Tag Archives: Discretion

Discretion, Duty of the court, Standard of review

Case: 000392

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on the defendant’s petition seeking mental health diversion. We thus conditionally vacate defendant’s no contest plea, conditionally reverse the judgment, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with section 1001.36.

First Holding:

We review a trial court’s order denying mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. 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 the law and followed it. But where a court’s ruling clearly expresses the legal and factual basis for its resolution of controverted issues, an appellate court will not imply findings the trial court did not make.

Authority:

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

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

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

Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1384

Second Holding:

Section 1001.36(b)(1)(2) provides that a defendant is eligible for mental health diversion if (1) they present evidence that in the last five years they have been diagnosed by a qualified mental health expert with a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and (2) their mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

Third Holding:

If a defendant satisfies the eligibility requirements in section 1001.36(b), the court then must consider whether the defendant is suitable for diversion based on the following criteria set forth in section 1001.36(c): (1) In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder that caused, contributed to, or motivated the defendant’s criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment; (2) The defendant consents to diversion and waives their right to a speedy trial; (3) The defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and (4) The defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in section 1170.18, if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Fourth Holding:

A diversion order is expressly discretionary with the court, even when all of the criteria are met. However, this residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law. The stated purpose of mental health diversion is to keep people with mental disorders from entering and reentering the criminal justice system while protecting public safety, to give counties discretion in developing and implementing diversion across a continuum of care settings, and to provide mental health rehabilitative services. Legislative history confirms there is a strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders because of the benefits of such treatment to both the offending individual and the community.

Authority:

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

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

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

Fifth Holding:

The record shows that the trial court’s ruling failed to apply the correct legal standards to defendant’s diversion request. After finding defendant eligible, the court denied him diversion because he was unsuitable based on the determination that he targeted vulnerable people. This ruling rests on a legal error because the court did not apply the four statutory suitability criteria found in section 1001.36(c). Additionally, denial of mental health diversion using a court’s residual discretion should be limited to those situations where the purposes of the statute would not be achieved.

Here, the trial court relied on its observation that defendant targeted vulnerable victims but failed to tie that observation to achieving the purposes of the statute, and the strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders because of the benefits of such treatment to both the offending individual and the community. By applying the wrong legal standard, the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for mental health diversion.

Authority:

Grossmont Union High School Dist. v. Diego Plus Education Corp. (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 552, 584 [trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when it did not apply one of the essential components for deciding whether fees should be awarded under the applicable fee statute]

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

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

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

Discretion, Standard of review

Case: 000371

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court improperly denied the defendant’s request for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36 by applying the wrong standard in determining that he did not satisfy the statute’s public safety requirement. Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the judgment and remand to the trial court.

First Holding:

A trial court may grant a defendant pretrial mental health diversion if the defendant has a qualifying mental health disorder. The court has discretion to grant pretrial diversion if the defendant satisfies the eligibility requirements for pretrial diversion set forth in the statute and the court finds that the defendant is suitable for that diversion under the factors set forth in the statute. A defendant is eligible for pretrial diversion if (1) the defendant has been diagnosed with a qualifying mental disorder; and (2) the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 626–627

Second Holding:

For any defendant who satisfies the eligibility requirements, the court must then find the defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion if all the following criteria are met: (1) In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder causing, contributing to, or motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment; (2) The defendant consents to diversion and waives 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)

Third Holding:

Section 1170.18, in turn, defines “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” as an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv). Thus, a trial court must determine whether the defendant is likely to commit an offense known colloquially as a “super strike.” Qualifying super strikes include murder, attempted murder, solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a police officer, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, and any serious or violent felony punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Authority:

PEN 1170.18(c)

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

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1149, 1150-1151

People v. Bunas (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 840, 851, fn. 11

Fourth Holding:

Mental health diversion is discretionary, not mandatory, even if all the requirements are met. But this residual discretion must be exercised consistently with the principles and purpose of the law, which includes a strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders because of the benefits of such treatment to both the offending individual and the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(a)

PEN 1001.35

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

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

Fifth 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, 448–449

Sixth Holding:

The trial court’s comments, coupled with the fact the court did not expressly find a likelihood that the defendant would commit a super strike, suggest the court was expanding the meaning of “public safety” in section 1001.36 beyond the likelihood that the defendant will commit a limited subset of violent felonies. This was improper.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 450

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896–897 [trial courts cannot create an alternative meaning of ‘public safety’ inconsistent with sec. 1001.36(c)(4)]

Seventh Holding:

We do not find the Watson standard of prejudice applicable here. Under the Watson test, an error is harmless unless it is reasonably probable the outcome would have been different in the absence of the error. The Watson standard is appropriate in circumstances where the trial court understood the nature of its discretion but, for example, relied on an improper factor in exercising that discretion or failed to state its reasoning. It does not apply where the court was unaware of the extent of its lawful authority in a particular context, because determining what choice the trial court is likely to make in the first instance is far more speculative.

Because the record suggests the trial court did not understand that its discretion in deciding the defendant’s motion was constrained by section 1001.36’s narrow definition of public safety, we cannot be confident that the court was aware of the scope of its discretion under section 1001.36. Defendants are entitled to decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion” of the court. A court that is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers cannot exercise that informed discretion. The appropriate remedy in such circumstances is to remand unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion. The Watson standard is thus inapplicable.

Authority:

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

People v. McDaniels (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 420, 426

In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 716

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

People v. Doron (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1, 9–10 [concluding remand was required under Gutierrez where trial court did not apply correct standard in denying defendant’s motion for mental health diversion]

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 774 [Gutierrez standard applied where trial court was unaware that its discretion to select a prison sentence was constrained by a presumption against the upper term]

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing

Case: 000361

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After the trial court denied the defendant’s request at the section 1172.75 resentencing hearing to resentence him on one of his nonserious felony counts under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (thus reducing his Three Strikes sentence of 25 years to life on that count to a doubled determinate term), the Supreme Court concluded that the Reform Act does apply, subject to the finding of unreasonable risk to public safety. The matter is remanded for resentencing consideration accordingly.

First Holding:

As a matter of constitutional avoidance, section 1172.75 incorporates section 1170.126’s discretionary public safety override as a condition for nonserious, nonviolent third strike offenders to obtain resentencing under the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act. The case must be remanded for the superior court to determine whether sentencing the defendant under the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. If it is so determined, the superior court must reimpose the indeterminate term. If the superior court does not determine that resentencing the defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, and the defendant is otherwise eligible under the Reform Act, the court shall resentence the defendant pursuant to the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

The superior court did not have the benefit of Guevara, meaning that it was not fully aware of the scope of its discretionary powers when it resentenced the defendant. We remand for resentencing because the record does not clearly indicate that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 425

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

Case: 000358

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is remanded for the trial court to properly consider its discretion on whether to strike the prior serious felony conviction in light of the presence of one or more mitigating circumstances enumerated in section 1385(e), in the absence of a finding of danger to public safety.

First Holding:

Senate Bill No. 81, effective January 1, 2022, added subdivision (c) to section 1385. Section 1385(c) provides, “(1) 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. (2) In exercising its discretion under [subdivision (c)], the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in [the subparagraphs to subdivision (c)(2)] 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.

The mitigating circumstances identified in the subparagraphs include, among others, that multiple enhancements are alleged in a single case. In this instance, all enhancements beyond a single enhancement shall be dismissed. And they include that the application of an enhancement could result in a sentence of over 20 years. In this instance, the enhancement shall be dismissed.

Authority:

PEN 1385

Second Holding:

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. This furtherance of justice inquiry requires a trial court’s ongoing exercise of discretion. Thus, notwithstanding the presence of a mitigating circumstance, trial courts retain their discretion to impose an enhancement based on circumstances long deemed essential to the furtherance of justice inquiry

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1033–1036

Third Holding:

In determining whether dismissing an enhancement would endanger public safety, the plain words of the statute do not support a trial court’s singular focus on whether the defendant currently poses a danger. Although the current dangerousness of the defendant is an appropriate factor to consider, as it will have some bearing on whether dismissing the enhancement would endanger the public, a crucial part of the inquiry is how the dismissal will impact the length of the defendant’s sentence. Thus, a currently dangerous defendant who will be released from prison within a short timeframe might be found by the trial court to pose a greater danger to the public than a defendant who is currently dangerous but who has no prospect of release from prison until he is elderly.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 225, 228

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision not to strike a sentence enhancement under section 1385 for abuse of discretion. The abuse of discretion standard is highly deferential. When a discretionary power is statutorily vested in the trial court, its exercise of that discretion must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.

We presume that the trial court acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives. The burden is on the party challenging the sentencing decision to show that the court abused its discretion. We may not presume error from a silent record. Unless the record affirmatively demonstrates otherwise, the trial court is deemed to have considered all the relevant sentencing factors set forth in the rules. In addition as a general rule a trial court is presumed to have been aware of and followed the applicable law. Thus, where a statement of reasons is not required and the record is silent, a reviewing court will presume the trial court had a proper basis for a particular finding or order. A trial court abuses its discretion by rendering a sentencing decision based on impermissible factors or on an incorrect legal standard. Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion.

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 371

People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 298

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

People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114

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

People v. Nakano (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 623, 635 [an abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court applies the wrong legal standard]

People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371, 431

Fifth Holding:

When the trial court does not conclude that dismissal would result in a danger to public safety, the court must assign great weight to any mitigating factors, if present, and exercise its discretion in determining whether dismissal would be in the furtherance of justice. The term “great weight” did not create a presumption in favor of dismissal, but should be interpreted to mean 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.

Without credible evidence to support findings on aggravating circumstances, judges could disregard mitigating factors without a proper basis for doing so. This would be incompatible with the great weight the Legislature has attached to the enumerated mitigating circumstances. Section 1385(c)(2)’s mandate to give great weight to enumerated mitigating circumstances requires a sentencing court to engage in a holistic balancing with special emphasis on the enumerated mitigating factors.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1033–1036

People v. Ortiz (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1087, 1094

Sixth Holding:

On appeal, we presume that a judgment or order of the trial court is correct, all intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.

Authority:

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

Seventh Holding:

The court did not explicitly conclude that dismissal of the enhancements would result in a danger to public safety. Indeed, the trial court did not discuss public safety in its findings, nor did it make any statements related to the possibility of the defendant committing further crimes if his sentence were to be reduced, and he were to be released early, following dismissal of the enhancements. when the trial court does not conclude that dismissal would result in a danger to public safety, the court must assign “great weight” to any mitigating factors, if present, and exercise its discretion in determining whether dismissal would be in the furtherance of justice.

Walker and Gonzalez had not been decided at the time of the trial court’s ruling, and that in making its findings, the trial court did not use the word “mitigating factors,” or specifically discuss the mitigating factors listed under section 1385(c). While we acknowledge that a silent record does not, on its own, reflect an abuse of discretion , we find it is not evident from the instant record and findings that the trial court would have still exercised its discretion not to dismiss the enhancement if it had the guidance provided in those cases. The trial court did not make any indication that the defendant would pose a danger to public safety if he were to be released early as a result of a reduced sentence.

Further, while the trial court’s final order cited the serious nature of the defendant’s offenses, as well as his criminal history. it is unclear if such findings reflected the trial court engaging in a holistic balancing with special emphasis on the enumerated mitigating factors as required under Walker. Under these circumstances, we conclude that remand for resentencing is required. In reaching our decision, we do not express any position on how the court should exercise its discretion under section 1385 regarding dismissal of the section 667(a) enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424 [noting that if the trial court is unaware of the scope of its informed discretion at the time of sentencing and fails to exercise it in making a sentencing decision, the appellate court must remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion]

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

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1036

Discretion, Duty of the court, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000353

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights by imposing a sentence based on aggravating circumstances that were neither admitted by him nor tried to a jury. The trial court conducted an inadequate inquiry when the defendant requested that new counsel be substituted.

[GARY NOTE: The unpublished opinion lays out several observations that it characterizes as possibly arguable deficiencies in counsel’s performance that would support a finding that it would be necessary to substitute new counsel as the defendant requested. Many of the specifics have been redacted from the filed opinion itself, as the Marsden hearing is a confidential inquiry conducted outside the presence of the prosecution and the public, and the matters stated by any participants (the defendant, the attorney for the defendant, the court) at the hearing are not subject to public disclosure.]

First Holding:

The defendant is entitled to resentencing because the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by relying on aggravating circumstances based on facts that had not been admitted or tried to a jury. Although the defendant did not preserve this claim in the trial court, his failure to do so does not forfeit his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

Authority:

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47-48

Second Holding:

In Cunningham, the United States Supreme Court held that, except for prior conviction allegations, the Sixth Amendment requires any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence to be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The sentencing scheme in effect in California at the time violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because it allowed a defendant’s prison sentence to be increased beyond the statutory maximum based on facts that had not been found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or admitted by the defendant. The statutory maximum, for Sixth Amendment purposes, is the maximum sentence the court may impose without finding any additional facts beyond those necessary to support the verdict. Cunningham explained that California could comply with the Sixth Amendment either by requiring jury findings for any facts necessary to impose an aggravated sentence or, alternatively, by authorizing sentencing courts to exercise broad discretion within a statutory range.

Authority:

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281, 294

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 746-747

Third Holding:

California’s current sentencing scheme (in effect at the time of the defendant’s sentencing) adopts the first option Cunningham outlined. Under section 1170(b), when a statute specifies three possible terms, the court must order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances 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. After revoking the defendant’s probation, the court found in aggravation that the crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threats of great bodily harm, and other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness. But this aggravating factor was not admitted or otherwise proved to the trier of fact.

Authority:

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 294

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 748

Fourth Holding:

We apply the rigorous Chapman standard of review to determine whether the trial court’s reliance on unproven aggravating circumstances was prejudicial. Under that standard, the violation is prejudicial unless we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a jury would have found true all the aggravating facts upon which the challenged sentence was based. The defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing unless the appellate court can conclude that the omission of a jury trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to every aggravating fact the trial court used to justify an upper term sentence. Put another way, the defendant is entitled to a remand unless no reasonable jury would have found in favor of the defendant as to any of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court. In conducting this analysis, moreover, we may not assume that the record contains all the evidence that would have been presented had the aggravating circumstances been tried to a jury.

Authority:

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768, 775

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

Fifth Holding:

Further, because the court imposed an enhancement for great bodily injury under section 12022.7, it was improper to also rely on great bodily injury as a factor in aggravation for purposes of imposing the upper term, although that error is subject to harmless error analysis. The court could, without running afoul of section 1170(b)(5), rely on other aggravating circumstances independent of the great bodily injury enhancement, such as a finding that the offense involved great violence or reflected a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(5) [a court cannot impose an upper term by using the fact of any enhancement upon which sentence is imposed under any provision of law]

Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1)

People v. Gutierrez (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1729, 1735-1736

People v. Castaneda (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 611, 614-615

Sixth Holding:

When a defendant requests that his appointed counsel be relieved and new counsel be appointed under Marsden, the trial court must give the defendant an opportunity to explain his concerns about his counsel’s performance and provide examples of deficiencies. The defendant is entitled to substitute counsel when the record clearly shows that the appointed counsel is not providing adequate representation. The trial court abuses its discretion when the defendant has shown that a failure to replace the appointed attorney would substantially impair the right to assistance of counsel. The trial court also abuses its discretion if it does not conduct an adequate inquiry into the defendant’s motion. When the defendant has identified shortcomings by counsel, the court must obtain counsel’s response and conduct any further inquiry that is needed to determine whether counsel had adequate explanations for all of the defendant’s complaints.

The critical factual inquiry in a Marsden hearing will often involve whether counsel consulted sufficiently with their client, adequately investigated the facts, and properly prepared for the relevant hearing. When the trial court’s inquiry is deficient, we remand the case for a new Marsden hearing. On this record, the trial court lacked an adequate basis to determine whether counsel had properly investigated and prepared the defendant’s mitigation case for the sentencing hearing. Likewise, we lack an adequate record to review the trial court’s denial of Marsden relief. On remand, the trial court should conduct a Marsden hearing to determine whether the defendant is entitled to substitute counsel for purposes of his resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 123-124

People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 599

People v. Carter (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1092, 1099, 1102-1104

People v. Ng (2022) 13 Cal.5th 448, 500

People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 488

People v. Ivans (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1666 [stating the trial court must make a careful inquiry before it can intelligently rule on the Marsden motion]