Tag Archives: Duty of the court

Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Juveniles, Retroactivity

Case 000861

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The juvenile court did not declare on the record that either of the minor’s two aggravated assault offenses was a felony or a misdemeanor, as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 702

Section 730.6 requires that the restitution fines imposed must be stricken.

The precommitment credits must be corrected.

First Holding:

Section 702 provides, in part, that when a 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.

Section 702 requires the juvenile court to declare on the record at a hearing ‘before or at the time of disposition its choice whether to treat an alleged wobbler as a misdemeanor or as a felony. Neither the pleading, the minute order, nor the setting of a felony-level period of confinement may substitute for the required declaration.

Authority:

WIC 702

In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 712

Second Holding:

A section 702 error is not harmless unless the record shows that the juvenile court was aware of, and exercised its discretion as to each wobbler alleged against the minor. The key issue under this standard is whether the juvenile court was aware of its discretion under section 702.

Authority:

In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 712, 717

Third Holding:

This section 702 error was not harmless. Signed minute orders in the two assault cases stated, “Pursuant to Juvenile Court Rule 5.795(a), the court finds the offense to be a Felony as to count 1.”

This language tracks recommendations in a memorandum probation filed for disposition. However, rule 5.795(a) states that for any wobbler, the court must consider which description applies and expressly declare on the record that it has made such consideration and must state its determination as to whether the offense is a misdemeanor or a felony.

The court’s failure to comply with the very rule cited undermines any inference that it was aware of its discretion.

Authority:

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.795(a)

Fourth Holding:

The juvenile court imposed three $200 restitution fines. Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) amended section 730.6 to remove the requirement that a minor pay a restitution fine.  The relevant portion of the statute now provides: “The court shall not impose a separate and additional restitution fine against a minor found to be a person described in section 602.”

Appellant is entitled to the ameliorative benefit of this amendment.

Authority:

WIC 730.6(a)(2)

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745-746

Fifth Holding:

The court erred in calculating the credit for time served, awarding the minor less than half the more than 450 days the minor was entitled to. A minor is entitled to credit against his or her maximum term of confinement for the time spent in custody before the disposition hearing.

When a juvenile court elects to aggregate a minor’s period of physical confinement on multiple petitions the court must also aggregate the predisposition custody credits attributable to those multiple petitions.

Authority:

In re A.M. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1085-1086

Sixth Holding:

Section 628.2(c) provides that a minor shall be entitled to have one day credited against the minor’s maximum term of confinement for each day, or fraction thereof, that the minor serves on electronic monitoring. The provision of custody credits pursuant to this subdivision shall apply to custody credits earned beginning January 1, 2023.

Because the minor was on electronic monitoring after January 1, 2023, he is entitled to credits for that time.

Authority:

WIC 628.2(c)

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000856

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This is an appeal from a hearing on the petition for resentencing under section 1172.75. Because the trial court did not orally pronounce sentence on defendant’s conviction, impose the mandatory parole revocation fine, or calculate credits for time served, we remand the matter for full resentencing. On remand, the trial court is directed to orally impose judgment; determine what the amount of the restitution fine would have been so it can impose, then stay, the parole revocation fine in a proper amount, and calculate credit for time served.

First Holding:

Our review of the record reveals the court did not orally pronounce judgment. Accordingly, we must remand the matter for a full resentencing. The failure to pronounce sentence on a count is an unauthorized sentence and subject to correction on remand, as is the failure to impose a parole revocation fine required by section 1202.45. Because an unauthorized sentence is a narrow exception to the general requirement that only those claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal, we raise the issue even though neither party has addressed it.

Authority:

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

People v. Terrell (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1255

People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19, 26

Second Holding:

Because the trial court’s recall of defendant’s sentence pursuant to section 1172.75(c) vacated that sentence, the trial court was required to conduct a full resentencing. While the court struck defendant’s now-invalid section 667.5(b) enhancements and ruled on his Romero motion, it did not orally pronounce judgment on defendant for his conviction for possessing cocaine. Nor did it orally reimpose the restitution fine or parole revocation fine or calculate actual custody credits. Because the trial court’s failure to orally pronounce judgment resulted in an unauthorized sentence, we remand for a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 360-361

Third Holding:

While the term of imprisonment, parole revocation fine, and actual custody credits are nevertheless listed in the minute order and abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement of judgment controls over both.

Authority:

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

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

Fourth Holding:

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

Authority:

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

Fifth Holding:

Add Section 1465.9 bars reimposition of the restitution fine upon defendant. Because the restitution fine was originally imposed on defendant more than 10 years ago, the fine is uncollectable and unenforceable by operation of law.
blurb here

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

People v. Bertsch and Hronis (2026) 19 Cal.5th 183, 332

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600-601 [resentencing does not restart sec. 1465.9’s 10-year clock], review granted on a different issue Mar. 11, 2026, S295038

Sixth Holding:

Although section 1465.9(d) imposed a 10-year limit on the enforcement and collection of the restitution fine, it did not provide relief with respect to the parole revocation fine. Under section 1202.45 and Kopp that fine remains mandatory and must be set in the same amount as the court would have set for defendant’s restitution fine even though the restitution fine itself may no longer be reimposed.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23-24

Seventh Holding:

Finally, at resentencing, the trial court is required to credit the defendant with all actual days he had spent in custody up to that time, including time in custody after the original sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

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

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000853

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault on a child. We agree the trial court did not make the necessary probable cause finding for the defendant to undergo AIDS testing absent evidence of transfer of bodily fluids. Remanded for the court to hold a hearing to see if there is evidence warranting the order.

First Holding:

Section 1202.1 requires that a court order AIDS testing if the defendant is convicted of specified sex offenses if the court finds that there is probable cause to believe that blood, semen, or any other bodily fluid capable of transmitting HIV has been transferred from the defendant to the victim.

Authority:

PEN 1202.1(e)(5)(A)

Second Holding:

There was no evidence presented to the sentencing court that such a transfer occurred. But it would be inappropriate simply to strike the testing order without remanding for further proceedings to determine whether the prosecution has additional evidence that may establish the requisite probable cause. On remand, the court should conduct further proceedings to determine whether probable cause exists to order AIDS testing under section 1202.1(e)(5)(A).

Authority:

People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, 1129

Discretion, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000849

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing hearing held under section 1172.75, the resentencing court erred by (1) imposing consecutive sentences on the defendant’s attempted murder and felon in possession of a firearm counts because the court was unaware of its discretion to impose concurrent terms, (2) not recalculating custody credits, and (3) reimposing a restitution fine under section 1202.4.

First Holding:

When the Three Strikes law applies, sentences for current qualifying offenses must be ordered to run consecutively to each other if the current offenses occur on separate occasions and do not arise from the same set of operative facts.

Conversely, where a sentencing court determines that two or more current felony convictions were either committed on the same occasion or arise from the same set of operative facts, consecutive sentencing is not required under the three strikes law, but is permissible in the trial court’s sound discretion.

Authority:

PEN 667(c)(6)

People v. Henderson (2022) 14 Cal.5th 34, 45

People v. Lawrence (2000) 24 Cal.4th 219, 233

Second Holding:

When the record shows the trial court proceeded with sentencing on the erroneous assumption it lacked discretion, remand is necessary so that the court may have the opportunity to exercise its sentencing discretion at a new sentencing hearing. Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court, and a court that is unaware of its discretionary authority cannot exercise its informed discretion.

Authority:

People v. Brown (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1228

Third Holding:

The attempted murder and felon in possession of a firearm counts were based on the defendant’s possession and use of the same firearm. There is no suggestion that the defendant possessed more than one gun when he committed the offenses.

Because the attempted murder and felon in possession of a firearm counts arose from the same set of operative facts, the resentencing court had discretion to impose concurrent sentences. Remand for resentencing is appropriate as the court was unaware of its discretion, and there is no indication that had it been aware of its discretion, it would nevertheless have imposed consecutive terms.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1567

People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 600

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

Fourth Holding:

When a felony sentence is modified during the term of imprisonment, the trial court must recalculate and credit the actual time defendant had served on his sentence prior to the modification. Where a defendant has served any portion of his sentence under a commitment based upon a judgment which judgment is subsequently declared invalid or which is modified during the term of imprisonment, such time shall be credited upon any subsequent sentence he may receive upon a new commitment for the same criminal act or acts. On remand, the resentencing court must recalculate the defendant’s custody credits for actual time served.

Authority:

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

Fifth Holding:

The restitution fine imposed under section 1202.4 must be vacated under section 1465.9. Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9 was amended to add subdivision (d), which provides that, upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to Section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.

Because the defendant’s restitution fine was imposed more than 10 years ago, any balance is unenforceable and uncollectable by operation of law. The fine must be vacated

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Amelioration, Discretion, Duty of the court, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000842

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In the prior appeal, the appellate court reversed the denial of the defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 and ordered the trial court to grant the petition. On remand, the trial court granted the motion and redesignated the offense as three counts, and imposed the upper term.

It was error to resurrect and redesignate for sentencing counts that were dismissed in the original plea negotiations. It was also error to impose the upper term on circumstances in aggravation that were not submitted to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

When the trial court granted the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, his judgment became nonfinal and was subject to the retroactive application of AB 333. AB 333 made changes to the law on gang enhancements and narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang.

The defendant’s admission under the former law does not satisfy the elements now required under the current law. The stipulation at the preliminary hearing that the [named gang] was an ongoing street gang that engages in a pattern of criminal activity pursuant to section 186.22(f) is insufficient under any standard to prove either the gang enhancement or the gang offense under current law.

Authority:

People v. Trent (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 251, 262–263 [once petition for resentencing under sec. 1172.6 is granted, judgment is no longer final]

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 393 [AB 333 is retroactive to nonfinal judgments]

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740

People v. Silva (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 505, 526–527

Second Holding:

When a murder or attempted murder conviction is set aside under section 1172.6, the petitioner’s conviction shall be redesignated as the target offense or underlying felony for resentencing purposes if the murder or attempted murder was charged generically, and the target offense was not charged.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(e)

Third Holding:

Section 1172.6 does not define what constitutes an underlying felony or target offense, but our high court in Arellano held that the meaning of these terms is clear—an underlying felony refers to the felony underlying a felony-murder theory, and the target offense refers to the offense the natural and probable consequence of which was murder.

Authority:

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457

People v. Lara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1005 [the trial court erred by resurrecting counts dismissed in the parties’ plea agreement on resentencing]

Fourth Holding:

Application of the trial court’s resentencing discretion under section 1172.6(e) here is circumscribed by the prosecution’s exercise of charging discretion in the original proceeding. Here, that limitation is the district attorney’s election to dismiss all charges involving [victim 1] as well as the substantive gang count in return for the defendant’s plea to a single count of attempted second degree murder of [victim 2].

Authority:

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 476 [deeming it unlikely the Legislature intended to allow the prosecution to effectively revisit its charging decisions  every time a petitioner succeeds in setting aside a  conviction under section 1172.6]

People v. Lara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1005, 1026

Fifth Holding:

There is no dispute that there is no qualifying felony for which the prosecutor could have proceeded under a theory of felony murder in this case.

Thus when resentencing the defendant, the trial court was required to redesignate his offense as a target offense—the offense of which the natural and probable consequence was the attempted murder.

In this case, conviction for attempted murder of [victim 2] was properly redesignated as assault with a semiautomatic firearm on [victim 2]. We conclude that the trial court erred by resurrecting counts stemming from conduct that the district attorney plainly chose to dismiss as part of the negotiated settlement.

These dismissed counts cannot form the predicate for relief for the defendant’s petition for resentencing. Because the defendant did not plead to any other offenses than the attempted murder of [victim 2], the target offense underlying the attempted murder of one named person is not two assaults with a firearm on two persons. Courts may not impose uncharged and unproven sentence allegations or enhancements when resentencing a successful petitioner under section 1172.6e).

Authority:

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 475, 477

People v. Lara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1005, 1027

Sixth Holding:

Though not applicable here, had the prosecution alleged and proved a target offense in addition to the attempted murder, on successful petition under section 1172.6, the court would be limited to sentencing the defendant on the charged target offenses that were proved. The trial court under section 1172.6(d)(3) would not have been otherwise entitled to resentence the defendant on charges that could have been [but were not] established by the evidence.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(d)(3)

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 470

Seventh Holding:

The trial court erred by imposing an upper term for the count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm on [victim 2] without holding a jury trial as requested.

Under section 1170(b), when a statute specifies three possible terms, the trial court shall, in its sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, unless circumstances in aggravation that justify an upper term sentence have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

However, a trial court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)

Eighth Holding:

After the defendant’s resentencing, the California Supreme Court decided Wiley. Relying on Erlinger, our high court held that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury determination on aggravating factors related to a defendant’s criminal history, such as whether a defendant’s convictions were of increasing seriousness under rule 4.421(b)(2), and whether the defendant’s prior performance on probation was unsatisfactory under rule 4.421(b)(5).

Wiley concluded that a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm. 

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1086

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 834 [virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty plea]

Ninth Holding:

where a defendant was deprived of a jury trial on aggravating factors used at sentencing, we must apply the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard in Chapman.

Under this standard, we must reverse the judgment unless we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1087

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

Tenth Holding:

The trial court relied on the defendant’s rap sheet to determine that the crimes were of increasing seriousness and were numerous under rule 4.421(b)(2). According to defendant’s rap sheet, he had a juvenile adjudication in 2007 [for specified offenses], 2010 juvenile adjudications for [different offenses] and a 2014 conviction for [a different offense].  

Based on these series of offenses, a rational jury could have disagreed as to whether it demonstrated criminal conduct of increasing seriousness. Likewise, a rational jury could have also found that the defendant’s prior convictions were not particularly numerous. The failure to submit these aggravating factors to the jury was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant is entitled to reversal of the upper term sentence.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1089

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 848

 

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

Case 000838

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the court did not follow the required procedures for adjudicating the petition brought under section 1170.91, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. We also direct the superior court to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

We interpret the requirements of section 1170.91 de novo.

Authority:

People v. Bonilla-Bray (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 234, 237

Second Holding:

Section 1170.91(b)(1) provides that a person currently serving a sentence for a felony conviction, whether by trial or plea, who is, or was, a member of the United States military and who may be suffering from sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or mental health problems as a result of the person’s military service may petition for a recall of sentence, before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in the case, to request resentencing if the circumstance of suffering from sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or mental health problems as a result of the person’s military service was not considered as a factor in mitigation at the time of sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1170.91

Third Holding:

If the trial court finds the defendant satisfies the criteria for relief, the court may, in the interest of justice, do either of the following: (1) reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment by modifying the sentence; or (2) vacate the conviction and impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense, whether or not that offense was charged in the original pleading, and then resentence the defendant to a reduced term of imprisonment with the concurrence of both the defendant and the prosecution.

Authority:

PEN 1170.91(b)(3)(A)–(B)

Fourth Holding:

Upon receiving a section 1170.91 petition for resentencing, the trial court must hold a public hearing to determine whether the defendant satisfies the statutory criteria for relief. The prosecution, the defense, and any victim must be given at least 15 days’ notice of the hearing. At that hearing, the prosecution shall have an opportunity to be heard on the defendant’s eligibility and suitability for resentencing. The trial court erred by denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing without holding a properly noticed public hearing as required by section 1170.91(b)(3).

Authority:

PEN 1170.91(b)(3)

People v. Bonilla-Bray (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 234, 239

Fifth Holding:

Though the original version of section 1170.91 limited its application to those serving a determinate sentence, the Legislature amended the section in 2022 to remove the limitation.

Authority:

People v. Sherman (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 325, 330 [In 2022, the Legislature amended

again. The 2022 amendment expanded subdivisions (a) and (b) to include those serving indeterminate sentences]

People v. Harrison (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1145, 1154 [same]

Sixth Holding:

There is a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. It states that the defendant was convicted of grand theft of a vehicle pursuant to section 487h(a), when in fact he was convicted of the lesser included offense of unlawful driving of a vehicle pursuant to Vehicle Code section 10851(a).

If not already done, the abstract of judgment must be amended to correct this error.

Authority:

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

Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000835

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing under section 1172.75, the court erroneously imposed an enhancement that had been vacated as a result of an earlier appeal. The court also erred by not recalculating the credit for time served through the date of the resentencing. Further, the restitution fine must be vacated, as it was imposed at least 10 years ago.

First Holding:

When a prison term already in progress is modified the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served, whether in jail or prison, and whether before or since he was originally committed and delivered to prison custody. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is responsible for calculating any postsentence custody credits.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29

People v. Dean (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 391, 397

Second Holding:

After 10 years have elapsed from the imposition of a restitution fine imposed under section 1202.4, any remaining balance is unenforceable and uncollectible. Any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Third Holding:

The trial court struck the six one-year prior prison terms but declined to otherwise modify the sentence. However, although this court had previously vacated the three-year term imposed on count 1 pursuant to section 12022.7,(a), in resentencing the defendant, the trial court again imposed the enhancement and three-year term. The parties agree this was error, as do we. The great bodily injury enhancement imposed as to count 1 must be stricken and the three-year term vacated.

(Gary note: The court cited no authority for its order striking the enhancement that had been stricken in the earlier appeal. The relief seems obvious enough. Under section 1260, “The court may reverse, affirm, or modify a judgment or order appealed from, or reduce the degree of the offense or attempted offense or the punishment imposed, and may set aside, affirm, or modify any or all of the proceedings subsequent to, or dependent upon, such judgment or order, and may, if proper, order a new trial and may, if proper, remand the cause to the trial court for such further proceedings as may be just under the circumstances.”

(If that doesn’t precisely address the issue, one could also look at Dutra, although it, too, is not exactly on point. It dealt with the trial court’s act of not complying with the instructions in the remittitur because of a change in the law, but the change did not permit it to act outside the direction of the remittitur. Again, not exactly what happened here.

(Or one could argue that imposing the enhancement resulted in an unauthorized sentence (again), which can be corrected whenever the matter is before the court. See, for example, Sanders.

(It just seems so intuitive that the trial court, on resentencing, could not reimpose an enhancement that was stricken as unlawful in the earlier appeal. I’m not surprised the appellate court did not see a need to cite authority, particularly where the parties both agreed on the error and remedy. The authorities I have listed below were not cited by the court, and the two cases are fairly distinguishable from this situation, but might prove interesting reading nonetheless.)

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Dutra (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1367

People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 743, fn. 13

Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000830

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(Gary note: This was not a “win,” even under my generous standards, but I have included it because it instructs on the duty of the court to recalculate credit for actual days served since the prior sentencing, but the trial court does not calculate the conduct credits earned since the original sentencing.)

The trial court erred in awarding presentence conduct credit for time the defendant spent in custody between his original sentencing and the time he was resentenced following remand from his earlier appeal.

Holding:

It was error for the court to calculate credits under section 2933.1 for conduct of the defendant in custody between the date of his original sentencing and the date of his resentencing as a result of his prior appeal.

The court should have calculated the days in actual custody (along with whatever local conduct credit the defendant earned prior to his original sentencing).

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilation [CDCR] will then determine what conduct credit the defendant is entitled to following his original sentencing. An appellate remand solely for correction of a sentence already in progress does not remove a prisoner from the Director of the CDCR’s custody or restore the prisoner to presentence status. A defendant’s temporary removal from state prison to county jail as a consequence of the remand did not transform him from a state prisoner to a local presentence detainee.

When a state prisoner is temporarily away from prison to permit court appearances, he remains in the constructive custody of prison authorities and continues to earn sentence credit, if any, in that status.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 33–34

People v. Dean (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 391, 396–397

Duty of the court, Jury trial, Standard of review

Case 000829

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant’s jury trial waiver was invalid as it was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

First Holding:

A criminal defendant has the constitutional right to a jury trial. The defendant may waive the constitutional right to a jury trial, provided the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. A waiver is knowing and intelligent if it is made with full awareness of the nature of the right and the consequences of abandoning it. It is voluntary if it was the product of a free and deliberate choice, rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 6th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 16

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166

Second Holding:

Whether a defendant satisfies that standard must depend upon the unique circumstances of each case. Our Supreme Court has persistently declined to mandate any specific admonitions describing aspects of the jury trial right.

Authority:

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166-167 [Our precedent has not mandated any specific method for determining whether a defendant has made a knowing and intelligent waiver of a jury trial in favor of a bench trial. We instead examine the totality of circumstances.]

People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 992

Third Holding:

A reviewing court’s task is to independently examine the record to determine whether the defendant’s jury waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. We will uphold the validity of a jury waiver if the record affirmatively shows that it is voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances.

We do not start with a presumption of validity that may only be rebutted by signs of a defendant’s confusion or unwillingness in entering a waiver. Instead, a reviewing court satisfies itself of a legitimate waiver only when the record affirmatively demonstrates it was knowing and intelligent.

Authority:

People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 453

People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 991

Fourth Holding:

Our Supreme Court has eschewed any rigid formula or particular form of words that a trial court must use in taking a jury waiver. That said, it has emphasized the value of a robust oral colloquy in evincing a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of a jury trial.

The Supreme Court has recommended that trial courts advise a defendant of the basic mechanics of a jury trial in a waiver colloquy, including but not necessarily limited to the facts that (1) a jury is made up of 12 members of the community; (2) a defendant through his or her counsel may participate in jury selection; (3) all 12 jurors must unanimously agree in order to render a verdict; and (4) if a defendant waives the right to a jury trial, a judge alone will make the decision.

Authority:

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 169-170

Fifth Holding:

The Supreme Court has also recommended that the trial judge take additional steps as appropriate to ensure, on the record, that the defendant comprehends what the jury trial right entails.

A trial judge may do so in any number of ways—among them, by asking whether the defendant had an adequate opportunity to discuss the decision with his or her attorney, by asking whether counsel explained to the defendant the fundamental differences between a jury trial and a bench trial, or by asking the defendant directly if he or she understands or has any questions about the right being waived.

Ultimately, a court must consider the defendant’s individual circumstances and exercise judgment in deciding how best to ensure that a particular defendant who purports to waive a jury trial does so knowingly and intelligently.

(Gary note: The court then analyzed record in this case and concluded that the jury trial waiver was not knowing and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. The court’s advisement addressed only one and a half of the four basic mechanics of a jury trial described in Sivongxxay–that a judge alone would decide guilt if the defendant forwent a jury trial, and that the jury would be composed of people who live in the county.)

Authority:

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 169-170

People v. Jones (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 420, 428

Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000828

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The Trial Court Erred by Failing to Instruct on the Lesser Included Offense of Nonforcible Lewd Acts as to Count 8.

First Holding:

A trial court must instruct on lesser included offenses, even in the absence of a request, whenever there is substantial evidence raising a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense are present. Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury, that is, evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 645

Second Holding:

On appeal, we review independently the question whether the trial court failed to instruct on a lesser included offense. Where a trial court has erred in failing to instruct on a lesser included offense, we review for prejudice under the standard set forth in Watson. Under this standard, the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense is not subject to reversal unless it is reasonably probable a more favorable result would have been obtained absent the error.

Authority:

People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 705

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818

People v. Beltran (2013) 56 Cal.4th 935, 955

Third Holding:

Nonforcible lewd act under section 288(a), is a lesser included offense of forcible lewd act under section 288(b)(1). The crimes are distinguishable in that forcible lewd act requires the defendant to have committed the crime by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear.

Authority:

People v. Chan (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 408, 421

People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1015, 1026

Fourth Holding:

In this context, force means physical force substantially different from or substantially greater than that necessary to accomplish the act itself. Fear has been defined as (1) A feeling of alarm or disquiet caused by the expectation of danger, pain, disaster, or the like; terror; dread; apprehension and (2) Extreme reverence or awe, as toward a supreme power.

And duress as used in this context means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, hardship or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to (1) perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed or, (2) acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted.

Authority:

People v. Cochran (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 8, 13, disapproved on another ground in People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229, 248, fn. 12

People v. Cardenas (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 927, 939–940

Fifth Holding:

On this record, there is simply no evidence that the defendant employed the requisite force, duress, or fear to commit the forcible lewd act charged in count 8.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1319–1321

Sixth Holding:

Consequently, we must reverse the judgment and conviction for forcible lewd act under section 288(b)(1), as charged in count 8. Under settled law, the judgment will be modified to reflect a conviction for nonforcible lewd act under section 288(a), unless the People elect to retry the defendant on the greater charge and are successful.

Authority:

People v. Edwards (1985) 39 Cal.3d 107, 118

Seventh Holding:

The federal and state prohibitions against ex post facto laws apply to any statute that punishes as a crime an act previously committed which was not a crime when done or that inflicts greater punishment than the applicable law when the crime was committed.

It is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove to the jury that the charged offenses occurred on or after the effective date of the statute providing for the defendant’s punishment. When the evidence at trial does not establish that fact, the defendant is entitled to be sentenced under the formerly applicable statutes even if he raised no objection in the trial court.

And, where the prosecutor failed to establish at trial when the charged acts occurred, it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to review the record and select among acts that occurred before and after that date, or to infer that certain acts probably occurred after that date.

In sum, as to counts 8 and 10, the prosecution failed to present unambiguous evidence that the acts underlying these counts occurred after the law increasing the sentence range took effect. Given the ambiguity, the trial court was not permitted to impose the harsher penalty under the revised law as to these counts.

The defendant’s 10-year sentences on counts 8 and 10 therefore violate the ex post facto clause and resentencing is required on these counts. At resentencing, as to counts 8 and 10, the court must apply the sentencing provisions applicable before the statute was amended to increase the sentence range.

Authority:

People v. Hiscox (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 253, 256, 261

Eighth Holding:

Because we conclude that the judgment must be reversed in part and this action must be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, the defendant will ultimately be entitled to full resentencing.

Authority:

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

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681 [Although the Court of Appeal’s prior remand order was for resentencing on the modified convictions only, we believe a remand for a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.]

Sentencing

Case 000823

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to stay the sentence on the use of firearm enhancement and the prior serious felony in an effort to show leniency. The proper procedure requires the court to strike them, not stay them.

Holding:

The trial court imposed and stayed both the remaining section 12022.53(b) and (c) firearm enhancements as to counts 1 and 2, and the serious felony prior enhancement as to count 2. This was an unauthorized sentence. The record indicates that the trial court did not intend to punish the defendant for these additional enhancements. Because a trial court has no authority to stay an enhancement based on its discretion, the court imposed a legally unauthorized sentence. We exercise our authority under section 1260 to modify the judgment by striking this unauthorized sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Bay (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 126, 139 [The trial court has no authority to stay an enhancement, rather than strike it—not, at least, when the only basis for doing either is its own discretionary sense of justice.]

Duty of the court, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000804

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

When the defendant pleaded guilty, the agreement was that he would be placed on probation, and if he violated probation and it was revoked, he would be sentenced to prison for three years. It was error on revocation of probation for the court to sentence him to four years.

First Holding:

The process of plea negotiation contemplates an agreement negotiated by the People and the defendant and approved by the court. Pursuant to this procedure the defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest in order to obtain a reciprocal benefit, generally consisting of a less severe punishment than that which could result if he were convicted of all offenses charged.

This more lenient disposition of the charges is secured in part by prosecutorial consent to the imposition of such clement punishment, by the People’s acceptance of a plea to a lesser offense than that charged, either in degree or kind, or by the prosecutor’s dismissal of one or more counts of a multi-count indictment or information.

Judicial approval is an essential condition precedent to the effectiveness of the bargain worked out by the defense and prosecution. But implicit in all of this is a process of bargaining between the adverse parties to the case—the People represented by the prosecutor on one side, the defendant represented by his counsel on the other—which bargaining results in an agreement between them.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 929–930

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 970

Second Holding:

The prosecutor is the only party authorized to negotiate on behalf of the state, and the trial court cannot substitute itself in place of the prosecutor. Such judicial activity would contravene express statutory provisions requiring the prosecutor’s consent to the proposed disposition, would detract from the judge’s ability to remain detached and neutral in evaluating the voluntariness of the plea and the fairness of the bargain to society as well as to the defendant, and would present a substantial danger of unintentional coercion of defendants who may be intimidated by the judge’s participation in the matter.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 930

Third Holding:

Because a negotiated plea agreement is a form of contract, it is interpreted according to general contract principles. Acceptance of the agreement binds the court and the parties to the agreement. [When a guilty or nolo contendere plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits such as the dismissal of other counts or an agreed maximum punishment, both parties, including the state, must abide by the terms of the agreement.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 930-931

Fourth Holding:

Although a plea agreement does not divest the court of its inherent sentencing discretion, a judge who has accepted a plea bargain is bound to impose a sentence within the limits of that bargain.

A plea agreement is, in essence, a contract between the defendant and the prosecutor to which the court consents to be bound. Should the court consider the plea bargain to be unacceptable, its remedy is to reject it, not to violate it, either directly or indirectly. Once the court has accepted the terms of the negotiated plea, it lacks jurisdiction to alter the terms of a plea bargain so that it becomes more favorable to a defendant unless, of course, the parties agree.

For its part, of course, the trial court may decide not to approve the terms of a plea agreement negotiated by the parties. If the court does not believe the agreed-upon disposition is fair, the court ‘need not approve a bargain reached between the prosecution and the defendant, but it cannot change that bargain or agreement without the consent of both parties.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 931

Fifth Holding:

When the plea is accepted by the prosecuting attorney in open court and is approved by the court, the defendant, except as otherwise provided in this section, cannot be sentenced on the plea to a punishment more severe than that specified in the plea and the court may not proceed as to the plea other than as specified in the plea.

Authority:

PEN 1192.5(b)

Sixth Holding:

Thus, a court may not modify the terms of a plea agreement while otherwise leaving the agreement intact, nor may the court effectively withdraw its approval by later modifying the terms of the agreement it had approved. When a court accepts a plea bargain, it must impose a sentence within the limits of that bargain.

Authority:

People v. Brooks (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1099, 1107

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 931

People v. Cunningham (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1047

Seventh Holding:

It is well settled that a criminal defendant cannot argue for the first time on appeal that the trial court aggravated a sentence based on items contained in a probation report that were erroneous or otherwise flawed. The defendant did not object to the recommendation in the probation report that he be sentenced to four years, nor did he object when the court imposed that term.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351–352

People v. Victorian (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 954, 958

Eighth Holding:

Defendant raises the alternate argument that the trial attorney was prejudicially ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s imposition of the four-year term. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient—it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness—and that defendant was thereby prejudiced.

Such prejudice exists only if the record shows that but for counsel’s defective performance there is a reasonable probability the result of the proceeding would have been different. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance on appeal the record must affirmatively disclose the lack of a rational tactical purpose for the challenged act or omission.

Authority:

People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal.4th 703, 734

Ninth Holding:

In the usual case, where counsel’s trial tactics or strategic reasons for challenged decisions do not appear on the record, we will not find ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal unless there could be no conceivable reason for counsel’s acts or omissions.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1229, 1254

Tenth Holding:

It appears that between the time of the plea agreement in 2022 and the revocation proceedings in 2025, the trial court and the parties were unaware of the terms and conditions of the plea agreement, that the court did not withdraw its approval of the plea agreement, the plea agreement was never modified, and the probation report’s recommendation of the upper term violated the terms and conditions of the plea agreement as agreed to by the prosecution and defendant in 2022.

Instead, it appears the probation officer unilaterally recommended the upper term of four years without consideration of the plea agreement for the midterm of three years.

Defendant is not seeking a sentence outside the terms of the plea agreement but seeking to enforce the plea agreement. When a guilty plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits such as the dismissal of other counts or an agreed maximum punishment, both parties, including the state, must abide by the terms of the agreement.

Therefore, we direct modification of the abstract of judgment to reflect the sentence agreed to by the parties and approved by the trial court in 2022—that defendant should be sentenced to the midterm of three years.

Authority:

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 80