Tag Archives: Discretion

Discretion, Elements of crime, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000468

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on the defendant’s petition for mental health diversion, and substantial evidence does not support its ineligibility finding. The court also erred by accepting a guilty to plea to conduct that is not criminal. We reverse defendant’s possession of marijuana conviction, conditionally vacate the remainder of defendant’s guilty pleas, conditionally reverse the judgment, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with section 1001.36 and this opinion.

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 authorizes pretrial diversion for criminal defendants suffering from certain recognized mental disorders. To qualify, criminal defendants must show they are both eligible and suitable for the program. A defendant accused of a qualifying offense is eligible for mental health diversion if, within the last five years, a qualified mental health expert has diagnosed the defendant with a qualifying mental health disorder that was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

A qualifying diagnosis creates a rebuttable presumption that the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense, which may only be overcome if there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating factor, casual factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. For purposes of the diversion statute, a qualified mental health expert includes, but is not limited to, a psychiatrist, psychologist, or a person whose knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education qualifies them as an expert. The statute’s plain language does not limit a qualified mental health expert to a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other medical doctor.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b), (f)

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

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

People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1138, 1141 [appellate court interprets a statute to effectuate the law’s purpose, applying a plain and commonsense meaning to the statute’s text]

Second Holding:

A substance use disorder registered counselor must complete hundreds of hours of classroom education and supervised training regarding addiction counseling, at least over 2,000 hours of work providing counseling services in an alcohol or drug program, and must pass an examination confirming their skill and ability. Under these circumstances, a substance abuse disorder registered counselor possesses the knowledge, skill, experience, training and education to make a substance use disorder diagnosis under the statute.

Authority:

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 9, sec. 13040(a)-(d)

Third Holding:

Where there has been a qualifying diagnosis, it is the People’s burden to overcome by clear and convincing evidence the statutory presumption that the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense. Here, the People did not present any evidence to support a finding that defendant’s substance use disorders were not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to his commission of the charged drug and firearm possession offenses. Argument by counsel is not evidence in the case and cannot be relied upon to support the trial court’s order.

Despite the lack of evidence, the trial court ruled, based on “common sense,” that possession for sale offenses like defendant’s could not be causally connected to a substance use disorder and that the Legislature could not have intended section 1001.36 to apply to possession of narcotics for sale cases because a vast majority of the felony cases before the court involved drugs. In essence, the trial court carved out a wholesale exception to mental health diversion for possession for sale offenses that does not appear in the plain text of the statute. This was error. It is a corollary to fundamental principles of separation of powers that courts must apply the statutes as written unless doing so would yield absurd results.

Authority:

People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485, 491

Fourth Holding:

The absence of evidence showing defendant’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses cannot satisfy the People’s burden to rebut the statutory presumption by clear and convincing evidence.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391,404 [the absence of evidence proving that a petitioner’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses is not substantial evidence supporting a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner’s mental disorder was not a factor in the commission of the offenses]

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 687-689 [By finding the statutory presumption had been overcome by the lack of indication in the police reports that the defendant was suffering from the mental disorder at the time of a robbery, the trial court improperly shifted the burden to the defendant to affirmatively prove that her mental disorder contributed to the offense.]

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s order denying mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true. 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. We presume a trial court’s order is correct and indulge all intendments and reasonable inferences to support it. Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume a trial court knew and applied the law.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448-449

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

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666

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

Sixth Holding:

It was error for the court to accept the defendant’s guilty plea to an act that was not criminal. The information alleged that he was in possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. Possession of marijuana is not criminal unless it is of more than 28.5 grams. By accepting defendant’s guilty plea to conduct that is not criminal, and sentencing him for that offense, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction. Accordingly, we shall modify the judgment to vacate defendant’s conviction and sentence on that count.

Authority:

People v. Mutch (1971) 4 Cal.3d 389, 395-396, 399 [conviction for conduct not prohibited by statute is void]

People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781, 784-785 [the defendant could not have been guilty of violating Penal Code section 115 by attempting to file a forged instrument because, as a matter of law, the writing he was charged with and admitted forging, a death certificate, is not an instrument within the meaning of section 115]

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000462

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially violated the Confrontation Clause (U.S. const., amend. VI) by overly restricting defendant’s cross-examination of two sheriff’s deputies, whose testimony was the only prosecution evidence presented on counts 2 and 4. And although our reversal on counts 2 and 4 likewise moots defendant’s Pitchess request, we exercise our discretion to address the issue and find that the trial court should have ordered the production of two civilian complaints.

Given this disposition, we need not address defendant’s claim that the abstract of judgment is incorrect, since the trial court must enter a new judgment on remand. Defendant’s sentence is therefore vacated. On remand, if the People do not timely retry defendant on counts 2 and 4, the trial court shall resentence him on counts 1, 3, and 5 accordingly. If the People timely retry defendant on counts 2 and 4, the trial court is directed to disclose the Pitchess records consistent with this opinion and afford defendant a reasonable opportunity to investigate the disclosed material before retrial.

First Holding:

Defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine witnesses. But they have a right only to reasonable cross-examination. Trial courts therefore have wide discretion in determining the appropriate scope of cross-examination.

Authority:

People v. Royal (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 121, 149

Olden v. Kentucky (1988) 488 U.S. 227, 231

People v. Gonzalez (2021) 12 Cal.5th 367, 406

Second Holding:

Although trial courts may reasonably limit a defendant’s cross-examination of a witness’s bias, the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause restricts the court’s discretion. A criminal defendant states a violation of the Confrontation Clause by showing that he was prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness, and thereby to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.

The trial court’s restrictions on a defendant’s cross-examination of a witness for bias does not violate the Sixth Amendment unless the defendant shows that a reasonable jury might have received a significantly different impression of the witness had the defendant been permitted to pursue his proposed line of cross-examination. However, excluding evidence of marginal impeachment value generally does not violate the Confrontation Clause.

Authority:

People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 455-456

Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 680

People v. Quartermain (1997) 16 Cal.4th 600, 623

People v. Castaneda-Prado (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1260, 1282

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s order restricting defendant’s cross-examination of the deputies for an abuse of discretion. We likewise review the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718, 765

People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 957

Fourth Holding:

The tactical decision (which was defendant’s to make) has no bearing on whether the trial court properly limited defendant’s cross-examination of the deputies. The issue is whether defendant had a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the deputies’ potential bias, not whether that cross-examination might benefit the prosecution.

Authority:

Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 678-679

Fifth Holding:

That defendant could have asked other witnesses about the 2015 incident to attack the deputies’ credibility is beside the point. Defendant had a Sixth Amendment right to reasonably probe the deputies’ credibility by cross-examining the deputies. The issue here is, again, whether the trial court’s limitation on defendant’s cross-examination of the deputies violated the Confrontation Clause, not whether defendant had other available means to explore the deputies’ bias beyond cross-examining them.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 513 [Confrontation Clause allows appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness]

People v. Quartermain (1997) 16 Cal.4th 600, 623 [The right of confrontation includes the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses on matters reflecting on their credibility]

Sixth Holding:

The testimony of the deputies was effectively the only evidence presented on the assault on an officer and felony evading charges, since they were the only witnesses to those offenses. Evidence about the deputies’ knowledge of the earlier incident was thus not of marginal impeachment value, nor was it not relevant, as the trial court incorrectly concluded. This was the only evidence that showed the deputies might have been biased against defendant, despite their denials, and could have influenced the jury’s view of their testimony.

Given that defendant’s guilt on the two counts hinged on the deputies’ testimony, their credibility was a critical issue on those counts. The trial court’s ruling allowed defendant to ask the deputies only whether they knew defendant and whether they were biased against him. When both deputies said they were not biased against him, defendant could not then probe any potential bias stemming from the 2015 incident, even though the jury might have reasonably found that the incident gave the deputies a motive for favoring the prosecution. In our view, the trial court’s ruling made defendant’s cross-examination of the deputies an exercise in futility.

Authority:

United States v. Abel (1984) 469 U.S. 45, 52 [Proof of bias is almost always relevant because the jury, as finder of fact and weigher of credibility, has historically been entitled to assess all evidence which might bear on the accuracy and truth of a witness’ testimony]

People v. Castaneda-Prado (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1260, 1280-1282[Bias has traditionally been viewed as especially powerful.]

Abatti v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 39, 52 [Impeachment of a witness can make the difference between acquittal and conviction, especially where credibility is the major issue in a case and evidence at trial will consist of opposing stories presented by the defense and the prosecution witnesses.]

Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 679 [“blanket” ruling prohibiting all inquiry into a witness’s potential bias violated Confrontation Clause]

Seventh Holding:

The second step of the analysis asks whether a reasonable jury might have received a significantly different impression of the challenged witness’s credibility if the proposed line of cross-examination had been permitted. This requires us to focus on the witness’s cross-examination rather than the outcome of the trial as a whole, examining whether the defense had other means of impeachment of the witness during cross-examination. We review the issue de novo.

Authority:

People v. Castaneda-Prado (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1260, 1282

Eighth Holding:

In Davis, the United States Supreme Court reasoned: “While counsel was permitted to ask [the witness] whether he was biased, counsel was unable to make a record from which to argue why the witness might have been biased or otherwise lacked that degree of impartiality expected of a witness at trial. On the basis of the limited cross-examination that was permitted, the jury might well have thought that defense counsel was engaged in a speculative and baseless line of attack on the credibility of an apparently blameless witness.”

So too here. Because we conclude the trial court’s ruling violated defendant’s Confrontation Clause right to cross-examine the deputies, we must reverse the convictions on counts 2 and 4 unless the People show the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The People have not done so.

Authority:

Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 U.S. 308, 317-318

Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 684

Ninth Holding:

A review of the Pitchess materials reveals that complaints had previously been filed against the deputies. Those materials should have been released to the defendant. The fact that the complaints were found by the internal police investigation to be unfounded is immaterial because unsustained complaints are discoverable. This is because “the burden for preparing a criminal defendant’s case rests with his counsel, not with the police department. That burden cannot be properly discharged unless counsel has direct access to potential witnesses, for it is counsel who must decide if they can aid his client, not the police department’s internal affairs division, however sincere and well motivated the latter may be.

Authority:

Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531

People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 182

People v. Zamora (1980) 28 Cal.3d 88, 93 fn. 1, 101

Kelvin L. v. Superior Court (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 823, 829

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000460

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is remanded for resentencing under section 1172.75 with directions that the court determine whether reduction of his Three Strikes sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 is appropriate.

First Holding:

Generally, a trial court’s discretionary decision whether to dismiss or strike a sentencing allegation or enhancement is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. The burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. However, a trial court’s discretion must be guided and controlled by fixed legal principles and exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law. A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standards applicable to the issue at hand.

Additionally, an erroneous understanding by the trial court of its discretionary power is not a true exercise of discretion. Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion” of the sentencing court. A trial court that misunderstands the scope of its sentencing discretion cannot be said to have properly exercised that discretion. In such circumstances, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates the court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 373, 376

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 159

People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 977

Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 85

People v. Marquez (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 797, 803

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

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

Second Holding:

Under the original Three Strikes law, a defendant with two or more prior serious or violent felony convictions would be sentenced to a life term for a current felony conviction even if the current conviction was not a serious or violent felony.

In 2012, the Reform Act was enacted under Proposition 36, amending the law to reduce the punishment prescribed for certain Three Strikes offenders. Under the Reform Act, a defendant with two or more prior serious or violent felony convictions, whose current conviction is for a nonserious or nonviolent felony, receives a doubled sentence rather than a life sentence, unless certain disqualifying factors were proven. If the petitioner satisfied the criteria for resentencing, the petitioner was resentenced as a second strike offender with a doubled term, unless the court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

PEN 1170.126

People v. Conley (2016) 63 Cal.4th 646, 651

Third Holding:

Effective January 1, 2020, SB 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) amended section 667.5 by limiting the prior prison term enhancement to prior terms for sexually violent offenses. Effective January 1, 2022, SB 483 codified section 1172.75, which set forth the resentencing procedure, and applied retroactively to persons currently serving a term for a judgment that includes such prison priors. Where a now invalid enhancement was imposed, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. The statute directs that the resentencing 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

PEN 667.5(b)

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 852

Fourth Holding:

Permitting recall and resentencing of indeterminate sentences in a section 1172.75 hearing does not unconstitutionally amend section 1170.126. First, section 1170.126(k) permits resentencing of defendants subject to section 1170.126 by some alternative means and is, therefore, not the exclusive remedy for nonserious, nonviolent Three Strikes offenders. Under section 1170.126(k) defendants entitled to seek relief under section 1170.126 may access rights or remedies otherwise available. Permitting recall and resentencing of Three Strikes indeterminate sentences under section 1172.75 does not unconstitutionally amend section 1170.126 but rather, incorporates the public safety determination requirements of section 1170.126 into the resentencing process.

When a Three Strikes defendant is resentenced under section 1172.75, the trial court must determine whether resentencing them on their Three Strikes sentences under the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Accordingly, we must remand the case to the trial court for its determination on whether resentencing defendant under the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. If so, the court shall reimpose the indeterminate term. If defendant does not, and he is otherwise eligible under the Reform Act, the court shall resentence the defendant under the revised provisions of the Reform Act.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 855, 858-861, 863, 869, 878

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000454

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though we find that a condition of probation that requires the defendant participate and complete any counseling, rehabilitation, or treatment program deemed appropriate by the probation officer was not an improper delegation of the court’s authority under the separation of powers doctrine, it was improper to impose as a condition of probation that the defendant participate at his own expense.

The challenged probation condition should be modified to delete the portion of the condition requiring defendant to be responsible for the payment of the costs/fees of any counseling or rehabilitation/treatment program. The court is directed to issue a separate order for the payment of such costs and fees. Before the court may order defendant to pay any or all costs associated with his probation, it must make an inquiry and determination as to his ability to pay and determine the amount of payment.

First Holding:

A trial court may order a defendant to pay for reasonable costs of probation; however, such costs are collateral and their payment cannot be made a condition of probation. Instead, the court must issue a separate order for the payment of such costs. Moreover, before ordering a defendant to pay costs of probation, the court must make an inquiry and determination of the defendant’s ability to pay and the amount of payment.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1b(a)

Brown v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 313, 321-322

Second Holding:

Though we find there was no improper delegation, the defendant’s claim that the condition of probation is an improper delegation of the court’s authority under the separation of powers doctrine has not been forfeited for lack of objection, because it raises a pure question of law.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888

People v. Mendez (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1172

Third Holding:

A trial court has broad discretion to impose probation conditions to foster rehabilitation of the defendant and to protect the public. Further, the court has authority to empower the probation department with authority to supervise the probation conditions. We review a constitutional challenge to a probation condition de novo.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1(j)

People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120

People v. Kwizera (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1240

In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143

Fourth Holding:

A trial court is governed by the separation of powers doctrine. The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution. Although the separation of powers doctrine does not prohibit one branch from taking action that might affect another, the doctrine is violated when the actions of one branch defeat or materially impair the inherent functions of another. Separation of powers does not mean an entire or complete separation of powers or functions, which would be impracticable, if not impossible.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. III, sec. 3

In re D.N. (2022) 14 Cal.5th 202, 212

Fifth Holding:

By leaving key determinations to be decided ad hoc, a vague probation condition may result in an impermissible delegation of authority to the probation officer. Under the separation of powers doctrine, judicial powers may not be delegated to nonjudicial officers. While the probation officer may properly specify the details necessary to effectuate the court’s probation conditions, it is the court’s duty to determine the nature of the requirements imposed on the probationer. The court may leave to the discretion of the probation officer the specification of the many details that invariably are necessary to implement the terms of probation. However, the court’s order cannot be entirely open-ended.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358-1359

Sixth Holding:

A probation condition directing that a defendant participate in any treatment program when considering another condition requiring a defendant complete a drug and alcohol assessment and follow through with treatment as prescribed by the probation officer, passes constitutional muster. This is particularly true where the court’s oral comments reflect that the defendant needs treatment for a substance abuse problem. However, where the condition includes the possibility of participation in a residential treatment program, as directed by the probation officer, it is an improper delegation of judicial authority.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902-903

People v. Cruz (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1310 [Invalidating probation condition that gave the probation officer sole discretion to decide whether the defendant should be subject to GPS monitoring.]

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1355, 1359 [Invalidating condition that provided, “You shall not associate socially, nor be present at any time, at any place, public or private, with any person, as designated by your probation officer.”]

People v. Kwizera (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1238,-1241 [Upholding probation condition that directed defendant to “follow such course of conduct as the probation officer may prescribe”]

People v. Penoli (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 298, 307 [Upholding condition that probation officer may unilaterally select a residential drug rehabilitation program and determine whether defendant successfully completed that program.]

Seventh Holding:

A probation condition should be given the meaning that would appear to a reasonable, objective reader. Following that precept, we read the challenged provision here not as delegating adjudicatory powers to the probation officer but as indicating the court’s advance approval of an agreement that the probation officer might reach with defendant. If a probation officer does interpret the condition in an arbitrary manner, defendant may then file a petition for modification of his probation condition. Thus, the probation condition did not improperly delegate judicial authority to the probation officer.

Authority:

PEN 1203.2(b)(1)

PEN 1203.3

In re D.N. (2022) 14 Cal.5th 202, 211

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 382

People v. Keele (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 701, 708 [trial court retains jurisdiction to review probation officer’s actions]

People v. Arevalo (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 652, 658 [If probation officer interprets probation condition in an arbitrary way, the defendant can file a petition for modification of his probation condition.]

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000448

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant contends that it was error to proceed to sentencing in the absence of the attorney she retained after counsel was appointed, and that the court abused its discretion when it found that her youth was not a contributing fact. Retained counsel did file a document titled “Limited Scope Substitution of Counsel.” Thereafter, appointed counsel filed a resentencing brief on the defendant’s behalf. The retained attorney did not. At the resentencing hearing, appointed counsel appeared with the defendant. The retained attorney did not appear. We affirm, but the trial court must recalculate the credit for time served.

First Holding:

The trial court did not recalculate the defendant’s custody credits and ordered the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to do the calculation. A trial court must calculate a defendant’s custody credits when resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37 [when a trial court resentences a defendant on remand, it must credit him with all actual days he spent in custody, whether in jail or prison, up to that time]

Second Holding:

We review the defendants’s contentions regarding counsel of choice and selection of sentence term under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. A defendant who desires to retain his own counsel is required to act with diligence and may not demand a continuance if he is unjustifiably dilatory or if he arbitrarily desires to substitute counsel at the time of trial.

Authority:

People v. O’Malley (2016) 62 Cal.4th 944, 1004 [trial court has discretion to deny substitution of counsel where it would prejudice the defendant or disrupt the orderly processes of justice]

People v. Blake (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 619, 623-624

People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 435 [appellate review of asserted evidentiary error forfeited where defendant failed to make a timely, specific objection]

Third Holding:

Section 1170(b)(6) does not mandate a presumption in favor of the lower term in every case in which the defendant was under age 26 at the time the crime was committed. Instead, the presumption applies only if the defendant’s youth was a contributing factor in his or her commission of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(6)

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 991-992

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376-377 [trial court’s sentencing choices reviewed for abuse of discretion]

Fourth Holding:

At oral argument, the defendant contended that the trial court erred in conducting the resentencing hearing without her physical presence. But the defendant failed to raise this contention in her opening brief. Thus, it is forfeited. Forfeiture aside, any error would have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt based on the record before us.

Authority:

People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 [Every brief should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made. If none is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration]

People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 550, fn. 9 [claims not raised in the opening brief are waived]

People v. Velasco (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 663, 674

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 348