Tag Archives: Due Process

Abstracts and Minutes, Due process, Equal protection, Jury trial, Racial Justice Act, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000262

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by permitting the prosecution’s peremptory challenge to a juror, within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 (CCP 231.7), which requires reversal. The court also erred in denying the defendant’s motion for discovery under the Racial Justice Act (RJA) to support his claim that racial bias infected his case. We conclude the trial court misapplied the applicable legal standards. We conclude that the trial court erroneously applied the law in denying the defendant’s motion for discovery. The defendant also contends that the abstract of judgment should be corrected because it does not reflect the trial court’s ruling regarding his fees and fines. Because we reverse the conviction, we need not reach this issue.

First Holding:

Both the federal and state Constitutions prohibit any advocate’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors based on race. Doing so violates both the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and the right to trial by a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community under article I, section 16 of the California Constitution. Excluding by peremptory challenge even a single juror on the basis of race or ethnicity is an error of constitutional magnitude.

Authority:

People v. Holmes, McClain and Newborn (2022) 12 Cal.5th 719, 759–760

People v. Gutierrez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1150, 1157

Second Holding:

After studies showed that the existing analysis under Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 was inadequate to prevent racial discrimination, the Legislature enacted CCP 231.7, effective in criminal trials beginning January 1, 2022, to establish a new process for identifying unlawful bias in the use of peremptory challenges during jury selection.

Authority:

People v. Jimenez (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 534, 539–540

Third Holding:

In contrast to the three-step Batson/Wheeler procedure, under CCP 231.7, there is no requirement that the objecting party first make a showing of purposeful discrimination. Rather, upon objection, the party exercising the peremptory challenge shall state the reasons the peremptory challenge has been exercised. The trial court shall evaluate the reasons given to justify the peremptory challenge in light of the totality of the circumstances. In doing so, the court shall consider only the reasons actually given and shall not speculate on, or assume the existence of, other possible justifications for the use of the peremptory challenge.

Authority:

CCP 231.7

People v. Jaime (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 941, 943

People v. Hinojos (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 524, 540–541

Fourth Holding:

Unlike in the Batson/Wheeler analysis, the ultimate question for the trial court is not whether the party exercising the peremptory challenge engaged in purposeful discrimination. The statute expressly recognizes that discrimination in violation of this section need not be purposeful, but may involve unconscious bias, which includes implicit and institutional biases. The trial court shall sustain the objection to the use of the peremptory challenge if the court determines there is a substantial likelihood that an objectively reasonable person [aware that unconscious bias, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in the unfair exclusion of potential jurors in the State of California], would view race as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge. The statute defines “substantial likelihood” as more than a mere possibility but less than a standard of more likely than not.

Authority:

CCP 231.7

People v. Hinojos (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 524, 541

Fifth Holding:

CCP 231.7, subdivisions (e) and (g) provide two separate lists of presumptively invalid reasons for exercising a peremptory challenge. Each of these subdivisions sets out a distinct process by which a court determines whether a presumptively invalid reason can be absolved of that presumption.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(e),(g)

People v. Ortiz (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 768, 793

Sixth Holding:

The denial of an objection shall be reviewed de novo, with the trial court’s express factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence. Erroneous denial of a challenge is deemed prejudicial and requires reversal of the judgment and remand for a new trial.

Authority:

CCP 231.7

Seventh Holding:

We review the factual underpinnings of a discovery order for substantial evidence, but where such a determination rests on incorrect legal premises, our review is de novo.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court of Solano County (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 156

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th pp. Supp. 36, 55

Eighth Holding:

Penal Code section 745 authorizes a defendant to file a discovery motion at trial as soon as practicable upon the defendant learning of an alleged violation, and requires the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing if the defendant makes a prima facie showing of the violation.

Authority:

PEN 745

Ninth Holding:

To establish good cause for discovery under the RJA, a defendant is required to advance a plausible factual foundation, based on specific facts, that a violation of the RJA could or might have occurred in his case. This is a notably less demanding standard than the prima facie requirement set forth in the statute for granting an evidentiary hearing, and a standard that should not be difficult to meet.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court of Solano County (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 159

McDaniel v. Superior Court (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 228, 244 [trial court should consider the relevance of the proffered facts to the claims of racial bias to determine whether a minimally plausible basis exists to grant discovery—a low threshold]

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th pp. Supp. 36, 44 [reversing denial of discovery motion where defendant had minimally proffered a plausible factual foundation for a potential violation of the RJA]

Tenth Holding:

[Gary note: The abstract of judgment apparently did not reflect the court’s order regarding fines and fees. The opinion gave no further information, because the issue would be addressed on remand for other reasons. But the law is clear that the court could have ordered correction of the abstract of judgment and minute orders. I have set forth some cases it could have relied on had it addressed the issue.]

Authority:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Due process, Sentencing

Case: 000248

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Error and/or relief:
At the resentencing hearing ordered as result of a the prior appeal, the trial court erred by resentencing the defendant without his personal presence, failing to conduct a full resentencing, and miscalculating his credits for time served.

[Gary note: the opinion indicates that the abstract following the remand was incorrect, that an amended abstract filed thereafter was incorrect in other respects, and a new amended abstract contained several errors–including in the minute order that the defendant had waived his presence, yet there was nothing in the reporter’s transcripts to indicate he had waived his presence. I reiterate a comment I made in an earlier post: Counsel really should examine the abstracts of judgment carefully, whether the defendant was the client at the trial level or at the appellate level.]

First Holding:

A defendant has a constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of the criminal prosecution, i.e., all stages of the trial where his absence might frustrate the fairness of the proceedings. The defendant’s right to be present includes at a resentencing hearing.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (1998) 17 Cal.4th 253, 260 [right to presence following remand to consider dismissing strike]

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 348

Second Holding:

Section 977 requires that a felony defendant shall be physically present at the time of the imposition of sentence. It allows a defendant to waive their physical presence only for other proceedings.

Authority:

PEN 977(b)(1)

Third Holding:

Notwithstanding section 977, waiver of personal appearance at felony sentencing is permitted by section 1193 if the defendant, in open court and on the record or in a notarized writing, requests that judgment be pronounced against the defendant in his or her absence. This provision applies to resentencing following an appellate court remand. But the defendant did not waive his right to be present at sentencing in open court or by a notarized writing. Accordingly, the trial court erred when it resentenced him without his personal presence.

Authority:

PEN 977(b)(1)

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 345-346

People v. Sanchez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1414

Fourth Holding:

At the resentencing, the trial court failed to update the defendant’s custody credits. The amended abstract must include credit for actual days in custody after the original sentencing until the date of resentencing. On remand, the trial court must calculate the actual time in prison; the determination of prison conduct credits is left to the prison administration

Authority:

People v. Sanchez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1418

People v. Honea (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 842, 845, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Johnson (2004) 32 Cal.4th 260, 268, fn. 3.

Fifth Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing ‘a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

Sixth Holding:

Although we concluded in the first appeal that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion to dismiss the strike pursuant to Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th 497, the trial court on resentencing had jurisdiction to reconsider that ruling.

Authority:

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 364

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

People v. Rodriguez (1998) 17 Cal.4th 253, 260

Appellate Principles, Due process, Sentencing

Case 000235

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Intro blurb here

First Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Second Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Due process

Case: 000154

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After the preliminary hearing, the defendant failed to appear at a trial readiness conference. The trial court then allowed the prosecution to amend the information to add a fourth charge for willful failure to appear on felony charges. The case proceeded to trial and a jury found the defendant guilty of all four counts. The court’s ruling violated section 1009 and impinged upon his constitutional due process rights because the new charge was not supported by evidence from the preliminary hearing.

First Holding:

The court may allow amendment of the accusatory pleading to correct or make more specific the factual allegations of the offense charged at any stage of the proceeding, up to and including the close of trial, if there would be no prejudice to the defendant.

Authority:

People v. Graff (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 345, 361

Second Holding:

Section 1009 provides that an indictment or accusation cannot be amended so as to change the offense charged, nor an information so as to charge an offense not shown by the evidence taken at the preliminary examination.

Authority:

People v. Rogers (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1360 [Section 1009 prohibits amending an information to charge an offense not shown by evidence taken at the preliminary hearing, even if the amendment would not prejudice the defendant or if the defendant had notice of the facts underlying the new charges.]

People v. Peyton (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 642, 654 [In enacting section 1009, the Legislature determined that an accusatory pleading cannot be amended based on evidence not taken at the preliminary hearing]

People v. Winters (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 997, 1007 [Section 1009 specifically proscribes amending an information to charge an offense not shown by the evidence taken at the preliminary hearing.]

Third Holding:

The trial court’s accession to an amendment to the information, including the addition of counts, is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The trial court abused its discretion by permitting the amendment at issue. The preliminary hearing was held before the defendant committed the acts giving rise to the new charge of failure to appear. Therefore, the new charge was not based on evidence from that hearing. By allowing the prosecution to add the new charge, the court violated section 1009 and exceeded the bounds of its discretion

Authority:

People v. Arevalo-Iraheta (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1574, 1581

Fourth Holding:

Case law has recognized that reversal is automatic where, as here, a defendant is convicted of an offense that was not based on evidence taken at a preliminary hearing. It is as a matter of law irrelevant whether a defendant is prejudiced by being prosecuted for an offense not shown by the evidence at the preliminary hearing. Before any accused person can be called upon to defend himself on any charge prosecuted by information, he is entitled to preliminary examination. These proceedings are essential to confer jurisdiction upon the court before whom he is placed on trial. To say that he was accorded a fair trial upon an information filed against him without a substantial compliance with these jurisdictional requirements, and, therefore, that there had been no miscarriage of justice, hardly meets the situation. Such an argument would apply with equal force to the validity of the conviction upon an information filed by the district attorney in a case where no preliminary examination at all had been held. Such practice would result, in legal effect, in wiping out all provisions of the Constitution and the Penal Code providing for a preliminary examination, and in clothing the district attorney with unlimited authority to file information against whomsoever in his judgment he might consider guilty of crime.

Authority:

People v. Burnett (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 151, 177

People v. Winters (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 997, 1007

Fifth Holding:

A defendant’s conviction of a charge that was improperly added to a charging instrument is unquestionably prejudicial.

Authority:

People v. Dominguez (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 858, 868

Jurisdiction

Case 000050 (remember, there is no 000049)

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in imposing a $100 infraction fine after defendant failed to submit a firearm relinquishment form. Here, the People did not charge or approve the charging of an infraction for failure to file a completed Prohibited Persons Relinquishment Form. Nevertheless, the trial court found that defendant did not file the required form and imposed the $100 fine. As the People concede, this was beyond its power to do. We will modify the judgment to strike the fine.

Holding:

The court may not unilaterally fine a defendant for failing to complete a firearms relinquishment form. The process requires first that a prosecutor file a complaint alleging violation of Penal Code section 29810. Section 29810 requires persons convicted of a felony to relinquish all firearms within a prescribed period of time following the conviction. Failure by a defendant to timely file the completed Prohibited Persons Relinquishment Form with the assigned probation officer shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding $100. But due process of law requires that criminal prosecutions be instituted through the regular processes of law. These regular processes include the requirement that the institution of any criminal proceeding be authorized and approved by the district attorney.

Authority:

PEN 29810

People v. Villatoro (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 365, 369