Tag Archives: Discretion

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000978

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to impose the normal base term for several of his offenses in addition to the life terms under the Three Strikes law for those same offenses. The court failed to update the credit for time served. And the abstract of judgment misidentifies a second degree robbery as in the first degree, and must be corrected.

First Holding:

Where, as here, a defendant’s current sentence includes prison prior term enhancements rendered invalid under section 1172.75(a), the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely the striking of newly invalid enhancements.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

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

Second Holding:

The Three Strikes law is a penalty provision, not an enhancement. It is not an enhancement because it does not add an additional term of imprisonment to the base term. Instead, it provides for an alternate sentence (25 years to life) when it is proven that the defendant has suffered the requisite number of convictions, prior and present. (At least two prior serious felony convictions, and the current offense being a qualifying offense for invocation of Third Strike sentencing.)

Authority:

People v. Williams (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 733, 744

Third Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

When a trial court pronounces an unauthorized sentence, the sentence may be set aside and is no bar to the imposition of a proper judgment thereafter, even though it is more severe than the original unauthorized pronouncement.

Authority:

People v. Vizcarra (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 422, 431–432

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1036, fn. 21

Fifth Holding:

The trial court erred in failing to update his presentence credits at the time of resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37

Sixth Holding:

The amended abstract of judgment incorrectly lists the defendant’s conviction in count 3 as one for first degree robbery, when in fact the conviction should be identified as one for second degree robbery. The abstract of judgment must be corrected.

(Gary note: Though the court discussed the need for amending the abstract of judgment for various reasons through the opinion, it did not cite authority for its order that it be corrected. There is plenty of authority available, of course. I have set out some cases the court could have drawn from, but there are undoubtedly many others.)

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000975

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing because the trial court erroneously believed the law required it to impose consecutive sentences for every count.

First Holding:

Under section 667.61(i), consecutive sentences are mandatory only to offenses listed in section 667.61(c), paragraphs (1) through (7). The crime of which the jury found the defendant guilty is described in 667.61(c), paragraph (8).

Thus, consecutive sentencing was not mandatory.

Authority:

PEN 667.61(c)

Second Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court, and a court that is unaware of its discretionary authority cannot exercise its informed discretion.

When a sentencing court was not aware of the full scope of its discretionary powers at the time the defendant was sentenced, the appropriate remedy is to 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.

Authority:

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

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

Third Holding:

The Attorney General argues that the defendant forfeited his sentencing contention by failing to object below to the court’s error, and that the defendant cannot show his counsel was ineffective for failing to object because it was not reasonably likely the court would have imposed anything less than the 150-year sentence that it did.

We exercise our discretion to reach the question, notwithstanding forfeiture.

Authority:

People v. Leon (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1003 [the trial court’s erroneous understanding that it had no discretion to impose concurrent sentences may fall within a narrow class of sentencing issues that are reviewable in the absence of a timely objection, and in any event, we would exercise our discretion to resolve the claim in the interests of fairness and judicial economy and to forestall unnecessary ineffective assistance of counsel claims.]

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 162, fn. 6 [An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party]

Fourth Holding:

The trial court’s repeated references to section 667.61(i)’s requirement that it impose consecutive sentences leaves no doubt that the court here did not know it retained the discretion to impose concurrent sentences per victim.

The court provided no other reason for imposing consecutive sentences, including no comment that the aggravating factor warranted a maximum sentence or any similar comment.

We therefore cannot conclude that the record clearly indicates the court would have imposed the same sentence if it had understood its full sentencing discretion. We accordingly remand the matter for resentencing.

Authority:

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

Appellate Principles, Discretion

Case 000968

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In denying the petition, the trial court stated the law compelled it to find the defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community because of the seriousness of the charged offenses.

The trial court abused its discretion in failing to apply the correct legal standard. Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the judgment, reverse the order denying the defendant’s petition, and remand the case for the trial court to reconsider the defendant’s petition.

First Holding:

To qualify for mental health diversion, a defendant must meet eligibility and suitability criteria. If a defendant is both eligible and suitable, the court may, in its discretion grant diversion. Thus, a diversion order is expressly discretionary with the court, even when all of the criteria are met.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(a)

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 685

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

People v. Doron (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1, 9

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

Second Holding:

A defendant is eligible for diversion if he suffers from a qualifying mental disorder that was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

A defendant is suitable for diversion if (1) a qualified mental health expert opines the defendant’s symptoms will respond to treatment, (2) the defendant consents to diversion and waives the right to a speedy trial, (3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment, and (4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

As to the last suitability requirement, a defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety only if there is an unreasonable risk he will commit a violent felony known as a super strike.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449–450

Third Holding:

Nothing precludes a trial court from relying primarily, or even entirely, on the circumstances of the charged offense or offenses in denying a motion for diversion. However, no matter how serious the charged offenses, the court retains discretion to find the defendant does not pose an unreasonable danger.

Authority:

People v. Bunas (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 840, 862

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 799 [the court acted within its discretion in determining that the nature and manner of defendant’s charged crimes—and particularly, the two super strikes—rendered her likely to commit another super strike; section 1001.36 grants broad discretion to the court to consider any factors it deems appropriate when assessing dangerousness.]

Fourth Holding:

It appears here that the court applied the wrong standard in assessing the risk of danger to public safety. The court stated it was “here to consider the seriousness of the charges,” and “based on the seriousness of the charges,” the law “compels” it to find the defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

These comments suggest the court erroneously believed, because of the seriousness of the charges, it lacked discretion to find in the defendant’s favor on the dangerousness issue.

Given that the court did not discuss the circumstances of the offenses or identify any other factors it considered in reaching its decision, we are not sufficiently confident that it understood it had discretion.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449 [a court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard]

Fifth Holding:

A court unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no more exercise that informed discretion than one whose decision is or may have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant’s record.

Under these circumstances, the proper remedy 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.

Authority:

People v. Doron (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1, 10

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 451-452 [remanding for reconsideration where court erroneously found defendant failed to meet dangerousness suitability requirement]

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 [remand for resentencing is required when a court is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers, unless the record clearly indicates the court would have reached the same conclusion had it been aware of its discretion]

Sixth Holding:

Here, the record does not clearly indicate how the court would have ruled had it applied the correct standard on the dangerousness issue. Indeed, the court expressed some regret that the law compelled it to find the defendant posed an unreasonable risk of danger.

Moreover, the Attorney General does not argue the defendant otherwise was ineligible or unsuitable for diversion as a matter of law. Accordingly, the proper remedy is a conditional reversal and remand with directions to reconsider the petition under the correct standard.

Authority:

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 640 [approving Court of Appeal’s decision to conditionally reverse a defendant’s convictions and sentence with instructions to conduct a hearing to consider eligibility for mental health diversion]

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000966

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The great bodily injury enhancement in connection with the kidnapping of the victim and the corporal-injury-on-a-child count both concern the same conduct, such that one of the sentences must be stayed under section 654.

Holding:

The great bodily injury enhancement in connection with the kidnapping of the victim and the corporal-injury-on-a-child count both concern the same conduct, such that one of the sentences must be stayed under section 654. We remand because the trial court has discretion where an act that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law to punish a defendant under either of such provisions.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 351

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000958

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court abused its discretion by denying diversion because its finding that the defendant is ineligible for diversion is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we conditionally reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to reconsider defendant’s application for mental health diversion.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted Penal Code sections 1001.35 and 1001.36 to authorize trial courts to grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendants diagnosed with qualifying mental disorders. To be eligible for mental health diversion, a defendant must meet two requirements.

One, the defendant must have been diagnosed within the past five years with a mental disorder identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

And two, the defendant’s mental disorder must be a significant factor in the commission of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)(1) and (b)(2)

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 677

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400

Second Holding:

Among the express purposes of the diversion program is to increase diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety.

The court must find a causal connection unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.

Eligibility no longer turned on findings to the court’s satisfaction. The statute requires the court to find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor unless clear and convincing evidence demonstrates otherwise.

And it is the prosecution’s burden to provide clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption.

Authority:

PEN 1001.35(a)

PEN 1001.36(b)

Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 67, 80

People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485, 490

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

People v. Cabalar (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 41, 52

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 688

Third Holding:

Once a defendant meets the eligibility requirements, the trial court must then determine whether a defendant is suitable for diversion using the four criteria outlined in section 1001.36(c): (1) A qualified mental health expert has determined the defendant’s symptoms would respond to mental health treatment; (2) the defendant has consented to diversion and waived the right to a speedy trial; (3) the defendant has agreed to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion, and (4) the court has determined the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400-401

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on an application for mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. A court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. By definition, substantial evidence requires evidence and not mere speculation.

Authority:

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

People v. Ramon (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 843, 851

Fifth Holding:

In reviewing a trial court’s 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.

In this context, we must determine whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.

To answer that question, we review the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.

(Gary note: The opinion goes on to recite details specific to this case on the question whether the mental disorder contributed to the offense, and concluded that there was not clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that it did. The details are fact-specific and of no value in the context of these summaries, because unpublished decisions cannot be cited for comparison or authority or any other purpose.)

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401-402