Tag Archives: Discretion

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

Case 000541

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and evading an officer with reckless driving. There was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the two crimes had separate objectives and remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to exercise its discretion under section 654 to stay the sentence on either count.

First Holding:

Section 654(a) provides that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. A defendant may be charged with—and in some cases convicted of—multiple crimes arising out of the same conduct but cannot receive multiple punishments for the same act or omission. When section 954 permits multiple conviction[s], but section 654 prohibits multiple punishment[s], the trial court must stay execution of sentence on the convictions for which multiple punishment is prohibited.

Authority:

PEN 654

PEN 954

People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224, 1226−1227

Second Holding:

Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an act or omission may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective. If we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single intent and objective or multiple intents and objectives.

Authority:

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311

Third Holding:

The determination of whether there was more than one objective is a factual determination, which will not be reversed on appeal unless unsupported by the evidence presented at trial. We review the trial court’s determination in the light most favorable to the respondent and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Saffle (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 434, 438

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

Fourth Holding:

Because the trial court sentenced the defendant on both counts, we presume the trial court made an implied finding that section 654 did not apply, and that the two crimes had separate objectives.

Authority:

People v. Kelly (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 886, 904 [When there is no explicit ruling by the trial court at sentencing, we infer that the court made the finding appropriate to the sentence it imposed.]

Fifth Holding:

We conclude there was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the two crimes had separate objectives.

Authority:

In re L.J. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 37 [The evidence does not support a finding that the minor’s assaults on the officers were based on different intents and objectives than the minor’s overall purpose of trying to evade the police officers.]

People v. Jimenez (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 409, 426 [defendant had a different intent and objection when driving “head on” towards an officer]

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000535 and Case 000536

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the conviction for involuntary manslaughter, as it is a lesser included offense of the murder that she was also convicted of in a separate count. Section 654 requires stay of either the murder count or the child abuse count, because they were based on the same act. We remand to the trial court for it to determine which of the two sentences should be stayed.

[Gary note: There were two defendants, and the opinions, though separate, were virtually material, so I have summarize both in this single summary]

First Holding:

We summarize the relevant facts pertinent to the issues raised on appeal, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment.

Authority:

In re Jesus O. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 859, 861

People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578

Second Holding:

For Victim A’s death, the jury convicted the defendant of both second degree murder (count 1) and involuntary manslaughter (count 2). The parties agree, as do we, that, because substantial evidence supports the murder conviction, the involuntary manslaughter conviction must be vacated. A defendant cannot be convicted of both an offense and a necessarily lesser included offense based upon the commission of an identical act. In such a situation, the lesser included offense must be reversed. Involuntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder. The defendant’s convictions were based on the same act. Accordingly, the conviction in count 2 must be vacated.

Authority:

People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 736

People v. Munoz (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 143, 153

Third Holding:

For the child abuse conviction in count 3 involving Victim A, the defendant received a sentence of four years in prison, which was to run concurrently to her indeterminate sentence for Victim A’s murder in count 1. Section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for a single act or course of conduct that violates more than one statute. Where all offenses are incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for only one of them, and execution of sentence on the remaining counts must be stayed. Because the same act supports the convictions in counts 1 and 3, section 654 prohibits multiple punishment and requires that execution of sentence be stayed on one of those counts.

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 337

Fourth Holding:

Under amended section 654, the sentencing court has discretion to determine which sentence should be stayed. This could result in the trial court imposing and executing the shorter sentence rather than the longer sentence. At sentencing in this matter, the trial court imposed a concurrent four-year term on count 3. Although the court’s decision to run the felony child abuse term concurrently suggests it would not stay the sentence for murder, nothing in the sentencing record affirmatively shows how the trial court would have exercised its discretion under section 654. Accordingly, we remand for resentencing so the trial court may determine in the first instance which sentence must be stayed under section 654.

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Discretion, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case 000531

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant, whose original sentencing occurred prior to 1/1/2020, is eligible for full resentencing under section 1172.75 where his original sentence imposed sentence (whether or not stayed) on now-invalid prior prison term enhancements, even if later his sentence was modified on other grounds after 1-1-2020.

[GARY NOTE: The court, in this unpublished case, concluded that section 1172.75 applies to the original judgment, which was before 1/1/2020, and therefore the defendant was eligible despite any subsequent resentencing under section 1172.1. The decision rested on the Court of Appeals logic in interpreting the statutes, however, and did not otherwise cite any published case law. Since an unpublished decision cannot be cited as authority, the gold extracted in this summary does not specifically address the question reached by the court in this case.]

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid. It requires the court to vacate the entire sentence and hold a full resentencing hearing, applying any applicable ameliorative changes in the law since the original sentencing. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements.

Authority:

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

People v. Dixon (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 236, 243

Second Holding:

Section 1172.1 authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and rehabilitations (CDCR) [as well as “the Board of Parole Hearings in the case of a defendant incarcerated in state prison, the county correctional administrator in the case of a defendant incarcerated in county jail, the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, or the Attorney General if the Department of Justice originally prosecuted the case”] to recommend to the superior court that the court recall a previously imposed sentence and resentence the defendant.

The CDCR recommendation furnishes the court with jurisdiction it would not otherwise have to recall and resentence and is an invitation to the court to exercise its equitable jurisdiction. The court may, on its own motion, within 120 days of the date of commitment or at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law, recall the sentence and commitment previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced, whether or not the defendant is still in custody. Whether recall on the invitation of the CDCR et al. or on its own motion, the new sentence, if any, cannot be greater than the initial sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1

People v. McMurray (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1035, 1

Third Holding:

If the resentencing request is from the Secretary of CDCR, the Board of Parole Hearings, a county correctional administrator, a district attorney, or the Attorney General, there shall be a presumption favoring recall and resentencing of the defendant, which may only be overcome if a court finds the defendant currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in section 1170.18(c) (an unreasonable risk that the defendant will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv)).

Authority:

PEN 1172.1(b)

People v. Braggs (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 809, 818

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s sentencing decisions in a section 1172.75 resentencing proceeding for abuse of discretion. However, where the appeal from a resentencing order raises questions of law, our review is de novo.

Authority:

People v. Mathis (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 359, 366, review granted Aug. 13, 2025, S291628

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 855-856

People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 804 [the interpretation of a statute presents a question of law that this court reviews de novo]

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000522

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In the sentencing of the defendant on two separate cases, the court erred in believing that consecutive terms were mandatory.

First Holding:

When considering a trial court’s sentencing decision, we apply an abuse of discretion standard of review. Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion” of the sentencing court. A trial court cannot properly exercise its informed discretion if it is unaware of its discretionary authority at the time a decision is being made. A trial court generally has discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences. An exception applies when a sentence is imposed under section 667(c)(8), which requires a strike sentence to run consecutive to any other sentence that the defendant is already serving, unless otherwise provided by law. From its comments at sentencing, it is clear the trial court believed consecutive sentences were required under this provision because it was imposing a strike sentence on the 2024 robbery.

Authority:

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

People v. Hilburn (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 189, 205

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

People v. Panozo (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 825, 837

People v. McDaniels (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 420, 42

Second Holding:

Forfeiture does not apply to claims that the trial court misapprehended its sentencing discretion.

Authority:

People v. Panozo (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 825, 840

Third Holding:

The defendant was convicted by jury of a robbery he committed in 2024. When he committed this offense, he was on probation for another robbery, for which he was convicted in 2021. At the preliminary hearing for the 2024 robbery, the court revoked his probation for the 2021 robbery. At sentencing on both robberies, the court sentenced the defendant to four years for the 2024 robbery, and a consecutive term of one year for the 2021 robbery. In making its order, the court expressed its belief that consecutive sentencing was required under Penal Code section 667.

A trial court generally has discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences. An exception applies when a sentence is imposed under section 667(c)(8), which requires a strike sentence to run consecutive to any other sentence that the defendant is already serving, unless otherwise provided by law. From its comments at sentencing, it is clear the trial court believed consecutive sentences were required under this provision because it was imposing a strike sentence on the 2024 robbery.

When a defendant is placed on probation and imposition of sentence is suspended, as in this defendant’s case, the defendant does not begin serving a sentence until a sentence is later imposed after revocation of probation and the defendant is delivered into custody for that offense. Thus when the court sentenced the defendant for the 2024 robbery, he was not already serving a sentence on the 2021 robbery case. This is not the same situation as in Gonzalez, where the defendant was already serving a sentence because he had been sentenced for violating his probation orders and he was still awaiting trial on the new offense.

Authority:

PEN 667(c)(8)

PEN 669(a)

People v. Rosbury (1997) 15 Cal.4th 206, 210–211

People v. Gonzalez (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 115, 121

Fourth Holding:

Where a sentencing court was not fully aware of the scope of its discretionary powers, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the court would have reached the same conclusion even it had been aware it had such discretion. It is apparent from the court’s comments in the record that it did not intend to impose the maximum possible sentence, as it imposed the low term and struck a prior serious felony. The case should be remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 878, fn. 16

People v. Leon (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1026 [relief from a trial court’s misunderstanding of its sentencing discretion is available on direct appeal when such misapprehension is affirmatively demonstrated by the record]

Sentencing

Case: 000519

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Remand is necessary for the trial court to reconsider whether to strike one of the defendant’s prior convictions.

First Holding:

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his Romero motion to strike one of his strikes and sentencing him as a third strike offender because his two prior strike convictions for robbery were based on a single act. In a series of cases, our California Supreme Court has addressed how many strikes should be counted when a defendant has multiple convictions arising from related acts. In Fuhrman, the defendant had multiple strike convictions stemming from an incident in which he stole a car, collided with another car and brandished a gun at that car’s driver, and then forced his way at gunpoint into a truck and made the truck driver take him from the scene. Although the court held that qualifying strike convictions can be brought and tried in the same case and counted as separate strikes, the court left open whether the Three Strikes law allows separate strikes to be imposed for offenses that in a prior proceeding were determined to have been committed as part of an indivisible transaction, and as to which it was concluded that imposition of separate punishment for each offense would constitute multiple punishment proscribed by section 654.

The court addressed that issue in Benson. In that case, the defendant entered an apartment and stabbed its occupant, resulting in strike convictions for residential burglary and assault with intent to commit murder. The court held that crimes sustained in one action and arising from the same facts are separate strikes, even if the crimes were closely connected and punishment on one had been stayed under section 654.

Next, Vargas held that two prior convictions arising out of a single act against a single victim cannot constitute two strikes under the Three Strikes law. The single act in Vargas was forcibly taking the victim’s car, which resulted in convictions for robbery and carjacking.

Finally, while this matter has been pending on appeal, our California Supreme Court issued Shaw, which involved two victims. In that case, the defendant had two prior convictions for gross vehicular manslaughter arising from an incident in which Shaw struck a car, killing two passengers. The court found that its rationale in Vargas applied, notwithstanding that multiple victims were involved.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497

People v. Fuhrman (1997) 16 Cal.4th 930, 941

People v. Benson (1998) 18 Cal.4th 24, 26

People v. Vargas (2014) 59 Cal.4th 635, 637, 645

People v. Shaw (2025) 18 Cal.5th 1089, 1093

Second Holding:

In this case, the extent of the defendant’s participation in the two felonies alleged as prior strikes is not clear. Did he commit one act as an aiding and abetting getaway driver while others robbed two victims, or did he participate more directly in each of the robberies of two victims? Further, the trial court did not have the benefit of Shaw at the time of sentencing and it therefore may have applied the wrong legal standard, which constitutes an abuse of discretion. We therefore remand this matter to the trial court to reconsider the defendant’s Romero motion.

Authority:

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

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497