Tag Archives: Discretion

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Evidence, Jury instructions, Jury trial, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000555

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because we are unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the omission of an instruction on the organizational nexus element of the gang allegations did not contribute to the verdict obtained, we reverse all gang enhancements under section 186.22(b), the gang-related firearm enhancement on count 1 under section 12022.53,(d) and (e)(1), and the gang-related indeterminate sentence imposed on count 13 under section 186.22(b)(C)(4). We remand for resentencing and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

First Holding:

All gang-related enhancements must be reversed because the jury was not instructed on the organizational nexus element of the gang enhancement under amended Penal Code section 186.22(b).

Authority:

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 749

Second Holding:

AB 333 substantially narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang and made numerous amendments to the statutory language. The specific amendment relevant here concerns the definition of criminal gang activity. Under the amended language, the prosecution must now present evidence that the members of the gang collectively engaged in a pattern of criminal activity, as opposed to the former language under which individual criminal action by members was sufficient.

While the evidence necessary to establish an organizational nexus might often overlap with the evidence used to demonstrate how a predicate offense commonly benefitted the gang, the inquiries are nonetheless conceptually distinct. The phrase collective engagement calls for an inquiry not just into how the predicate offenses benefited the gang, but also how the gang works together as a gang. It calls for a showing of a connection, or nexus, between an offense committed by one or more gang members and the organization as a whole.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 752, 762

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 738

Third Holding:

Section 186.22 now requires evidence demonstrating a nexus between the individual predicate offenses and the gang as an organized, collective enterprise. This organizational nexus requirement is satisfied by showing a connection between the predicate offenses and the organizational structure, primary activities, or common goals and principles of the gang. Defendant’s trial took place several months before the Supreme Court issued its decision in Clark and before CALCRIM No. 1401 was amended. The jury was therefore not instructed on the organizational nexus element as interpreted in Clark. The pre-Clark instruction given below was adequate.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 749

Fourth Holding:

When a jury instruction omits an element of an offense or special allegation, it impermissibly lessens the prosecution’s burden of proof and implicates the defendant’s federal due process rights. When such an instructional error occurs, we assess prejudice under the federal harmless error standard of Chapman In this context, our review under Chapman requires an examination of the record in its totality. If, at the end of that examination, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error, the instructional error was not harmless. Put another way, the error was prejudicial if we determine the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the omitted element.

Authority:

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 742 [concluding Chapman applied in assessing prejudice where instructions omitted new element of gang enhancement that common benefit to gang must be more than reputational]

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

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 417

Fifth Holding:

Defendant had the right to cross-examine a witness about whether he had been offered inducements to testify, expected benefits from giving his testimony, or otherwise had a motive to lie. Exposing a witness’s potential for bias and fabrication has long been recognized as one of the most important functions of cross-examination.

Authority:

EVID 780(f)

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

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

Sixth Holding:

The trial court is vested with broad discretion to impose reasonable limitations on defendant’s cross-examination without offending the constitution. Within the confines of the confrontation clause, the trial court retains wide latitude in restricting cross-examination that is repetitive, prejudicial, confusing of the issues, or of marginal relevance. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.

Authority:

People v. Contreras (2013) 58 Cal.4th 123, 152

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

People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1292

Seventh Holding:

We review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings in this context under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. Moreover, as a general rule, the application of the ordinary rules of evidence do not impermissibly infringe on a defendant’s right to present a defense.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 9–10 [discretion abused only where exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice]

People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 620

Eighth Holding:

In order to establish a prejudicial abuse of discretion that violated the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, a defendant is required to affirmatively show the trial court’s order limiting or precluding cross-examination left the jury with a significantly different impression of the witness’ credibility. Otherwise, the trial court’s exercise of its discretion in this regard does not violate the Sixth Amendment.

Authority:

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

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

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

Ninth Holding:

The record reflects the trial court failed to impose sentence on counts 14 and 15, two of the extortion counts on which the jury found defendant guilty. As defendant concedes in his reply brief, the appropriate course of action in such circumstances is a remand for the purpose of pronouncement of a judgment in accordance with the verdict. In light of the reversal of all gang enhancements, the gang-related firearm enhancement on count 1 and the gang-related indeterminate term on count 13, the superior court, on remand, shall conduct a full resentencing at which it may consider all of its sentencing choices anew.

Authority:

People v. Taylor (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 349, 353

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000543

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court did not understand that it had the jurisdiction to strike prior strikes at a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75. Remanded for the court to consider how to exercise its discretion. It must also recalculate the defendant’s credit for time served.

First Holding:

Because a trial court’s power under section 1385(a) to dismiss or strike a strike prior is independent of either the Three Strikes law or the subsequent Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, any exercise of that power at a resentencing proceeding under section 1172.75 does not offend either.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 362

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

Second Holding:

The full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

Section 1172.75 is a permissible alternative resentencing method for third strike offenders, and upon recall, defendants like the defendant in Guevara were no longer presently serving indeterminate third strike sentences.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 854

Fourth Holding:

We express no opinion on the merits of the motion, which rest in the trial court’s sound discretion to evaluate.

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377-378

Fifth Holding:

Defendant is entitled to recalculation of custody credits at the close of the hearing, whether the trial court resentences him to 25 years to life or imposes a different sentence.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 41

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000542

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court did not understand that it had the jurisdiction to strike prior strikes at a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75.

First Holding:

Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5(b) required trial courts to impose a one-year sentence enhancement for each true finding on an allegation that a defendant served a separate prior prison term and had not remained free of custody for at least five years. Effective January 1, 2020, Senate Bill No. 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) amended section 667.5 by limiting the prior prison term enhancement to only prior terms for sexually violent offenses. Enhancements based on prior prison terms served for other offenses became legally invalid. The Legislature later enacted SB 483, effective January 1, 2022, to make the changes implemented by SB No. 136 retroactive by adding what is now numbered section 1172.75 to the Penal Code. Section 1172.75(c) requires the trial court, upon being properly notified that a defendant is serving a sentence that includes a legally invalid prior prison term enhancement, to recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Jennings (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 664, 681

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 380

Second Holding:

A court has long had the authority to exercise its discretion and dismiss one or more prior serious felonies that are charged as Strikes under the Three Strikes law. A trial court has the authority to strike prior strikes under section 1385(a) and Romero at a section 1172.75 hearing. Because a trial court’s power under section 1385(a) to dismiss or strike a strike prior is independent of either the Three Strikes law or the subsequent Three Strikes Reform Act, any exercise of that power at a resentencing proceeding under section 1172.75 does not offend either. As the trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion, he case is remanded for a resentencing hearing. At that hearing, the trial court is directed to consider its full range of lawful sentencing options, including whether to grant or deny the defendant’s Romero motion.

Authority:

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

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 345, 362

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

Case 000541

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

First Holding:

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

Authority:

PEN 654

PEN 954

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

Second Holding:

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

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

Fourth Holding:

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

Authority:

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

Fifth Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000535 and Case 000536

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

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

First Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

Second Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

Third Holding:

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

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

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

Fourth Holding:

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

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Discretion, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case 000531

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

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

First Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

Second Holding:

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

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

Authority:

PEN 1172.1

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

Third Holding:

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

Authority:

PEN 1172.1(b)

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

Fourth Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

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

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000522

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

First Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

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

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

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

Second Holding:

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

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

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

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

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

Authority:

PEN 667(c)(8)

PEN 669(a)

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

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

Fourth Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

Sentencing

Case: 000519

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

First Holding:

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

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

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

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

Authority:

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

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

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

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

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

Second Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000505

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the defendant’s sentence, and we remand for the trial court to hold a new sentencing hearing, at which it shall consider whether to exercise its discretion under section 1385 to dismiss the one-year enhancement it imposed under section 12022(b)(1).

First Holding:

During the sentencing of the defendant for second degree murder in which it was found true that he used a knife, the court stated it had no discretion to dismiss the enhancement allegation. Section 1385 governs a trial court’s discretion to dismiss an enhancement. Specifically section 1385(c)(1) states 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. In exercising its discretion, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) 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.

Under section 1385(a), if the court does not find that dismissal would endanger 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.) One enumerated mitigating circumstance is that the current offense is connected to mental illness. The defendant identifies that circumstance as potentially applicable here in light of information developed during the mental competency proceedings in this matter.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1029

Second Holding:

The record establishes the trial court was not aware of its discretion under section 1385 to dismiss the weapon enhancement. Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court. A court that is not aware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no more exercise that informed discretion than one whose sentence is or may have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant’s record. Where the trial court was not aware of its discretion to dismiss a sentencing allegation under section 1385, it abuses its discretion. We accordingly conclude the trial court abused its discretion because it was not aware of its discretion to dismiss the weapon enhancement.

Authority:

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

Nazir v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 478, 490

Third Holding:

When a court has not exercised its informed discretion, remand is the default 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. Here, we find no indication in the record as to how the trial court would have exercised its discretion had it known it had the discretion to dismiss the enhancement. We will therefore remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion under section 1385 regarding the weapon enhancement imposed under section 12022(b)(1).

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 431

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000485

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court abused its discretion in ordering interest on the restitution award to accrue from the date of the offense.

First 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 that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)

Second Holding:

We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion. A victim’s restitution right is to be broadly and liberally construed. Once the victim makes a prima facie showing of economic losses incurred as a result of the defendant’s criminal acts, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the amount of losses claimed by the victim. Sentencing judges are given virtually unlimited discretion as to the kind of information they can consider in determining victim restitution. When there is a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered, no abuse of discretion will be found.

Authority:

People v. Phu (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 280, 283, 284

People v. Pittman (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1252, 1258

Third Holding:

Section 1202.4(f)(3)(G) provides that a restitution order shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct, including interest, at the rate of 10 percent per annum, that accrues as of the date of sentencing or loss, as determined by the court. Here, there was no evidence that the victim incurred losses as early as ordered by the court. For this reason, we reverse the portion of the trial court’s restitution order concerning interest accrual and remand for the court to select an appropriate date from which interest on the restitution award accrues.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)(3)(G)

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000479

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In this People’s appeal from the order of the juvenile court denying its motion to transfer the juvenile matter to adult court, the order retaining jurisdiction in juvenile court is affirmed, even though the respondent is well over 25 years of age.

First Holding:

We review the juvenile court’s ruling on a transfer motion for abuse of discretion. The court’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. A decision based on insufficient evidence or the court’s erroneous understanding of applicable law is subject to reversal. But we do not reweigh the evidence and we do not substitute our discretion for the discretion exercised by the trial court. We draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court’s findings, not against them. We are concerned only with whether the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings. When evidence reasonably justifies the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.

Authority:

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165, 169

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 187

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 211

Second Holding:

The ultimate question for the juvenile court in a transfer petition is whether a minor is amenable to rehabilitation before the juvenile court’s jurisdiction expires. To order a minor’s transfer to a court of criminal jurisdiction, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which for persons 25 years or older extends for up to two years from the date of disposition. the prosecution bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 607(d) [The court may retain jurisdiction over a person who is 25 years of age or older for a period not to exceed two years from the date of disposition if the person is found to be a person described in Section 602 by reason of the commission of an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707. The court shall exercise jurisdiction in conformance with the objectives of the juvenile court.]

WIC 707(a)(3)

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 416

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 167

Third Holding:

In making that determination, the juvenile court must consider five specific factors. The statute also sets forth a nonexhaustive list of relevant factors for the juvenile court to consider with respect to each of the five criteria. If the juvenile court orders a transfer to criminal court, it must recite the basis for its decision in an order entered upon the minutes, which shall include the reasons supporting the court’s finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(3)

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 212

Fourth Holding:

The language used in a statute or constitutional provision should be given its ordinary meaning, and if the language is clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, nor is it necessary to resort to indicia of the intent of the Legislature (in the case of a statute) or of the voters (in the case of a provision adopted by the voters). Courts generally must accord significance, if possible, to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of the legislative purpose, and a construction making some words surplusage is to be avoided.

The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible. We examine statutory language, not in isolation, but in the context of the statutory framework as a whole to discern its scope and purpose and to harmonize the various parts of the enactment.

Authority:

People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 357

Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735

Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment and Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1387

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 975

Fifth Holding:

Language in a judicial opinion is to be understood in accordance with the facts and issues before the court. An opinion is not authority for propositions not considered. Thus, a decision is authority only for the points actually involved and actually decided.

Authority:

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 154–155

People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 110

Sixth Holding:

Failure to offer reasoned analysis of an issue constitutes a waiver. When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived. The People’s failure to develop a legal analysis that is tethered to the issue they raised and is supported by relevant authority compels rejection of their claim of error. We will not develop that analysis for them.

Authority:

Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) [Each brief must state each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority]

Trinity Risk Management, LLC v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc. (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 995, 1008

Perry v. City of San Diego (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 172, 188, fn. 8 [It is not this court’s role to connect the dots]

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000478

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Before jury selection, the defendant requested mental health diversion. The trial court denied the request as untimely. This was error. The judgment is conditionally reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court to consider defendant’s application for mental health diversion under section 1001.36. If the trial court grants diversion and defendant successfully completes mental health diversion, the court shall dismiss the charges. If the court denies defendant’s application for mental health diversion, or if defendant does not successfully complete diversion, then the court shall reinstate the judgment and sentence.

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 authorizes pretrial mental health diversion for defendants with qualifying mental health disorders. The trial court must find a defendant is both eligible and suitable for diversion.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

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

Second 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.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

In a jury trial, to be timely, a request for diversion must be made before attachment of jeopardy. The defendant is deemed to have been placed in jeopardy when the jurors have been impaneled and sworn. Here, the jury had not been impaneled or sworn when defendant requested mental health diversion. The trial court abused its discretion in denying his unopposed request for mental health diversion solely on the ground that it was untimely.

Authority:

People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 819

People v. Fields (1996) 13 Cal.4th 289, 299