has no relation to the criminal conduct, and it restrains otherwise lawful conduct.

Authority:

People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717, 719-720

People v. Flores (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 563, 565-566, 573

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

Sixth Holding:

The third prong contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition. Thus, the mere fact that monitoring a probationer’s electronic devices and social media might deter or prevent future criminal conduct is insufficient to justify a broad electronics search condition. The electronic-data conditions burden the minor’s privacy in a manner substantially disproportionate to the claimed purposes of ensuring compliance with two of his other probation conditions (a no-contact order and prohibition from possessing sexual materials).

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1122

In re David C. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 657, 665 and fn 4

In re Amber K. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 559, 567-568

Seventh Holding:

The court ordered the following probation condition: “The Minor shall not associate with minors under the age of 14, unless it is his own child, unless in the presence of a responsible adult, or associated person is approved by the Probation Department.”

A probation condition is unconstitutionally overbroad if it (1) impinges on constitutional rights, and (2) is not tailored carefully and reasonably related to the compelling state interest in reformation and rehabilitation. The essential question in an overbreadth challenge is the closeness of the fit between the legitimate purpose of the restriction and the burden it imposes on the probationer’s constitutional rights—bearing in mind, of course, that perfection in such matters is impossible, and that practical necessity will justify some infringement.

The restriction is not unreasonable, but it must be tailored to require the minor’s express knowledge that the minor is under the age of 14. Generally speaking, if a probation condition prohibits a probationer from associating with a certain group of people, the condition is unconstitutionally vague unless it also requires that the probationer know a given person is in that group. Here, the minor may not reasonably know that an individual is under 14 years of age.

Thus, we modify the association condition to read: “The Minor shall not associate with minors whom he knows or reasonably should know are under the age of 14, unless it is his own child, unless he is in the presence of a responsible adult, or unless the associated person is approved by the Probation Department.”

Authority:

People v. Gonsalves (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1, 8–9

People v. Bray (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 494, 503

People v. Turner (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1436 [modifying condition prohibiting association with people under age 18].

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000893

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the judge to stay the section 12022.1 enhancement under section 1385(b)(1). An enhancement may be stricken or imposed, unless there is some other legal reason it must be stayed rather than imposed.

First Holding:

Ordinarily, an enhancement must be either imposed or stricken in furtherance of justice under section 1385. Section 1385(b)(1) adds that, if the court has the authority pursuant to subdivision (a) to strike or dismiss an enhancement, the court may instead strike the additional punishment for that enhancement in the furtherance of justice in compliance with subdivision (a).

The trial court has no authority to stay an enhancement, rather than strike it—not, at least, when the only basis for doing either is its own discretionary sense of justice.

There are exceptions to this rule that permit courts to stay the punishment imposed for an enhancement, for example section 654 and rule 4.447 of the California Rules of Court. These exceptions are not discretionary; they are limited to the situation in which an enhancement that otherwise would have to be either imposed or stricken is barred by an overriding statutory prohibition. In that situation—and that situation only—the trial court can and should stay the enhancement.

Authority:

PEN 1385(b)(1)

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 355, 364

Second Holding:

According to the transcript of the sentencing hearing, the trial court here relied on section 1385(b)(1) when it purported to stay the section 12022.1 enhancement. It does not appear that any overriding statute prohibits imposition of the enhancement in this case.

As a result, the court lacked the authority to stay the enhancement. In general, we presume a trial court knew and followed the law. Based on the statutory provision cited by the court, we conclude the court intended to strike the punishment for the enhancement rather than imposing an unauthorized stayed sentence.

The minute order from the sentencing hearing supports this conclusion by indicating that the court struck the enhancement, though it suggests the court did so at a prior hearing, which is not supported by the transcript. We will modify the judgment accordingly.

Authority:

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042

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

Case 000886

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

1n 1991, for a crime committed in 1989, the defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). When his case came up for resentencing under section 1172.75 in 2025, the court believed its only discretion was to impose less than the upper term on the determinate portion of his sentence. Defense counsel agreed. This was error. The court also erred in its calculation of credit for time served. And the restitution fine must be struck.

First Holding:

Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5(b) required trial courts to impose a sentence enhancement of one additional year for each of a defendant’s prior prison or jail terms. Section 1172.75(a) now provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, under section 667.5(b) is legally invalid.

Section 1172.75(b) and (c) mandate that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identify eligible individuals whose sentences include now-invalidated section 667.5 enhancements, and that the trial court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

While conducting the resentencing, section 1172.75(d)(2), provides the express instruction that the court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1054

Second Holding:

Section 190.2(a) provides that where there has been a finding of certain enumerated special circumstances in connection with a defendant who has been found guilty of first degree murder, the penalty is death or LWOP. Section 1385 previously provided the trial court with the discretion to strike or dismiss the special circumstances.

Although the statute only authorizes such relief upon motion of the court or application of the prosecution, the defendant nevertheless has the right to invite the court to exercise its power by an application to strike a count.

Failure by a defendant to make such a request under section 1385 results in forfeiture of the issue. In the interests of justice, and in consideration of defendant’s alternative argument of ineffective assistance of counsel, we exercise our discretion to reach a question that has not been preserved for review by a party.

Authority:

PEN 190.2(a)

PEN 1385

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141, 1144

People v. Coleman (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 709, 724

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

Third Holding:

Contrary to Section 1385, however, section 1385.1 provides that a judge shall not strike or dismiss any special circumstance which is admitted by a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or is found by a jury or court as provided in Sections 190.1 to 190.5, inclusive. The section was enacted as of June 6, 1990, via voter initiative Proposition 115. The dispute here centers around whether section 1385.1 serves as a bar to the trial court’s discretion to strike section 190.2 special circumstances when the court is resentencing a defendant pursuant to section 1172.75 for a pre-June 6, 1990, crime.

Authority:

PEN 1385.1

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141

Fourth Holding:

Ordinarily, we review the trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. However, defendant argues pursuant to McDavid that the trial court necessarily abused its discretion when it failed to strike his special circumstances because it was unaware that it had any discretion to do so.

We therefore examine whether the trial court had any discretion in this regard, which is a question of statutory interpretation to be reviewed de novo.

Authority:

People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 757

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1023

Fifth Holding:

The Nguyen court noted that section 1385.1 operates only prospectively, therefore, a trial court may dismiss a special circumstance allegation attached to any murders committed before June 6, 1990, the date that section 1385.1 became effective. Nguyen specifically relied upon Tapia.

In Tapia, Proposition 115 took effect while the defendant was in the process of being prosecuted for first degree murder. The defendant challenged the trial court’s decision to conduct voir dire pursuant to the new Proposition 115 procedures.

In examining whether Proposition 115’s provisions could be applied to crimes committed prior to its effective date after consideration of ex post facto concerns, the Supreme Court separated the provisions into four separate categories depending on their impact upon defendants.

Relevant to this inquiry, the high court expressly categorized section 1385.1 as falling within the category of provisions that change the legal consequences of criminal behavior to the detriment of defendants and therefore cannot be applied to crimes committed before the measure’s effective date.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141

Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 286-287, 297

Sixth Holding:

The mandate in section 1172.75(d)(2), that the trial court apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion” evidences a legislative intent that defendants are to be treated with more leniency, not less, when being resentenced pursuant to this statute. Because the trial court clearly expressed more than once its belief that it did not have any discretion with respect to the LWOP sentence on Count 1, we deem the court to have abused its discretion and reverse.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(2)

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1023 [A court acting while unaware of the full scope of its discretion is deemed to have abused it.]

Seventh Holding:

The court court failed to award the defendant 2 days of credit for time served, and we modify the judgment accordingly.

(Gary note: The court did not cite any authority, but it seems obvious that the court has the power to modify the credit for time served to the correct number. I have cited authority the court could have relied on. The issue does not seem so much a matter of the trial court refusing to award credit; rather, it was a mathematical error. I speculate that perhaps the court did not award credit for the first day in custody. Counting days is different than determining the number of days between dates. From January 1 through January 31 is 31 days, counting. But if you subtract January 1 from January 31, you will realize only 30 days.  For credit for time served, the correct number is the counting number–31 in my example.)

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

Eighth Holding:

As part of defendant’s original 1991 sentencing, the court ordered him to pay $10,000 to the state Restitution Fund pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4 (formerly Govt. Code sec. 13967(a).) In light of section 1465.9, which compels that restitution fines older than 10 years be vacated, we vacate that fine. In Salstrom, the court determined that the reference to 10 years is from the date the restitution fine was originally ordered.

Resentencing does not reset the 10-year limitation. Applying section 1465.9 to reduce defendant’s sentence as part of a section 1172.75 resentencing hearing gives effect to both statutes.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 652-653 [detailing the history of the restitution statutes]

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 599-601, review granted on unrelated issues, March 11, 2026, S295038

Mejia v. Reed (2000) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663 [when two codes are to be construed, they must be read together and so construed as to give effect, when possible, to all the provisions thereof]

Discretion, Jurisdiction, Juveniles, Standard of review

Case 000881

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The juvenile court abused its discretion because its decision to transfer the minor to adult criminal court was not supported by substantial evidence. We vacate the transfer order and remand.

First Holding:

In California, a juvenile court is a superior court that exercises limited jurisdiction arising under juvenile law. The initial jurisdiction of a juvenile court is based on the age of the person when he violates a criminal law or ordinance, it is not based on the age when he is actually apprehended.

After a juvenile court has initial jurisdiction over a minor, the juvenile court generally retains jurisdiction until he turns 21 years old. However, if a person is alleged to have committed one of 30 serious offenses under section 707(b), then the juvenile court may continue to exercise jurisdiction over that person for a limited period after he turns 21.

Relevant to this case, a juvenile court may retain jurisdiction over a person who is 25 years of age or older for a period not to exceed two years from the date of disposition if the person is found to be a person described in section 602 by reason of the commission of an offense listed in section 707(b). The court shall exercise jurisdiction in conformance with the objectives of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 607(a), (d)

WIC 707(b)

In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 200

M.E. v. Superior Court (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1199, 1205 [explaining initial jurisdiction and noting that it is theoretically possible for a person to commit a crime at the age of 17, be arrested 50 years later, and be subject to the initial jurisdiction of the juvenile court at age 67]

In re Keith C. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 151, 155

Second Holding:

If a minor was 16 years or older when he committed a felony or one of 30 serious offenses under section 707(b), the district attorney may file a motion to transfer the minor from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction. In order to transfer a minor to a criminal court, the prosecutor must show by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

To resolve a transfer motion, section 707 requires the juvenile court to consider five factors: (1) the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited; (2) whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction; (3) prior delinquent history; (4) the success of prior attempts by a juvenile court at rehabilitation; and (5) the circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged.

While the juvenile court must consider these five factors, the weight each factor receives is within the juvenile court’s discretion.

Thus, the juvenile court has the discretion to conclude that one or more of the five factors predominate so as to determine the result, even though some or all of the other factors might point to a different result. If a juvenile court grants a transfer motion, section 707(a)(3) requires the juvenile court to recite the basis for its decision in an order entered upon the minutes, which shall include the reasons supporting the court’s finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Section 707 also provides additional nonexhaustive considerations for assessing each of the five factors.

As relevant to this case, with respect to the second factor, section 707 directs the juvenile court to give weight to any relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the minor’s potential to grow and mature. The second factor is not the same as the ultimate determination of whether the minor is amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Rather, the focus of the second factor is whether there is enough time to rehabilitate the minor while he is still eligible to remain under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.

Therefore, the prosecution should produce evidence that the juvenile court will have insufficient time to rehabilitate the minor.

Authority:

WIC 707

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 158-160

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 164, 166-167

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 186

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 417

Third Holding:

A juvenile court’s decision to transfer a minor to the jurisdiction of a criminal court is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. A court abuses its discretion by issuing an order that exceeds the bounds of reason. A court may also abuse its discretion if its understanding of the applicable law is incorrect, it is unaware of the full scope of its discretion, or it relies on impermissible criteria.

The juvenile court’s findings on the five section 707(a)(3) factors, as well as its ultimate finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under its jurisdiction, are reviewed for substantial evidence. Because the clear and convincing evidence standard applies to a motion to transfer, we determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability demanded by that standard.

Authority:

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 160

People v. K.D. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1, 18

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 156

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 187

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165

Fourth Holding:

It is clear from the record that the court was not aware that it had jurisdiction for at least two years from the date the disposition was ordered, regardless of the person’s age (which, in this case was the mid 30s). Because the juvenile court found that it had lost jurisdiction based on the minor’s age alone, its finding is contrary to section 607(d) and thus, rests on an incorrect understanding of the law. Therefore, the court abused its discretion in its assessment of the second factor of section 707(a)(3).

Authority:

Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540 [An order that implicitly or explicitly rests on an erroneous reading of the law necessarily is an abuse of discretion.]

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 156

People v. K.D. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1, 18-19

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 187

Fifth Holding:

All defendants are entitled to decisions made in the exercise of the trial court’s informed discretion. A court does not exercise informed discretion when its decision is based on a misunderstanding of applicable law.

Because there has been a misunderstanding of applicable law by the juvenile court, we must determine whether the record clearly indicates that the juvenile court still would have ordered the minor transferred to the criminal court if it had correctly understood the applicability of section 607(d).

Given the apparent importance of the second factor, and that the record does not clearly indicate how the juvenile court would have assessed the second factor under the applicable law, we must remand this matter for the court to make further findings.

Authority:

People v. Murphy (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 249, 256

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Juveniles, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000875

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse four of the five counts of evading the police under Vehicle Code section 2800.3 and remand for a new disposition order.

The minor’s constitutional challenges to the dispositional order are forfeited on appeal, and we will not consider them.

First Holding:

Dispositional orders in juvenile matters are entrusted to the discretion of the juvenile court. Failure to object to a discretionary dispositional choice forfeits the claim on appeal.

But the forfeiture rule does not apply if the disposition is unauthorized; that is, if it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. In those situations, the unauthorized disposition presents a pure question of law.

The unauthorized sentence concept is a narrow exception to the general requirement that only preserved claims are reviewable on appeal. And while reviewing courts have the discretion to consider forfeited claims on appeal, they should do so rarely, keeping in mind that the forfeiture rule exists to encourage prompt detection and correction of error and to promote the state’s interest in finality of judgments.

Authority:

In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 411

In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1130-1131

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351, 354

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 885

People v. Fisher (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 745, 751-752

In re H.D. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 814, 817-818

People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 962 [the unauthorized sentence exception is designed to provide relief from forfeiture for obvious legal errors at sentencing such as a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum]

Second Holding:

Further, we disagree with the minor’s contention that his constitutional challenges to the disposition present pure legal questions. His challenges ask us to consider his self-evident lesser culpability relative to an older juvenile. But culpability determinations are for the trier of fact, not an appellate court.

Authority:

People v. Vang (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 912, 915-916

Third Holding:

Finally, the minor contends we should consider his forfeited claims because his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise them. But trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise novel claims like the ones here.

Authority:

People v. Torres (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 88, 92 [to forestall a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, reviewing courts can exercise their discretion to reach the merits of the claim].

In re Grinder (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 845, 871-872

People v. Foster (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 379, 385.

Fourth Holding:

We decline to exercise any discretion we might have to consider these forfeited claims because doing so (1) would be unfair to the People and the juvenile court, which had no opportunity to address the claims below, and (2) would undermine both the state’s interest in finality of judgments and litigants’ incentive to seek correction of error in the first instance.

Further, we should not reach constitutional questions unless absolutely required to do so to dispose of the matter before us. Accordingly, the minor’s constitutional challenges to the dispositional order are forfeited on appeal, and we will not consider them.

Authority:

In re M.H. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 699, 713-714

In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1130-1131

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351,

Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hunter) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1245, 1275, fn. 31

Fifth Holding:

Penal Code section 26 provides, in relevant part, that all persons are capable of committing crimes except those belonging to the following classes: One—Children under the age of 14, in the absence of clear proof that at the time of committing the act charged against them, they knew its wrongfulness. ….

Authority:

PEN 26

Sixth Holding:

Clear proof means clear and convincing evidence. The test on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the trier of fact.

We review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment and affirm the juvenile court’s findings that the minor understood the wrongfulness of his conduct if they are supported by substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the requisite finding under the governing standard of proof. In determining capacity the juvenile court must consider the child’s age, experience, and understanding.

A minor’s knowledge of his act’s wrongfulness may be inferred from the circumstances, such as the method of its commission or its concealment.

Authority:

In re Joseph H. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 517, 538-539

Seventh Holding:

While the language of the statute refers to knowledge of wrongfulness, the question is whether a minor appreciates the wrongfulness of their conduct. As minors approach the age of 14, they are increasingly likely to appreciate the wrongfulness of their acts.

Authority:

In re Manuel L. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 229, 232

People v. Cottone (2013) 57 Cal.4th 269, 281

In re J.E. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 309, 314

Eighth Holding:

Cases are not authority for propositions not considered.

Authority:

B.B. v. County of Los Angeles (2020) 10 Cal.5th 1, 11

Ninth Holding:

Four of the five Vehicle Code section 2800.3 true findings must be stricken. A charge of multiple counts of violating a statute is appropriate only where the actus reus prohibited by the statute—the gravamen of the offense—has been committed more than once. A defendant may properly be convicted of multiple counts for multiple victims of a single criminal act only where the act prohibited by the statute is centrally an act of violence against the person.

Authority:

Wilkoff v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 345, 349

People v. Garcia (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1159

Tenth Holding:

Vehicle Code section 2800.3 provides that whenever willful flight or attempt to elude a pursuing peace officer in violation of section 2800.1 proximately causes serious bodily injury or death, the person driving the pursued vehicle shall be punished. Felony evading, as defined by the Legislature, in Vehicle Code section 2800.3, is not a crime of violence.

Under Wilkoff and Garcia there can be only one Vehicle Code section 2800.3 true finding here. Thus, four of the five Vehicle Code section 2800.3 true findings must be stricken.

Authority:

VEH 2800.3

Wilkoff v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 345, 349

People v. Garcia (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1163

People v. Sanchez (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 970, 973-974 [Because dispositive elements of Vehicle Code section 2800.3 can be satisfied by conduct that does not necessarily pose a high probability of death, it is not a felony inherently dangerous to human life.]

Eleventh Holding:

It is improper to raise new contentions in a reply brief. Further, appellate arguments may be deemed forfeited when they do not contain meaningful analysis and citation to supporting authority.

Authority:

People v. Taylor (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 628, 642-643

People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793

Twelfth Holding:

In criminal court, when part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances. The same principle applies in juvenile court. Since we strike four of the juvenile court’s Vehicle Code section 2800.3 true findings, a new disposition is required.

Authority:

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

In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1140 [every time a ward appears for disposition, the court may consider the minor’s entire history and the order must be all encompassing]

Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000871

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court was not statutorily authorized to impose a section 12022.53(c) enhancement for a section 26100 offense (discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle). We remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.

First Holding:

We review the trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. In deciding whether the trial court has abused its discretion, we note that when a trial court’s decision rests on an error of law, that decision is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

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

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

Second Holding:

Section 12022.53, in relevant part, sets forth escalating additional and consecutive penalties, beyond that imposed for a substantive crime, for the use of a firearm in the commission of specified felonies. Section 12022.53(c) mandates the imposition of a 20-year term for the personal and intentional discharge of a firearm in the commission of one of the section 12022.53(a) felonies, which does not include section 26100.

Imposition of that enhancement was an abuse of discretion, which resulted in an unauthorized sentence.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53

Third Holding:

The People suggest this court can modify the sentence and impose a lesser included section 12022.5(a) enhancement of 10 years. But section 12022.5(a) provides that the enhancement does not apply if firearm use is an element of the underlying offense, which precludes its application to the crime of discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle. Thus, we remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Kramer (2002) 29 Cal.4th 720, 723, fn. 2

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