Tag Archives: Discretion

Discretion, Sentencing

Case: 000429

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

An insurer is not a “direct victim” eligible for restitution under section 1202.4

First Holding:

We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Percelle (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 164, 179

Second Holding:

In every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court. Victim includes a corporation or any other legal or commercial entity when that entity is a direct victim of a crime. Thus, only the direct victim of a crime is entitled to restitution from the perpetrator of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)

People v. Duong (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1537

Third Holding:

Direct victims include only the real and immediate objects of the defendant’s offenses Insurance companies that suffered the consequences of crime only by reimbursing the crime-related losses of their policyholders do not reasonably fit within this definition. As a result, restitution may not be awarded to insurers that partially reimbursed the direct victims for their losses, and trial courts may not divide the full amount of restitution between the victims and their insurers.

Authority:

People v. Birkett (1999) 21 Cal.4th 226, 233

Fourth Holding:

Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded restitution to the insurer. Instead, the court should have awarded the full restitution amount, including any amount awarded to the insurer, to the water district, which was the direct victim of the defendant’s crime, notwithstanding any reimbursement it already received from the insurer.

Authority:

People v. Duong (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1537[a restitution order resting upon a demonstrable error of law constitutes an abuse of the court’s discretion]

People v. Hove (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1266, 1272 [insurance payments to the victim do not allow the defendant to escape responsibility for the losses he caused]

Fifth Holding:

Because the defendant does not contest the amount of restitution or the water district’s entitlement to that amount on appeal, we vacate the insurer restitution order and remand the matter so the court can order full restitution to the correct victim under section 1202.4.

Authority:

People v. Duong (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1533, 1540 [remanding so the trial court can order restitution to the victim for the amount that the hospital will accept as full payment for the medical services the victim received at the hospital]

Discretion, Sentencing

Case: 000423

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The minor appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying his petition for termination from the sex offender registry. He argues the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving community safety would be significantly enhanced by requiring his continued registration and the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding otherwise. We agree and reverse the court’s order.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 290.008 sets forth the sex offender registration requirements for juvenile offenders. It requires registration as outlined in the section, unless the duty to register is terminated under section 290.5 or as otherwise provided by law. It provides for tiered periods of registration. A tier one juvenile offender is subject to registration for a minimum of five years; a tier two juvenile offender is subject to registration for a minimum of 10 years.

Authority:

PEN 290.008

Ruelas v. Superior Court (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 374, 380

Second Holding:

It also provides procedures for juvenile offenders to petition the juvenile court to terminate their registration requirement at the expiration of their mandated minimum registration period, pursuant to section 290.5. Section 290.5 provides the procedures for adult offenders to terminate their registration requirement; the procedures are, therefore, the same, and the process begins by filing a petition for termination and serving it on the district attorney. Upon receiving a petition, the district attorney may request a hearing and present evidence regarding whether community safety would be significantly enhanced by requiring continued registration.

Authority:

PEN 290.008

PEN 290.5

Third Holding:

Section 290.5 sets forth seven factors for the court to consider when ruling on the petition. The court may base its determination on declarations, affidavits, police reports, or any other evidence submitted by the parties that is reliable, material, and relevant. If the court denies the petition, it shall set the time period after which the person can petition again for termination, which shall be at least one year from the date of the denial, but not to exceed five years.

Authority:

PEN 290.5

Fourth Holding:

When the prosecution requests a hearing on a petition, it is its burden to produce evidence and to show that requiring continued registration will appreciably increase society’s safety because the defendant is currently likely to reoffend. The trial court’s task when ruling on a petition is to assess whether the prosecution has carried its burden.

Authority:

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 432, 433

People v. Franco (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 184, 192

Fifth Holding:

We evaluate a trial court’s decision whether to grant or deny a petition for removal from the sex offender registry for an abuse of discretion, reviewing any subsidiary factual findings based on disputed facts for substantial evidence and any subsidiary legal findings—including questions of statutory construction—de novo. A trial court abuses its discretion when its factual findings are not supported by the evidence, or its decision is based on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Franco (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 184, 192

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 432, 433

Sixth Holding:

The defendant committed the offenses 20 years earlier when he was only 14. Since then, he had no convictions, albeit a few arrests, the most recent involving being drunk in public. Consistent with the legislation’s purpose to cull from the registration rolls low-risk offenders so that resources could be concentrated on high-risk ones (Sen. 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 384 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) as amended Sept. 8, 2017, pp. 12-13), it was incumbent upon the prosecution to present reasonable, credible, and solid evidence establishing a current risk of reoffense. It did not. Without evidence establishing such risk, the juvenile court abused its discretion in determining that community safety would be significantly enhanced by continued registration. Accordingly, the order of the juvenile court must be reversed.

Authority:

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 432, 433, 435

Discretion, Duty of the court, Juveniles, Standard of review

Case: 000415

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court failed to show it recognized and exercised its discretion to designate second degree burglary as a felony or a misdemeanor, and the program condition of probation delegated impermissibly broad discretion to the probation officer

First Holding:

Second degree burglary is a “wobbler,” that is, an offense that may be punished as either a felony or a misdemeanor. This determination is important not only because felonies are subject to longer periods of confinement, but also because felony convictions have additional adverse consequences, including use without limitation for impeachment under Proposition 8 in subsequent criminal proceedings, enhancement of sentences, and the general blight upon the character of persons convicted of felonies. To ensure that juvenile courts are aware of their discretion to charge wobblers as misdemeanors and that they consciously choose to treat wobblers committed by juveniles as felonies, juvenile courts are required to expressly declare how they are treating such offenses. If the minor is found to have committed an offense which would in the case of an adult be punishable alternatively as a felony or a misdemeanor, the court shall declare the offense to be a misdemeanor or felony.

Authority:

WIC 707

People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 461, fn. 6

In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199, 1207, 1209

In re Kenneth H. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 616, 619, fn. 3

Second Holding:

Although remand is not automatically required when a juvenile court fails to expressly declare that a wobbler is a felony or misdemeanor, to establish prejudice a juvenile need not show a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome. Also, challenges under Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 are not forfeited by failure to object at trial. Instead, in this context, the key issue is whether the record as a whole establishes that the juvenile court was aware of its discretion to treat the offense as a misdemeanor and to state a misdemeanor-length confinement limit. The record in this case does not reflect that the court was aware of its discretion to properly exercise it. A minute order may not substitute for a declaration by the juvenile court as to whether an offense is a misdemeanor or a felony.

Authority:

In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 704, 711-714, 717

In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199, 1209

Third Holding:

We review juvenile placement decisions for abuse of discretion. It was not an abuse of discretion to order the minor to be placed in a secure facility.

Authority:

In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1154

Fourth Holding:

In placing the minor in a secure facility, the juvenile court imposed a number of terms and conditions, including a requirement that he participate in and complete any appropriate programs as directed by [his] Probation Officer. We review orders of this nature de novo. This condition is an improper delegation of judicial authority. Probation conditions may be challenged for the first time on appeal if they are challenged as unconstitutional on their face and the challenge therefore presents a pure question of law.

Authority:

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

Fifth Holding:

Although juvenile courts have greater discretion to formulate probation terms than adult criminal courts, their discretion to delegate authority is restricted by the separation-of-powers doctrine. Under the California Constitution, separation of powers does not mean an entire or complete separation of powers or functions, which would be impracticable, if not impossible. Thus, a court may delegate to a probation officer authority to specify the details necessary to effectuate the court’s probation conditions. However, the separation-of-powers doctrine limits the delegation of judicial authority to nonjudicial officers, especially in the absence of judicial supervision and review of the exercise of that authority. Consequently, a court may not delegate complete discretion over a significant aspect of the court’s legal control. To satisfy the separation-of-powers doctrine, a court delegating judicial authority to a probation officer must dictate the basic policy of a condition of probation.

Authority:

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 910, 919

In re D.N. (2022) 14 Cal.5th 202, 208-209, 212

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902, 903 [holding impermissible delegation of authority permitting probation officer to choose between residential and outpatient substance abuse programs]

People v. O’Neal (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1359 [the court’s order cannot be entirely open-ended]

People v. Leon (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 943, 952 [holding impermissible delegation of authority permitting probation officer to authorize probationer to attend court proceedings and otherwise barring probationer from attending court proceedings unless a party or witness]

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000409

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing on the petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.75, the trial court declined to reduce the defendant’s sentence beyond the dismissal of the now-invalid enhancement for prior prison terms. The judgment is reversed and the matter remanded for reconsideration in light of the views expressed in this opinion. We do not conclude the trial court necessarily abused its discretion or that it could not reach the same result upon resentencing. Given the number of questions raised by the record, however, remand is appropriate. To the extent the trial court did not conduct the proper analysis, it will have the opportunity to reconsider its rulings. To the extent the court did apply the correct standards, it will have the opportunity to clarify its reasoning.

(GARY NOTE: This was a lengthy opinion reciting many facts regarding the conducting of the resentencing hearing. The defendant argued that it was error to not impose a mitigated sentence, or a worst, the middle term, and it was error not to strike one or more of the enhancements. The defendant had presented to the trial court an extensive social study on his behalf which, arguably, demonstrated that his circumstances merited great weight in favor of mitigation.

(The opinion recites the pertinent factors, the facts asserted in favor, and the trial court’s responses. The opinion is replete with citations in response to assertions by both the defense and the People on why the trial erred or did not err. To do the opinion justice, I found it very hard to condense its holdings into a summary of the sort I present in this blog. But it still contains some gems worth setting forth, whether the appellate court relied on them in the defendant’s favor or not.

(As indicated in the intro paragraph, the appellate court did not so much as find that the trial court erred but instead it could not tell from the record whether the court gave proper consideration to the factors and understood clearly its options. So it was remanded for a do-over, encouraging at least tacitly that the trial court needs to be clearer in its reasoning if it does not intend to grant any of the relief requested by the defendant. The “holdings” and authorities listed hereafter should be seen simply as pronouncements I thought worthy of mention, and not so much as providing support for the appellate court’s decision to remand for resentencing or clarification.)

First Holding:

The question relevant to the section 1385(c) analysis is whether the defendant would pose a danger to the public if released from prison at the end of a sentence resulting from dismissal of the enhancements. Current dangerousness cannot be determined simply by examining the circumstances of the crime in isolation, without consideration of the passage of time or the attendant changes in the inmate’s psychological or mental attitude. Moreover, under section 1385(c), unless dismissal of the enhancement would result in immediate release, the question is not just current dangerousness but dangerousness at a point in the future.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)

People v. Buford (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 886, 914

In re Shaputis (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1241, 1255

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 228

Second Holding:

Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it. Here, however, the record reflects several reasons to question whether the court afforded the mitigating circumstances the weight required by section 1385(c)(2) in considering whether to dismiss any of the enhancements.

Authority:

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

People v. Bravo (2025) 107 Cal.App.5th 1144, 1157

Third Holding:

Section 1172.75 requires full resentencing for all defendants who qualify for recall of sentence under the statute. The court may revisit all prior sentencing decisions and has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the sentence, and not just the portion subjected to the recall.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 358, 361

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

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424-425

Fourth Holding:

When a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the statute specifies three possible terms, the court shall, in its sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2). A trial court may impose an upper term sentence only where there are aggravating circumstances in the crime and the defendant has either stipulated to the facts underlying those circumstances or they have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt. The sentencing court can also rely on certified records of conviction without having to submit the prior convictions to the jury. The amendments also created a presumption in favor of the lower term where specified circumstances were contributing factors in the commission of the offense, unless the trial court finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Flores (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 495, 500

Fifth Holding:

Section 1385(c)(1) provides that 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. Subdivision (c)(2) provides that a sentencing court in exercising its discretion to dismiss a sentencing enhancement shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove certain enumerated mitigating circumstances, and 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(c)(1)

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1028

Sixth Holding:

Section 1170(b)(6) now provides for a presumption in favor of the lower term where specified circumstances were contributing factor[s] in the commission of the offense. The sentencing court may only depart from this lower term presumption if it finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances such that the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice. The new law thus dramatically restrains the court’s discretion to impose the middle or upper term, now requiring the court to impose the lower term if a qualifying trauma was a contributing factor in the commission of the offense unless the court finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances so that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice. Accordingly, under the new law, the presumption is that the court shall order imposition of the lower term whenever the defendant has a qualifying trauma.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(6)

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 419

Seventh Holding:

Section 1170(b)(6) makes clear that the low term is presumed only if the sentencing court first finds the defendant falls into one of the three special categories set forth in section 1170(b)(6) and, second, finds that circumstance was a contributing factor in the commission of the offense.

Authority:

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

Discretion, Jury trial, Sixth Amendment, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000407

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Although the defendant initially decided not to testify at his trial, he changed his mind just before oral argument, after the court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss one of the counts and denied the defense motion for acquittal. As the People concede, it was error for the court to deny his request.

First Holding:

It cannot be doubted that a defendant in a criminal case has the right to take the witness stand and to testify in his or her own defense.

Authority:

Rock v. Arkansas (1987) 483 U.S. 44, 49

Second Holding:

After a litigant rests their case, the trial court has wide discretion to reopen a criminal matter to receive additional evidence. When this court reviews a trial court’s decision to preclude the defense from reopening the case to present additional evidence, we must consider four factors: (1) The stage the proceedings had reached when the motion was made; (2) the defendant’s diligence (or lack thereof) in presenting the new evidence; (3) the prospect that the jury would accord the new evidence undue emphasis; and (4) the significance of the evidence. The trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request to testify is subject to the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard enunciated in Chapman.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 66

People v. Masters (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1019, 1069

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

People v. Allen (2008) 44 Cal.4th 843, 871–872

Third Holding:

With respect to the first factor, the state of the proceeding, when the defendant has recently rested his case, closing argument has not begun, and the jury has not been instructed, granting defendant’s request does not entail any great inconvenience. Only 25 minutes passed between when the defense rested and when the defendant expressed that he wished to testify.

Authority:

People v. Carter (1957) 48 Cal.2d 737, 757

Fourth Holding:

As to the defendant’s diligence, the trial court asserted it could not reopen the case because the defense had moved for acquittal, and the prosecution had dismissed count 2. This rationale is not supported by the law. Section 1118.1 provides, in relevant part, that if a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence offered by the prosecution is not granted, the defendant may offer evidence without first having reserved that right. Here, the court took the defendant’s waiver and allowed the defense to rest before hearing its motion for acquittal. Thus, when the defendant decided to testify, the defense had to make a motion to reopen, which the court denied. Under section 1118.1, the court should have ruled on both the motion for acquittal and the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss before inquiring about the defendant’s decision to testify. Had this procedure been followed, the defendant would have had the opportunity to offer evidence after the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal.

Authority:

PEN 1118.1

Fifth Holding:

The third factor is whether reopening the case will cause the jury to give undue emphasis to the new evidence. A jury may accord undue weight to evidence which is admitted close to the time deliberations begin. Here, at the time the defendant changed his mind, the jury had not been told whether he intended to testify. Further, although the court had advised the jury that the presentation of evidence was complete, that advisement occurred only shortly before the defendant changed his mind. For these reasons, we have no reason to believe that the jury would have afforded undue weight to his testimony if the court had reopened the defense case and this factor also shows an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Funes (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1521

Sixth Holding:

The final factor, the significance of the evidence, also shows error by the trial court. The most important witness for the defense in many criminal cases is the defendant himself. This was not a lopsided case with overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence of guilt, as demonstrated by the jury’s acquittal on count 1. Courts must evaluate whether the interests served by restricting a defendant’s right to testify justify the limitation imposed on this most basic right of a defendant in a criminal case—to present his own version of events in his own words. Here, the trial was relatively short and involved a single defendant, and the jury instructions and closing arguments had not yet occurred at the time Mendoza made his request. The defendant’s testimony may have been highly significant and could have altered the outcome of the case. Under this four-factor test, the court’s decision constituted an abuse of its discretion.

Authority:

Rock v. Arkansas (1987) 483 U.S. 44, 51-52, 56

Seventh Holding:

Finally, as the parties agree, the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury deliberated for over three hours and acquitted the defendant of count 1, suggesting it entertained doubts about at least certain aspects of the prosecution’s case. It cannot be said that the jury necessarily would have reached the same result if the court had permitted the defendant to testify.

Authority:

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24