Tag Archives: Duty of the court

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 001005

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Section 654 barred punishment for the vandalism counts because those offenses involved the same course of conduct and objective as the attempted burglaries. We modify the judgment to impose concurrent terms on the three vandalism, stayed pursuant to section 654. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect the corrected sentence

First Holding:

Section 654 generally precludes multiple punishments for a single physical act that violates different provisions of law as well as multiple punishments for an indivisible course of conduct that violates more than one criminal statute. Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

If, on the other hand, the defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives that were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.

Authority:

PEN 654

In re Raymundo M. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 78, 94

Second Holding:

When a trial court determines that section 654 prohibits multiple punishments, it must impose a sentence for the conviction for which punishment is disallowed but stay its execution. Dismissal or imposition of a concurrent sentence is prohibited.

Authority:

People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 796

Third Holding:

While the trial court’s abstract of judgment properly stayed execution of punishment on vandalism two of the three counts subject to section 654, the abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction and does not control when it differs from the trial court’s oral judgment.

Here, the court’s language at sentencing was ambiguous: it said the vandalism counts would be “concurrent” and they “are 654” without expressly staying imposition of the concurrent sentences. Because the trial court verbally imposed an unauthorized sentence in violation of section 654, we direct that the abstract of judgment be corrected to the extent necessary to comply with section 654.

Authority:

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

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 001004

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal following remand from the defendant’s first appeal, the trial court failed to impose sentence on several counts whose punishment it stayed under section 654. It failed to impose a fine on a fifth count, and it improperly reimposed several other fines.

First Holding:

The court’s failure to pronounce sentence on some of the counts constitutes an unauthorized sentence. When a trial court determines that section 654 applies, the court must impose sentence on every count but stay execution as necessary to implement section 654. This procedure also applies when one of the sentences pertains to a misdemeanor conviction.

Authority:

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1472

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 380

Second Holding:

The defendant’s conviction under Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (driving under the influence) requires a fine, but the court failed to impose a fine.

Authority:

VEH 23536(a)

VEH 23600

People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 962 [defining an unauthorized sentence as one that cannot lawfully be imposed under any circumstances in a particular case]

Third Holding:

Having concluded that the trial court’s failure to impose sentences and to impose a fine resulted in an unauthorized sentence, we also conclude that remand is required to correct the errors. In other cases, we have exercised our authority under section 1260 to modify judgments in sentencing matters where remand would be futile or unnecessary because the record clearly indicated how the trial court would exercise its sentencing discretion.

Here, however, the trial court did not impose sentences on counts two, four, seven, and nine or the firearm enhancement associated with count two, or impose a fine on count six, either at the original sentencing or at the section 1172.75 resentencing. Given the range of sentencing options for the omitted counts and enhancement and the permissible range of the fine on count six, the record does not clearly indicate what sentences or fine the court would have imposed. Accordingly, remand is required.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1894, 1896

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473

Fourth Holding:

We disagree with the People that on remand, the defendant is entitled to a full resentencing. Section 1260 grants appellate courts the authority to order limited remands for further proceedings that may be appropriate under the circumstances. In resentencing the defendant in 2025, the trial court considered the relevant factors in formulating a sentence it deemed appropriate based on his culpability, criminal history, and his risk of future dangerousness.

The two limited tasks on remand (imposing and staying sentences on the omitted counts that the court had already indicated it intended to stay and imposing a fine on count six) will not alter the overall sentencing scheme the trial court deemed appropriate such that resentencing on all nine counts would be required.

For these reasons, we order a limited remand.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Wilson (2024) 16 Cal.5th 874, 948-949

People v. Stevens (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1452, 1456 [Correcting a sentencing error by excising only the flawed component of the sentence from the aggregate term may be appropriate in some contexts where the interests of justice and judicial economy do not require a restructuring of the entire sentencing format]

Fifth Holding:

The court erred in reimposing and staying several fees, despite making an implied finding that the defendant did not have an ability to pay. Equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8(a)(1) or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1).

Neither of the applicable statutes nor Kopp allows a trial court to impose then stay the court operations fee or the court facilities fee after it finds a defendant indigent. Once it found the defendant lacked the ability to pay, the court’s option was to not impose the fees.

Authority:

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

Sixth Holding:

The statutes authorizing certain other fees that were previously imposed have since been repealed and are now unenforceable and uncollectible. Any portion of a judgment imposing those fees must be vacated.

Authority:

GOV 6111(a)

Duty of counsel, Duty of the court, Immigration, Plea bargains, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000994

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea conviction under section 1473.7, because the defendant demonstrated entitlement to relief.

First Holding:

In response to the absence of a legal remedy for individuals who are no longer in custody but find themselves facing unanticipated immigration consequences resulting from a guilty or no contest plea entered years earlier, the Legislature added section 1473.7 to the Penal Code, effective January 1, 2017. The statute was subsequently amended to broaden eligibility for relief beyond the entry of a plea.

In relevant part, the statute now provides that individuals may file a motion for relief from a conviction or sentence on the basis that the conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence. Relief is not contingent upon establishing ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7(a)

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 522-523

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 12-13

Second Holding:

A defendant must satisfy three statutory requirements to be eligible to seek relief from a legally invalid conviction or sentence under section 1473.7(a)(1). The movant must show he is no longer in criminal custody, and the conviction or sentence being challenged is currently causing or has the potential to cause removal or the denial of an application for an immigration benefit, lawful status, or naturalization. The motion must also be timely.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 13

Third Holding:

To prevail under section 1473.7, a defendant must demonstrate that his conviction is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging his or her ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence.

The defendant must first show that he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea.

Next, the defendant must show that his misunderstanding constituted prejudicial error.

Prejudical error means demonstrating a reasonable probability that the defendant would have rejected the plea if the defendant had correctly understood its actual or potential immigration consequences.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529

Fourth Holding:

We evaluate prejudicial error under the totality of the circumstances.

Factors particularly relevant to this inquiry include the defendant’s ties to the United States, the importance the defendant placed on avoiding deportation, the defendant’s priorities in seeking a plea bargain, and whether the defendant had reason to believe an immigration-neutral negotiated disposition was possible.

The defendant’s probability of obtaining a more favorable outcome if he had rejected the plea and the difference between the bargained-for term and the likely term if he were convicted at trial are also relevant.

These factors are not exhaustive, and no single type of evidence is a prerequisite to relief.

A defendant must provide objective evidence to corroborate factual assertions. Objective evidence includes facts provided by declarations, contemporaneous documentation of the defendant’s immigration concerns or interactions with counsel, and evidence of the charges the defendant faced.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 320-321

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529-530

People v. Martinez (2013) 57 Cal.4th 555, 564

Lee v. United States (2017) 582 U.S. 357, 358

Fifth Holding:

On appeal, we apply independent review to evaluate whether a defendant has demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea offer had he understood its immigration consequences.

We exercise independent judgment to determine whether the facts satisfy the rule of law, and defer to the trial court’s factual determinations if they are based on the credibility of witnesses the superior court heard and observed.

However, when, as in this case, the trial court’s findings derive entirely from written declarations and other documents, the trial court and the reviewing court are in the same position, and no deference is owed.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319-320

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 527-528

Sixth Holding:

The focus of this inquiry is the defendant’s own error. Thus, the key is the mindset of the defendant and not what an objectively reasonable person would have understood under the circumstances.

The defendant is the only one with direct access to his state of mind, but a defendant’s assertion as to his or her state of mind is not accepted at face value by courts evaluating a section 1473.7 motion. Such assertions must be corroborated with objective evidence.

A party seeking relief under section 1473.7 is not required to provide the declaration of plea counsel.

Authority:

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 16-17

People v. Mejia (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 859, 871

People v. Alatorre (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 747, 769

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 325

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 962

Seventh Holding:

The standard section 1016.5 advisement—given to all criminal defendants in California who plead guilty to any offense other than an infraction—that his or her criminal conviction may have adverse immigration consequences does not bar a defendant from seeking relief from his plea on grounds of mistake or ignorance based on immigration consequences. Thus, the fact the superior court advised defendant pursuant to section 1016.5 does not resolve the matter against defendant.

Authority:

People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 889, 895

People v. Lopez (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 561, 577-578

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 320

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 962

Eighth Holding:

Prior to Padilla, there was no Sixth Amendment obligation on the part of defense counsel to affirmatively advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of a conviction. Rather, most courts had determined that no such duty existed.

As a general rule, a failure to anticipate changes in the law is not considered ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Gary note:  I think we all know what the court means by “Prior to Padilla, there was no Sixth Amendment obligation ….”  But I think a more accurate statement would be something like, “Padilla was the first pronouncement by the United States Supreme Court recognizing that the Sixth Amendment places an obligation on the part of defense counsel to ….”  The Sixth Amendment was certainly not amended to add any provision generating a new obligation.  The Sixth Amendment has been around for centuries, unchanged.  It was only its import that hadn’t been seen in the past, at least by the High Court.

(The court’s phrasing as I’ve set out in the Ninth Holding tracks what I’m saying.

(I mention this because I think sometimes it is important to argue that something is NOT new law, and that it has BEEN the law all along, notwithstanding that it had not previously been understood to be the law.  Why is that important?  It can make the difference in whether a court recognizes that your client’s rights were violated, even though it was only through a later appellate analysis that the nature of the violation was discovered.  We don’t want the court to assume that, because no court had seen it before, your client is not entitled to its benefit.

(There have been decisions, of course, that decline to revisit cases where, had the law been understood at the time, there would have been a different result.  But that is generally related to the principle of finality of judgment and the jurisdiction of the court to act on the case.  While not directly the same, think of the Estrada presumption of retroactivity of ameliorative changes in the law to those whose judgments are not final, in the absence of clear intent that the change was to be applied prospectively only.  

(Just sayin’.

(Of course, with respect to Padilla, the practical effect is that yes, the Sixth Amendment imposes the obligation on the attorney to provide the advice, but the failure to do so prior to Padilla is not tantamount to ineffective assistance of counsel as that principle has been described in the past.  As the court in this case said, relying on In re Grinder, “As a general rule, a failure to anticipate changes in the law is not considered ineffective assistance of counsel.”

(Was there a change in the law?  Or simply a change in the understanding of the Sixth Amendment?  Of course, the opposition might argue that court pronouncements dictate what is the law, and therefore they represent the law, and thererfore it wasn’t until Padilla that the Sixth Amendment created the obligation.  An interesting debate, or not, but for another time.)  

Authority:

Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356

Chaidez v. United States (2013) 568 U.S. 342, 353

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 17

In re Grinder (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 845, 872

Ninth Holding:

Here, defendant entered his plea 15 years before the United States Supreme Court held in Padilla that the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to provide affirmative and competent advice to noncitizen defendants regarding the potential immigration consequences of their criminal cases. As such, defendant’s attestation that his attorney did not advise him about the immigration consequences of his plea is consistent with the state of the law at that time.

(Gary note: The appellate court examined and analyzed extensively many facts in the record from which it concluded that, based primarily on the principles I have extracted in this summary, the defendant was entitled to relief because his plea was not entered knowingly and intelligently within the contemplation of section 1473.7. I have omitted those details, some of which included citations to other cases apparently relevant to those details. Since this was an unpublished decision and cannot be cited for comparison, and since this is supposed to be a summary and not a copy of the entire decision, I have to stop about here.)

Authority:

PEN 1016.2

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 18

People v. Rodriguez (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 301, 307–312

 

Duty of the court, Jury trial, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000993

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court failed to properly advise the defendant of his right to a jury trial on certain aggravating factors, and that his admissions to those factors were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Accordingly, we vacate appellant’s sentence and remand the matter for a full resentencing.

Before the matter was submitted to the jury, appellant admitted the allegations of circumstances in aggravation under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2) through (5). During the admission colloquy, the trial court advised appellant that he only had the right to a court trial on the truth of the allegations. We agree with the defendant that this advisement was incorrect, and that the record does not establish that his admissions were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

The factors in question under rule 4.421(b) are, in essence:
(2) The defendant’s prior convictions are numerous and of increasing seriousness;
(3) The defendant has served prior terms in prison;
(4) The defendant was on probation or parole when he committed the alleged offenses; and
(5) The defendant’s prior performance on probation and parole was unsatisfactory.

First Holding:

A criminal defendant has the right to a jury trial on the facts underlying aggravating factors used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence under section 1170(b). That right is not merely a state law entitlement, but is constitutionally required for all aggravating facts.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 757

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078

Second Holding:

Section 1170(b)(3) provides a limited exception for prior convictions, permitting the court to consider them based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Our Supreme Court has clarified, however, that the exception is narrowly limited to the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements.

Applying this principle, Wiley held that jury findings were required for aggravating factors based on increasingly serious prior convictions and unsatisfactory prior performance on probation or parole.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082

Third Holding:

Because the Sixth Amendment affords a defendant the right to a jury trial on alleged aggravating factors, a valid admission to those factors requires the same advisements and waivers required for a stipulation to a prior conviction.

This includes advisement and waiver of the defendant’s Boykin-Tahl rights: the right to a jury trial, the right to confront adverse witnesses, and the privilege against self-incrimination.  A defendant must also be advised of the penal consequences of the admission.

If the trial court fails to properly advise the defendant of these rights or consequences, reversal is required unless the record affirmatively shows, under the totality of the circumstances, that the admission was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Authority:

People v. Kinnear (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1116, 1127

People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, 745–746

Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238

In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122

People v. Cross (2015) 61 Cal.4th 164, 170

People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 361–365

Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000988

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment produced upon resentencing failed to include several years of custody credit earned between his original sentencing in 2019 and resentencing in 2025. The abstract must be corrected.

Holding:

The abstract of judgment produced upon resentencing failed to include several years of custody credit earned between his original sentencing in 2019 and resentencing in 2025. When resentencing results in a modification of a felony sentence during the term of imprisonment, the trial court must calculate the actual time the defendant has already served and credit that time against the new sentence. We will therefore direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the defendant’s current custody and conduct credit.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23

Gary Note:

(Gary note: It is not clear from the wording of the opinion whether absence of credit was because the trial court did not update the credits on resentence, or the clerk simply did not update the abstract of judgment to reflect the court ordered. Though the appellate court cited Buckhalter on the duty to recalculate, it cited no authority for correcting an erroneous abstract of judgment. For your convenience, I have listed below several cases the court could have drawn from as authority for an appellate court to order correction of an abstract of judgment.)

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

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

Case 000978

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

First Holding:

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

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

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

Second Holding:

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

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

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

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

Fifth Holding:

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

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

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

Sixth Holding:

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

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

Authority:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court

Case 000976

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Following the resentencing hearing on remand from the defendant’s earlier appeal, the minute order and the abstract of judgment fail to reflect the oral judgment, and each must be corrected.

First Holding:

The trial court was required to prepare an amended abstract of judgment showing the entirety of defendant’s sentence, including the fines, fees, and credits, imposed at the resentencing hearing.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–186

Second Holding:

The minute order states only that the trial court gave a ruling “as on the record” about the aggravating circumstances, without specifying the findings on the aggravating circumstances.

When the defendant waives a jury trial and is tried by the court, the court is required to announce its factual findings at the conclusion of the hearing, which shall be in substantially the form prescribed for the general verdict of a jury and shall be entered in the minutes.

The minute order must be amended to reflect those findings as required.

Authority:

PEN 1167

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000965

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(Gary note: Alas, this is yet another “not a win.” But it is yet another instance of an error in the abstract of judgment.)

The defendant was resentenced under section 1172.75. The abstract of judgment does not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement and must be corrected. Further, the trial court failed to recalculate the defendant’s actual custody credits from the date of his arrest to the date of resentencing.

First Holding:

The amended abstract of judgment fails to reflect that the trial court sentenced the defendant to two consecutive 25-year to life terms for burglary and robbery, plus a three-year enhancement on the robbery count under section 12022.7, a stayed, three-year enhancement on the burglary count under section 12022.7, and concurrent five-year enhancements under section 667(a) on both the robbery and burglary counts. We will direct the trial court to correct this error.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.]

Second Holding:

The trial court also failed to recalculate the defendant’s actual custody credits from the date of his arrest to the date of resentencing. A court that modifies a defendant’s sentence must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served, whether before or since he was originally committed and delivered to prison custody. The court must also calculate conduct credits for the period before the original sentencing hearing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 41 [under section 2900.1, the trial court, having modified defendant’s sentence, should have determined all actual days defendant had spent in custody and awarded such credits in the new abstract of judgment]

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 673

Appellate Principles, Due process, Duty of the court, Standard of review

Case 000954

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in by using the wrong standard in ruling on the defendant’s motion to modify the verdict pursuant to Penal Code section 1181(6). We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for reconsideration of appellant’s motion to modify the verdict.

First Holding:

The defendant’s claim that the prosecution engaged in misconduct during oral argument is forfeited because there was no objection. Generally, a defendant must make a timely objection and a request that the jury be admonished to disregard the impropriety, unless the objection would have been futile or the error could not be cured by an admonition.

Authority:

People v. Aguirre (2025) 18 Cal.5th 629, 705

Second Holding:

It is true that a prosecutor may violate a defendant’s constitutional rights when the prosecutor engages in a course of conduct so egregious that it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process. The claimed misconduct here was not so egregious as to result in a denial of due process.

Authority:

Miller v. Pate (1967) 386 U.S. 1, 7 [multiple misrepresentations of fact]

Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 [withholding of exculpatory evidence]

Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [the prosecutor’s argument prejudices a specific right, such as the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination]

Third Holding:

After the jury returned the verdict, the defendant brought a motion to modify the verdict pursuant to section 1181(6) on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction for first degree murder. The defendant asked the court to review and reweigh the evidence presented at trial and modify the verdict to a finding of second-degree murder or manslaughter. The court applied the wrong standard in considering and denying the motion. It stated that had the judge been on the jury, he likely wuold have had a different decision, but he was not the jury, and he was required to honor the sanctity of the jury.

This is an inaccurate statement of the correct standard. The court conflated a sufficiency of the evidence review, in which the verdict is upheld if there is any evidence to support it, with its duty to independently determine whether the element of premeditation had been proven. Under the correct standard, in considering a motion under section 1181(6), the trial judge independently weighs the evidence, rather than applying the substantial evidence rule and determining legal sufficiency.

Authority:

People v. Veitch (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 460, 468

Fourth Holding:

Section 1181(6) provides in relevant part that the court may grant a new trial when the verdict or finding is contrary to law or evidence, but if the evidence shows the defendant to be not guilty of the degree of the crime of which he was convicted, but guilty of a lesser degree thereof, the court may modify the verdict or judgment accordingly without granting or ordering a new trial.

Authority:

PEN 1181(6)

Fifth Holding:

In considering a motion under section 1181(6), the court extends no evidentiary deference in ruling on the motion. Instead, it independently examines all the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to prove each required element beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge, who sits, in effect, as a 13th juror. It is the trial court’s function to determine independently whether it is satisfied that there is sufficient credible evidence to sustain the verdict.

Authority:

Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 133

People v. Dickens (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1254

Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000953

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in setting the maximum confinement time for the minor to life imprisonment, because it did not make a finding that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated.

First Holding:

When committing a juvenile to a secure youth treatment facility as in the case here, the court must set a maximum term of confinement. The maximum term of confinement shall not exceed the middle term of imprisonment that can be imposed upon an adult convicted of the same offense or offenses.

Authority:

WIC 975(c)(1)

Second Holding:

Attempted murder is generally punishable by five, seven or nine years in state prison. However, if the attempted murder is willful, deliberate, and premeditated, and that fact is charged in the accusatory pleading and found true by the trier of fact, the crime is punishable by life in prison with the possibility of parole.

Authority:

PEN 664(a), 190

Third Holding:

A reading of the transcript of the proceedings reveal that neither the prosecution nor the court believed that the charge contained the language invoking a life term for the conviction of attempted murder. The trial court’s statement that “the intent to kill is clear” is insufficient because the mere intent to kill is not the equivalent of a deliberate and premeditated intent to kill.

The trial court never found, whether expressly or impliedly, that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. The seven-year-to-life maximum term of confinement for count 1 is therefore unauthorized. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new disposition hearing.

(Gary note: The court did not cite additional authority for its reversal and remand order; likely, none was necessary. The court did cite Boatman, but that was on the point that intent to kill is not the equivalent of deliberated and premeditated intent to kill. Much of the court’s reasoning consisted of analysis of the comments at the disposition hearing, where the prosecution and court seemed to be under the impression that the charging document did not invoke the life term provisions, even though, in fact, the charging document did.

(But the oral pronouncements of the court strongly imply that it specifically did not conclude that the act was “willful, deliberate, and premeditated,” and that an underlying crime was planned, but the shooting was not. Hence, even though the charging document alleged it, the life term cannot be imposed/set as a maximum in the absence of a true finding on the necessary elements.)

Authority:

People v. Boatman (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1264

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000950

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(Gary note: this is not necessarily a win, but I included it because it contains authority that might be useful at some point, if it works to the benefit of the defendant. In this instance, the court remanded for a full resentencing, which could be beneficial to the defendant, because the trial court should be able to consider his progress since the initial sentencing. Assuming there has been progress.

(Keep in mind the original section 1170(d)–which is not related to this case at all–that allowed a judge to recall a sentence at any time during the first 120 days after commitment. I think the concept was that maybe a judge could be persuaded to soften a bit once the defendant has some real time under his belt. Now, of course, the appropriate section has been redesigned and renumbered to 1170.1, which is not at issue in this case, either. But my point is that the defendant might be able to convince the judge to soften from the original sentence. On the other hand, the judge might simply add the full sentence allowed for the misdemeanor and run it consecutively. So, ….)

The trial court neglected to sentence the defendant on count 7, misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. The failure to pronounce sentence on this count was error and that the appropriate remedy is remand for a full resentencing.

First Holding:

A trial court has a duty in both felony and misdemeanor cases to pronounce sentence on every conviction.

Authority:

PEN 12

PEN 1202

PEN 1445

People v. Eberhardt (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1112, 1121–1122

People v. Cheffen (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 638, 641–642

People v. Morrow (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 507, 514.)

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 994

In re Sandel (1966) 64 Cal.2d 412, 415

Second Holding:

The failure to pronounce sentence on a count is an unauthorized sentence and subject to correction on remand.

Authority:

People v. Price (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1405, 1411, fn. 6

People v. Benton (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 92, 102 [failure to either strike or impose enhancement was analogous to a failure to pronounce sentence on all counts, which is the type of unauthorized sentence that can be corrected by remand on the defendant’s appeal]

Third Holding:

Even if the minute order or the abstract of judgment did reflect a sentence on count 7, failure to pronounce sentence orally renders the sentence unauthorized.

Authority:

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2 [the record of the oral pronouncement of the court controls over the clerk’s minute order]

People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 [rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement and controls over minutes and abstract of judgment]

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–388

Fourth Holding:

Under these circumstances, we agree with the parties that the proper remedy is a remand for full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 431 [remand is the default unless there is a clear indication from the sentencing court that it would be idle to do so]

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 994–995

People v. Burbine (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1257–1258 [finding full resentencing appropriate given the interlocking nature and inherently integrated nature of felony sentencing for a multiple-count conviction]

Fifth Holding:

Remand is appropriate for the additional reason that the trial court should decide whether section 654 applies to count 7 in the first instance.

(Gary note: The court did not mention it, because it really wasn’t even an issue raised and this mention was strictly in a footnote, but under section 654, the trial court could choose EITHER affected count to sentence the defendant under. So if the misdemeanor and a felony were subject to a single sentence under section 654, the court could impose the misdemeanor sentence and stay the felony sentence. Could happen.)

Authority:

People v. Deegan (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 532, 545, fn. 4 [the question whether section 654 is factually applicable to a given series of offenses is for the trial court, and the law gives the trial court broad latitude in making this determination]

People v. Jones (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 37, 46 [concluding in part that the need to apply section 654 warrants a full resentencing]

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000942

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in failing to follow this court’s instructions in the defendant’s prior appeal to dismiss the enhancement imposed under section 12022.53(e) unless the prosecution successfully retries under the gang allegations–necessary for that enhancement–under the provisions as amended by AB 333. The prosecution chose not to retry the allegations, so the enhancement must be vacated.

Holding:

(Gary note: this did not actually affect the sentence because punishment for the affected enhancement had previously been imposed but stayed by the trial court. Vacating the enhancement merely vacated a sentence for it that was already stayed.

(Also, the nature of the order did not require citation to case authority, as it was simply an observation that a previous order of the appellate court had not been carried out, so it ordered the court to carry out the appellate court’s previous order. But the court did cite cases relevant to its reason for the initial order that the gang-reliant enhancements must be retried if punishment for them is to be imposed.)

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 327, 347–348, disapproved of on other grounds in People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 764, fn. 8 [Because the sec. 12022.53(e) firearm enhancement depended on the jury finding a violation of sec. 186.22(b), vacating that finding in light of AB 333 required vacating sec. 12022.53(e) enhancement]