Tag Archives: Discretion

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

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]

Discretion, Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000346

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed a minimum $300 restitution fine and an assessment of $70 in ancillary costs. The trial court held a hearing and determined that the defendant had the ability to pay. We affirm the order on ancillary costs but remand to give the defendant the opportunity to further challenge the restitution fine under Kopp.

First Holding:

A person convicted of a crime can, and in some cases must, be ordered to pay a variety of punitive fines along with other nonpunitive ancillary costs. Some statutes require the imposition of fines and ancillary costs regardless of a defendant’s ability to pay. Other statutes require a finding of the ability to pay or allow for its consideration. Restitution fines under section 1202.4 are considered punitive fines, whereas assessments to fund court facilities and operations are considered ancillary costs. The distinction between punitive fines and other imposed payments is important because it impacts whether a given form of required payment is initially challenged under, and then reviewed under, the constitutional excessive fines clauses, or under the constitutional provision for equal protection.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 12, 14-15, 18 [we analyze fines and ancillary costs separately because different justifications support each, and different constitutional protections apply]

Second Holding:

If requested by a defendant, the court must consider the defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under section 1465.8(a)(1), or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1).

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 25-26, 30 [in light of the Legislature’s provision of fee waivers to indigent civil litigants, equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing either assessment]

Third Holding:

In reaching its conclusion that the defendant did not meet his burden to show his inability to pay the ancillary costs, the court considered his potential to earn wages while in prison and his general ability to work, which was within its discretion to do. The trial court did not state that it was relying solely on the defendant’s ability to earn wages while in prison. The court found simply that he is capable of working. The trial court’s conclusion that he had the ability to pay $70 in court assessments was not arbitrary or irrational.

Authority:

People v. Fish (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 730, 739 [collecting cases]

People v. Santos (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 923, 934 [factors to consider in determining ability to pay may include, among others, the defendant’s realistic ability to earn prison wages or obtain employment]

People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490, disapproved in part as stated in Kopp, at p. 23, fn. 17. 490 [trial court may consider potential prison pay during the period of incarceration” in determining inability to pay]

People v. Cervantes (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 213, 229 [ability to pay includes the ability both to obtain prison wages and to earn money after release from custody]

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377 [a trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it]

Fourth Holding:

Punitive fines are subject to a different approach. There is no due process requirement to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine. Sentencing judges may, and often do, consider the defendant’s ability to pay, but in such circumstances they are guided by sound judicial discretion rather than by constitutional mandate.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 23

San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez (1973) 411 U.S. 1, 22

Fifth Holding:

A court has discretion to impose a nonexcessive fine as punishment, even on indigent defendants. Thus, the excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines. The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry for excessive fines is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish. While ability to pay may be part of the proportionality analysis, it is not the only factor.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 8th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 21, 23

United States v. Bajakajian (1998) 524 U.S. 321, 334

Sixth Holding:

Under section 1202.4(b), the restitution fine shall be set at the discretion of the court and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. The court shall impose the restitution fine unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. A defendant’s inability to pay shall not be considered a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution fine. Inability to pay may be considered only in increasing the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the minimum fine.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4

Seventh Holding:

A court’s ruling on ability to pay is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating his or her inability to pay the imposed amounts.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 21, 24

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 868

People v. Lowery (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1046, 1057, 1053

Effective assistance of counsel, Fines and fees, Standard of review

Case: 000341

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court ordered restitution in the amount of the manufacturer’s suggested retail price rather than the wholesale price of the goods taken from the retailer. The items had been returned to the retailer following the arrest. Rather than attempt to resell the items on its website advertising “like new” items for sale, the retailer simply destroyed them or donated the items. It was error to base the value of the loss at the manufacturer’s suggested retail price. We will vacate the restitution order and remand for a new restitution hearing.

First Holding:

The defendant did not object on the specific ground that the measure should have been the wholesale value, but that it should have been calculated using a diminished value. Nonetheless, even assuming defendant did not properly object to the trial court’s calculation of restitution, reviewing courts may address issues on appeal that present pure questions of law. Because the proper measure of restitution presents a pure question of law, and in light of defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [an appellate court has authority to reach a forfeited claim]

Second Holding:

We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion. A victim’s restitution right is to be broadly and liberally construed. When there is a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court, no abuse of discretion will be found by the reviewing court.

Authority:

In re Johnny M. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1132

Third Holding:

A restitution order is not intended to provide the victim with a windfall; rather, it is intended to compensate for the victim’s actual loss. Here, there is no evidence in the record of any profits the retailer lost due to defendant’s crimes. As the People concede, giving the retailer restitution based on the retail value of the merchandise rather than the wholesale cost would provide a windfall, because such award would exceed the cost to replace those items.

Authority:

People v. Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1172, 1178-1180 [holding that hat because prosecutor presented no evidence that the retailer lost any profit due to the defendants’ theft, the court’s restitution order based on the retail price of the merchandise was improper]

Discretion, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing

Case: 000307

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand the matter for further proceedings on the firearm enhancements under Penal Code section 1385(c).

First Holding:

The defendant contends the court did not consider dismissing any of his four firearm enhancements under section 1385(c). He acknowledges his counsel didn’t ask the court to dismiss any of the enhancements, and he contends his attorney was constitutionally ineffective in that failure. The Attorney General contends the defendant has forfeited the issue. We exercise our discretion to consider the issue nevertheless, to resolve the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Trial courts have discretion to strike or dismiss firearm enhancements in the interest of justice under section 1385, which states that the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so.

Authority:

PEN 12022.5(c)

PEN 1385(c)(1)

Second Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, section 1385(c)(2) states sentencing courts 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. Of the nine mitigating circumstances listed in the statute, the only one that conceivably applies to the defendant is subparagraph (B): that multiple enhancements are alleged in a single case. Subparagraph (B) provides, “In this instance, all enhancements beyond a single enhancement shall be dismissed.”

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)(2)(B)

Third Holding:

The presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance does not create a presumption in favor of dismissal. Instead, absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a court must assign significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances when they are present. In practice, 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.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1032–1033

Fourth Holding:

However, section 1385(c) does not mean that, whenever a listed mitigating circumstance is present, the trial court must dismiss all enhancements unless it finds dismissal would endanger public safety. Even without a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, the trial court retains the discretion to impose or dismiss enhancements provided that it assigns significant value to the presence of any listed mitigating circumstances. We can’t tell whether the court considered the requirements of section 1385. Remand therefore is necessary.

Authority:

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

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

Fifth Holding:

When considering whether to strike a firearm enhancement, a trial court considers the same factors considered when handing down a sentence in the first instance.

Authority:

Nazir v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 478, 497