Tag Archives: Elements of crime

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000309

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Denial of petition to vacate judgment of murder and for resentencing under section 1172.6 is reversed. The appellant’s participation in the planning and commission of the robbery and failure to render aid to the co-defendant do not demonstrate that he acted with the requisite reckless indifference to human life to be culpable of murder.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted SB 1437 to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. As amended by SB 1437, section 189 now limits liability under a felony-murder theory to actual killers and those who, with the intent to kill, aid or abet the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree. Individuals who do not fall into those categories can be held liable for murder only if they were major participants in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in section 190.2(d)—the statute defining the felony-murder special circumstance. Section 1172.6 permits individuals who were convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory, but who could not be convicted of murder following SB 1437’s changes to sections 188 and 189, to petition the sentencing court to vacate the conviction and resentence on any remaining counts.

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 189

PEN 1172.6

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708

Second Holding:

On appeal from an order denying a section 1172.6 petition after an evidentiary hearing, we review the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence. We examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value that would support a rational trier of fact in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Our job on review is different from the trial judge’s job in deciding the petition. While the trial judge must review all the relevant evidence, evaluate and resolve contradictions, and make determinations as to credibility, all under the reasonable doubt standard, our job is to determine whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support a rational fact finder’s findings beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not reweigh evidence or revisit the trial court’s credibility determinations.

Authority:

People v. Richardson (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1085, 1090

People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 298

People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 657-658

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 885

People v. Cody (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 87, 112-113

Third Holding:

In Banks, the Supreme Court set out a nonexhaustive list of considerations relevant to whether a defendant’s participation in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death is sufficiently significant to render him or her a major participant in the crime. Those considerations are: What role did the defendant have in planning the criminal enterprise that led to one or more deaths? What role did the defendant have in supplying or using lethal weapons? What awareness did the defendant have of particular dangers posed by the nature of the crime, weapons used, or past experience or conduct of the other participants? Was the defendant present at the scene of the killing, in a position to facilitate or prevent the actual murder, and did his or her own actions or inaction play a particular role in the death? What did the defendant do after lethal force was used?

Authority:

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 794, 803

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 705

Fourth Holding:

Clark similarly set forth a list of considerations relevant to determining whether a defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life. The first factor relates to weapons: was the defendant aware that weapons would be used in the felony? Did the defendant use a weapon? How many weapons were used in the crime? The court cautioned that the mere fact of a defendant’s awareness that a gun will be used in the felony is not sufficient to establish reckless indifference to human life. A robbery in which the only factor supporting reckless indifference to human life is the fact of the use of a gun is what the Banks court meant by a garden-variety armed robbery.

The second factor is the defendant’s physical proximity to the murder and the events leading up to it, and the opportunities that proximity afforded to restrain the crime or aid the victim.

The third factor is the duration of the felony, particularly the duration of the interaction between victims and perpetrators; more prolonged incidents provide “‘a greater window of opportunity for violence.

The fourth factor is the defendant’s awareness of his or her codefendants’ propensity for violence or likelihood of killing a victim.

The final factor is the defendant’s efforts to minimize the risk of violence during the felony, though the court cautioned that some effort to minimize the risk of violence does not, in itself, necessarily foreclose a finding that defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life. In cases where a defendant was a youth at the time of the crime, his or her age may also be relevant to determining whether he or she acted with reckless indifference.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 617-623

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 794, 802

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 885 fn 6

In re Moore (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 434, 453-454

People v. Ramirez (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 970, 987

Fifth Holding:

No single Banks or Clark factor is determinative. Lower courts should take care to consider the presence or absence relating to each relevant factor on its own merits before considering the evidence in its totality.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 618, 621-623

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 888

Sixth Holding:

There is significant overlap between being a major participant and acting with reckless indifference to human life, and the greater the defendant’s participation in the felony murder, the more likely that he acted with reckless indifference to human life. However, that does not necessarily mean that every major participant in a crime acts with reckless indifference to human life. Participation in a gardenvariety armed robbery is insufficient without more to establish reckless indifference. The defendant must not merely be aware of the foreseeable risk of death inherent in any violent felony; he or she must knowingly create a grave risk of death to demonstrate reckless indifference to human life. The defendant’s actions before and during the crime are important but not determinative; the key inquiry is what his actions reveal about his mental state.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 618, 614-615

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 884

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000303

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the trial court to determine that one of the prior serious felony convictions qualified as a strike under the Three Strikes law and for enhancement as a prior serious felony, because AB 333 amended the elements of the crime under section 186.22, and the acts constituting the crime were tried under the former version. The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions that the People be allowed to elect whether to retry appellant, under current law, on the strike and the prior serious felony enhancement. We also remand the matter for a full resentencing.

First Holding:

Current law governs whether defendants prior convictions would also constitute a felony violation of section 186.22 for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements. The current law includes Assembly Bill 333’s redefinition of the elements of gang offenses and enhancements under section 186.22. Thus, Assembly Bill 333 applies to the determination of whether a prior conviction qualifies as a serious or violent felony under section 192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements. There is no indication that defendants’ prior convictions were obtained under Assembly Bill 333’s more stringent requirements. The appropriate remedy is reversal of the findings on these enhancements for retrial under the correct law.

Authority:

AB 333

PEN 186.22

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

PEN 667

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 607-608

Second 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

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000302

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendants are entitled to retrial on the counts for active participation in a criminal street gang in light of AB 333’s retroactive changes to section 186.22. It was error to order Defendant’s 2 and 3 to be jointly responsible for the funeral expenses of the victim killed by Defendant 1. In addition there were several errors in Defendant 1’s consolidated abstract of judgment that need correction.

First Holding:

During the appeal, the Legislature amended section 186.22’s defendant of a criminal street gang. It narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons; it requires that the pattern of criminal activity foundational to a criminal street gang have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang; it also imposed further requirements limiting the offenses on which a pattern of criminal gang activity could be predicated; and it required that for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, any common benefit be more than reputational.

Authority:

AB 333

PEN 186.22

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

Second Holding:

The ameliorative amendments apply retroactively to all cases not yet final as of its effective date.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

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

Third Holding:

The trial court instructed the jury on the then-applicable definition of a criminal street gang, omitting several of the requirements that have now been imposed by AB 333. The jury instruction thus relieved the prosecution of its burden to prove all elements of the crime as now defined.

Authority:

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 742

Fourth Holding:

We apply the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard articulated in Chapman. When a jury instruction has omitted an element of an offense, our task is to determine whether the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the omitted element. The question is not whether there is evidence in the record that would support a jury finding of the missing element, but whether we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same had the jury been instructed on the missing element.

Authority:

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

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 742-743

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 449

Fifth Holding:

All three defendants will be entitled to a full resentencing upon remand, independent of the prosecution’s election whether to pursue the gang charge or enhancements on remand. The full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant.

Authority:

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

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

Sixth Holding:

We observe, however, that neither Defendant 2 nor Defendant 3 can be ordered to pay restitution for any losses attributable to Defendant 1’s murder of the deceased. Neither of them were charged with any offense involving the deceased, and nothing in the evidence before the jury or the court at sentencing implicated them in his murder. It was accordingly error to make them jointly and severally liable for the deceased’s funeral expenses.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f) [authorizing restitution where a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct]

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [unauthorized sentence cannot be lawfully imposed]

Seventh Holding:

Defendant 1’s consolidated abstract of judgment requires correction. First, in case number A, the abstract of judgment erroneously lists as stayed count 2’s multiple-murder special circumstance when the trial court vacated this finding. In case number B, Defendant 1’s conviction for assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of section 245(a)(4) is described on the abstract as “Asslt w/deadly wpn/force likely to prod GBI.” We agree that an amended abstract should be reworded to avoid confusion between assault with a deadly weapon (sec. 245(a)(1), (2), or (3))—a serious felony under section 1192.7—and assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (sec. 245(a)(4)).

(GARY NOTE–the appellate court did not cite case authority for the correction of the abstract, but it is abundantly clear the court has that authority. I have set forth some below)

Authority:

PEN 1192.7(c) [listing serious felonies]

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1065

[on correction of abstracts]

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

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

Case: 000300

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We order the protective order modified to strike [person x] as a protected person. We reject the defendant’s claim that the trial erred in not sua sponte instruction on the defense of unconsciousness.

First Holding:

Unconsciousness, if not induced by voluntary intoxication, is a complete defense to a criminal charge. For purposes of the defense, unconsciousness need not rise to the level of coma or inability to walk or perform manual movements; it can exist where the subject physically acts but is not, at the time, conscious of acting. The law presumes that a person who appears to be acting in a state of consciousness is conscious. Accordingly, the burden is on a criminal defendant to produce evidence rebutting this presumption of consciousness. If a defendant produces substantial evidence that he or she was unconscious, the trial court is obligated to instruct the jury on the theory; the failure to do so is error. In this case, the defendant did not rebut the presumption of his consciousness, and it was therefore not error for the trial court to fail to instruct the jury on unconsciousness sua sponte.

Authority:

PEN 26

People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 417

People v. James (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 794, 804

Second Holding:

Unconsciousness caused by voluntary intoxication may negate specific intent, but it is not a defense to a general intent crime. Assault with a deadly weapon is a general intent crime. Reckless evasion of a peace officer is a specific intent crime.

Authority:

People v. James (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 794, 805

People v. Rocha (1971) 3 Cal.3d 893, 899

People v. Williams (2001) 26 Cal.4th 779, 788

People v. Taylor (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1195, 1203-1206

Third Holding:

We review de novo whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury.

Authority:

People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 78

Fourth Holding:

A case is not authority for propositions not considered.

Authority:

People v. Chavez (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 477, 480

Fifth Holding:

Where a defendant is convicted of certain defined crimes of domestic violence, the trial may issue a protective order restraining the defendant from any contact with a victim of the crime. Such orders are limited to defendants convicted of crimes that qualify as domestic violence and where the protected person qualifies as a victim of said crimes. The trial court does not have authority to restrain a defendant from contacting a person who was not present during or otherwise suffered harm from the crime.

For instance, a protective order covering children who were present but asleep during a domestic violence incident was found to be improper in Lopez. With respect to the issuance of a legally authorized criminal protective order, we imply all findings necessary to support the judgment, and our review is limited to whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support these implied findings.

The record here contains no substantial evidence from which the trial court reasonably could conclude that [person x] was a victim of the crime subject to protection under section 136.2(i)(1).

Authority:

PEN 136.2,(i)(1)

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 237

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 648

People v. Race (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 211, 217

People v. Delarosarauda (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 205, 212 [absent evidence from which the trial court could reasonably conclude that appellant had harmed or attempted to harm two children, the court lacked authority to issue the no-contact protective order as to the children]

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

Case: 000296

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The evidence is insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction on count 2 for attempted voluntary manslaughter, and that conviction must be reversed. We also conclude the court’s use of the pre-AB 333 pattern jury instruction was prejudicial. This requires reversal of the gang enhancements, the substantive gang offense (count 7), and the related section 12022.53(d) and (e)(1) gang related firearm use enhancements.

First Holding:

Attempted voluntary manslaughter requires proof that the defendant specifically intended to kill the named victim, although the intent is mitigated by heat of passion or imperfect self-defense.

Authority:

People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 583

Second Holding:

The jury must agree unanimously the defendant is guilty of a specific crime. When the evidence suggests more than one discrete crime under a single count, either the prosecution must elect the act relied upon or the court must instruct the jury to agree on the same criminal act. The unanimity instruction exists to prevent jurors from convicting a defendant based on different instances of conduct, thereby ensuring all 12 jurors are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the same act constituted the offense. A unanimity instruction is required when the record shows evidence of more than one crime that could support conviction under a single count. But if the evidence shows only a single discrete crime, no instruction is necessary.

Authority:

People v. McDaniel (2021) 12 Cal.5th 97, 142

People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132

People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 877

People v. Hernandez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 559, 569

People v. Grimes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 698, 727

People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 281

Third Holding:

Determining whether a particular instruction was required presents a predominantly legal mixed question of law and fact. We therefore review claims of instructional error de novo.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 559, 568

People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579

People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 569

Fourth Holding:

In a criminal case, the trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary to the jury’s understanding of the case. The correctness of jury instructions is determined by considering the charge as a whole, not by viewing individual instructions in isolation.

Authority:

People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953

People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 192

Fifth Holding:

To determine whether the trial court properly instructed on the kill zone theory, we apply the substantial evidence standard of review. Under this standard, the question is whether the record contains evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that the defendant intended to kill everyone within the zone of harm as a means of killing the primary target.

Authority:

People v. Mumin (2023) 15 Cal.5th 176, 193, 203 [Without substantial evidence showing the defendant acted with intent to kill a primary target, the essential basis for a concurrent intent analysis is not satisfied]

Sixth Holding:

The standard for assessing a sufficiency of the evidence claim is highly deferential. We examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence; that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In conducting our review, we must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the evidence. We also accept all logical inferences the trial court could have drawn from circumstantial evidence. The question is not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether substantial evidence supports the trier of fact’s finding. The judgment must be upheld unless it appears that, under no hypothesis whatsoever, is there sufficient substantial evidence to support it.

Authority:

People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 507-508

People v. Kurey (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 840, 848–849 [we resolve all inferences and intendments in favor of the judgment, and all conflicting evidence will be resolved in favor of the decision]

People v. Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913, 919, superseded by statute on other grounds

People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371, 411

People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 139

People v. Sanchez (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 325, 329

Seventh Holding:

The jury was instructed on the gang participation law as it existed at the time of trial. Because subsequent amendments under AB 333 changed the elements considerably and the defendant’s judgment is not final, the gang-related convictions must be retried under the new law.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206–1207

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 394

People v. Hallock (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 595, 610

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Retroactivity, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case: 000295

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There are two defendants, both convicted of murder and other matters. We reverse all counts of the conviction of Defendant A because of instructional error. It is therefore not necessary for us to consider the other errors urged by Defendant A. As to Defendant B, we reverse the conviction on the firearm offenses because of instructional error, and agree that the jury’s true findings on gang enhancements and related gang-related firearm enhancements must be vacatedand remanded because of changes in the law of gang criminal activity.

[GARY NOTE: The opinion is 70 pages long and goes into extensive discussion of the elements of murder. The reversals were based on the absence of proper jury instructions. I have chosen to summarize only a few of the pronouncements in the opinion rather than present a treatise on the elements of murder. I will, however, send the opinion to attorneys on request.]

First Holding:

Due to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the meanings of “willfully,” “deliberately,” and “with premeditation,” or with the instructions describing aider and abettor liability for murder, Defendant A’s conviction for first degree murder requires reversal.

To be guilty of first degree murder as an aider and abettor, the jury must be instructed that a person aids and abets the commission of a crime when he or she, acting with (1) knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator; and (2) the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the offense, (3) by act or advice aids, promotes, encourages or instigates, the commission of the crime.

Authority:

People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 561

Second Holding:

We evaluate the failure to instruct the jury on an element of an offense for prejudice under Chapman. Under this standard, we must reverse the conviction unless after examining the entire cause, including the evidence, and considering all relevant circumstances, it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.

Authority:

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

People v. Beck and Cruz (2019) 8 Cal.5th 548, 642

People v. Swain (1996) 12 Cal.4th 593, 607

Third Holding:

We review a claim of instructional error de novo. Review of the adequacy of instructions is based on whether the trial court fully and fairly instructed on the applicable law. Generally, the trial court is required to instruct the jury on the general principles of law that are closely and openly connected with the evidence and that are necessary to the jury’s understanding of the case. It also has a duty to refrain from giving incorrect instructions or instructions on principles of law that are irrelevant and that would have the effect of confusing the jury or relieving it from making findings on the relevant issues. The trial court’s duty in this regard extends to lesser included offenses that find substantial support in the evidence. In determining the correctness of jury instructions, we consider the entire charge of the court, in light of the trial record.

Authority:

People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 581, 584

People v. Barber (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 787, 798-799

People v. Thomas (2023) 14 Cal.5th 327, 388–389

People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 162

People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 926

Fourth Holding:

An erroneous failure to instruct on a lesser included offense requires reversal of a conviction if, taking into account the entire record, it appears reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable outcome had the error not occurred. In a noncapital case, a failure to instruct sua sponte on a lesser necessarily included offense that is supported by the evidence is state law error that we review for prejudice under Watson. Under Watson, a defendant must show it is reasonably probable a more favorable result would have been obtained absent the error. We also consider the instructions as a whole, the jury’s findings, and the closing arguments of counsel.

Authority:

People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 169, 178

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836

People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 716

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

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

People v. Larsen (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 810, 831

Fifth Holding:

We determine whether a jury instruction correctly states the law under the independent or de novo standard of review. When we review a purportedly erroneous instruction, we consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution.

Authority:

People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088

People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028

Sixth Holding:

AB 333 amended section 186.22, by, among other things, modifying the definitions of “pattern of criminal activity” and “criminal street gang,” as well as clarifying what is required to establish that an offense benefits, promotes, furthers, or assists a criminal street gang. Section 186.22 now requires proof of the following additional requirements with respect to predicate offenses: (1) the offenses must have commonly benefited a criminal street gang where the common benefit is more than reputational; (2) the last predicate offense must have occurred within three years of the date of the currently charged offense; (3) the predicate offenses must be committed on separate occasions or by two or more gang members, as opposed to persons; and (4) the charged offense cannot be used as a predicate offense.

To benefit, promote, further, or assist means to provide a common benefit to members of a gang where the common benefit is more than reputational. Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational may include, but are not limited to, financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting a perceived or actual gang rival, or intimidation or silencing of a potential current or previous witness or informant.

Authority:

People v. Perez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 192, 206

People v. Lopez (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 327, 345

Seventh Holding:

Because the changes to the criminal street gang statute in AB 333 are ameliorative,those changes apply retroactively to defendants whose convictions are not yet final.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206–1207

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Pleading, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000291

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This was a People’s appeal from the trial court’s grant of a motion under section 995 to set aside counts and enhancements in the information that the magistrate found insufficient evidence to support at the preliminary hearing. Grant of section 995 motion affirmed.

[GARY NOTE: This opinion went into depth analyzing the sufficiency of evidence on the question of gang common benefit and whether the members collectively engaged in the pattern of criminal gang activity that the statute requires. It discussed several published cases as example that guided its decision. I have not included the discussion or the cases cited, as that depth is beyond the scope of this blog. I’m happy to provide the full opinion to any attorney who asks me for it.]

First Holding:

Under section 995, an information will be set aside if the defendant was committed without reasonable or probable cause. To establish probable cause sufficient to withstand a section 995 motion to dismiss, the People must make some showing as to the existence of each element of the charged offense. Reasonable or probable cause’ means such a state of facts as would lead a [person] of ordinary caution or prudence to believe, and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused. Probable cause signifies a level of proof below that of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or even proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The showing required at this stage is exceedingly low, and an information should be set aside only when there is a total absence of evidence to support a necessary element of the offense charged.

Authority:

Hale v. Superior Court (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 268, 271 [a defendant may utilize section 995 to strike invalid enhancement allegations]

People v. Chapple (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 540, 545

People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 473

People v. Superior Court (Mendez) (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 268, 276

People v. Garcia (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 864, 870–871

Second Holding:

When we review a section 995 motion, we disregard the ruling of the superior court and directly review the determination of the magistrate. We must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the information and decide whether there is probable cause to hold the defendants to answer, i.e., whether the evidence is such that a reasonable person could harbor a strong suspicion of the defendant’s guilt.

Authority:

People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 654 [reviewing denial of sec. 995 motion made after magistrate struck special circumstance allegation]

Lexin v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1050, 1072

Third Holding:

As here with respect to the gang evidence presented by the prosecution, where the facts are undisputed, the determination of probable cause constitutes a legal conclusion which is subject to independent review on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Farley) (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 315, 326

People v. Scully (2021) 11 Cal.5th 542, 582 [independent standard of review applies when magistrate determines that the People did not put forth sufficient evidence to support the charges]

Fourth Holding:

Not every crime committed by gang members is related to a gang. Concerned with lax interpretations of the prior gang law that allowed for overly expansive application of gang enhancements, the Legislature amended section 186.22 effective January 1, 2022. The amendments to section 186.22 narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang and increased the prosecution’s burden of proof by altering the definition of a criminal street gang and instituting new requirements to prove that a criminal street gang engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity.

Authority:

People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 744

People v. Renteria (2022) 13 Cal.5th 951, 961, fn. 6

Fifth Holding:

For the reasons stated in this opinion, we conclude that there was insufficient evidence that a reasonable person could harbor a strong suspicion that gang’s predicate offenses were either committed for the gang’s common benefit or that the gang members collectively engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity as defined under section 186.22. Finding insufficient evidence that the gang meets the definition of a criminal street gang under section 186.22, we discern no error in the trial court’s partial grant of the section 995 motion as to the gang enhancements and gang related firearm enhancements as to all defendants.

Authority:

Lexin v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1050, 1072

Amelioration, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case: 000286

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the trial court failed to consider the amendments under AB 333 to the elements of gang criminal activity and gang criminal enhancements. The trial court must first, however, determine whether the defendant’s name was on a list prepared by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as being a person whose sentence includes a now-invalid enhancement for a prior prison term. If it is not, then the trial court has no jurisdiction to conduct a hearing under section 1172.75.

First Holding:

A trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has commenced. Where the trial court relinquishes custody of a defendant, it also loses jurisdiction over that defendant. The Legislature may restore jurisdiction to the trial court by enacting a statute allowing defendants with final convictions to petition for resentencing, and indeed, has done so several times.

Authority:

People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 636

Second Holding:

The Legislature did not create a right for defendants to petition for resentencing in section 1172.75. Instead, it required the secretary of the CDCR and the county correctional administrator of each county to initiate the resentencing process by identifying those persons in their custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an invalid enhancement and providing the name of each person to the sentencing court that imposed the enhancement. Absent action by the CDCR, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a defendant’s motion for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Escobedo (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 440, 447-448

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 381

People v. Newell (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 265, 268

People v. Cota (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1129-1131, review granted Oct. 1, 2025, S292637 [superior court has jurisdiction to resentence a defendant if the CDCR includes the defendant in a list of eligible inmates but fails to forward the list to the superior court]

Third Holding:

The record before us does not establish that the superior court had jurisdiction to resentence the defendant under section 1172.75. Any action taken without fundamental jurisdiction is void, not simply voidable. Prior to taking any further action on remand, therefore, the court must first determine whether the CDCR in fact placed the defendant’s name on a list of defendants potentially eligible for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 71

Fourth Holding:

The full resentencing rule applies to proceedings under section 1172.75. Under this rule, the resentencing court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the sentence and may revisit all prior sentencing decisions . In particular, the court may consider any changed circumstances since the original sentencing hearing.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 877

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

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

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681

Fifth Holding:

The original sentence was based in part on the jury’s finding that the defendant committed the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Without that finding, his sentence for premeditated and deliberate attempted murder would have been life with the possibility of parole after having served seven years. Because of the gang finding, however, his sentence for attempted murder required that he serve at least 15 years prior to any parole.

AB 333 restricted the circumstances in which gang enhancements under section 186.22 apply. In resentencing proceedings under section 1172.75,the court shall apply any changes in law that reduce sentences, and the defendant argued that in light of the amendments to section 186.22, a retrial on the gang allegation is necessary. The trial court disagreed, concluding the gang enhancement has been found to be true and that a retrial was not warranted.

But AB 333’s substantive amendments to section 186.22 apply retroactively to defendants whose convictions are not final. Even if a defendant’s conviction became final years ago, if his sentence is vacated as a result of subsequent legislation, it becomes nonfinal for purposes of resentencing. Thus, assuming the court had jurisdiction to vacate the defendant’s sentence, he is entitled to benefit from the recent amendments to section 186.22 at resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 162

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000277

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

AB 333’s amendments to section 186.22 are retroactive and should have been addressed when appellant’s sentence was recalled under section 1172.75. As a result of those amendments, we reverse appellant’s conviction in count 4 for active participation in a criminal street gang, vacate the gang enhancements found true as to three felony convictions, and remand for the People to determine whether to retry appellant on the gang allegations pursuant to the amended version of section 186.22.

First Holding:

AB 333 changed the elements required to prove both the gang conviction under section 186.22(a) and the gang enhancement under subdivision (b). AB 333 added new elements to the substantive gang offense and gang enhancements in section 186.22—for example, by requiring proof that gang members collectively engage in a pattern of criminal gang activity, that the predicate offenses were committed by gang members, that the predicate offenses benefitted the gang, and that the predicate and underlying offenses provided more than a reputational benefit to the gang. These changes had the effect of increasing the threshold for conviction of the section 186.22 offense and the imposition of the enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1207

People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, 9

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

Second Holding:

AB 333’s amendments to section 186.22 are ameliorative and retroactive to all cases not final as of the legislation’s effective date. When a defendant’s sentence is recalled, the amended version of section 186.22 is applicable at the section 1172.75 resentencing hearing.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, 25

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

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 395–396

People v. Salgado (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 376, 380–381

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 664, 667

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Jurisdiction, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000276

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The sentence on count 1 is unauthorized because no findings were ever made, either by the jury or the court, as to whether the defendant was previously convicted of a qualifying prior vehicle theft offense within the meaning of Penal Code section 666.5(a). On remand, the court shall also address whether one count should be stayed under section 654.  It should be noted that the minute order incorrectly states that the defendant admitted the prior conviction.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 666.5(a) provides that a person convicted of a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 who has been previously convicted of any of several enumerated sections of the Vehicle Code shall be punished by increased by a higher triad than the usual for section 10851. Though the defendant admitted three prior strike convictions, they were not the prior convictions relied on for the PC 666.5 allegation. In the absence of any findings on the allegation, the sentence is unauthorized and exceeded the court’s jurisdiction.

Authority:

PEN 666.5

People v. Neal (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1120

Second Holding:

The record does not reflect that the defendant personally admitted the one strike prior, as required by the law. Every plea shall be entered or withdrawn by the defendant himself or herself in open court.

Authority:

PEN 1018

People v. Hofferber (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 265, 268

Third Holding:

The minute order indicates the defendant admitted the prior strike, but we generally resolve conflicts between the reporter’s and clerk’s transcript in favor of the reporter’s transcript.

Authority:

In re Merrick V. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 235, 249

Fourth Holding:

A defendant may be charged with—and in some cases convicted of—multiple crimes arising out of the same conduct but cannot receive multiple punishments for the same act or omission. Concurrent sentences based on one act or an indivisible course of conduct violate the rules against double punishment. The defendant asserts the chains and stabilizing bars referenced in count 4 were used to tow the motorhome, that any taking or receiving of them was part of one continuous act, and that the court therefore should have stayed the sentence on count 4. The People concede, and we agree, that the matter can be addressed on remand.

Authority:

PEN 654

PEN 954

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

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 353

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000275

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the two counts of driving a vehicle while under the influence, as he was also changed with operating a motor scooter while under the influence of alcohol. The latter is a more specific statute than the former, and the defendant must therefore be prosecuted under the more specific statute.

First Holding:

A criminal defendant may not be prosecuted under a general statute if the conduct at issue is covered under a more specific statute.

Authority:

In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651

Second Holding:

A motorized scooter is a vehicle under the definition of vehicle under Vehicle Code section 670: A vehicle is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

Authority:

VEH 670

Third Holding:

Under the Williamson rule, if a general statute includes the same conduct as a special statute, the court infers that the Legislature intended that conduct to be prosecuted exclusively under the special statute. In effect, the special statute is interpreted as creating an exception to the general statute for conduct that otherwise could be prosecuted under either statute. Absent some indication of legislative intent to the contrary, the Williamson rule applies when (1) each element of the general statute corresponds to an element on the face of the special statute or (2) when it appears from the statutory context that a violation of the special statute will necessarily or commonly result in a violation of the general statute.

Authority:

People v. Murphy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 81, 86

People v. Henry (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 786, 791-792

Fourth Holding:

It is not correct to assume that the Williamson rule is inapplicable whenever the general statute contains an element not found within the four corners of the special law. Rather, the courts must consider the context in which the statutes are placed. If it appears from the entire context that a violation of the special statute will commonly result in a violation of the general statute, the Williamson rule may apply even though the elements of the general statute are not mirrored on the face of the special statute.

Authority:

People v. Murphy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 81, 8

Elements of crime, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000265

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of attempted dissuasion of a witness. We reverse the attempted dissuasion of a witness conviction, and remand for resentencing. In this case, the indictment was filed in 2012, and the dissuading charge pertained to conduct that occured in 2016.

[GARY NOTE: THE STATUTE WAS AMENDED EFFECTIVE 1/1/2026, AND POST-COMPLAINT-FILING DISSUASION BY ITSELF IS NOW PUNISHABLE. I have chosen to post this victory anyway, because there are likely still cases in which the conduct occurred prior to 1/1/2026, and ex post facto prohibitions would preclude application of the amended law.]

First Holding:

Section 136.1(b)(2) makes it a crime to attempt to dissuade a victim or witness from causing a complaint to be sought and prosecuted, and assisting in the prosecution thereof.

Authority:

People v. Reynoza (2024) 15 Cal.5th 982, 986

[Gary note: remember that the statute has since been amended to outlaw the conduct that was not previously covered under section 136.1(b)(2).]

Second Holding:

The issue before the Supreme Court in Reynoza was whether section 136.1(b)(2) [Gary note: referring to the version in effect prior to the 1/1/26 amendment] required proof of an attempt to dissuade a witness from causing a charging document to be sought and prosecuted or whether the statute also independently applies where a defendant dissuades a witness only from assisting in the prosecution of a case after the charging document has already been filed.

Put another way, can the statute support a disjunctive interpretation—in which the statute independently applies where a defendant dissuades a witness from assisting in the prosecution of a case after the charging document has already been filed—or whether a conjunctive interpretation precludes a conviction under such circumstances.

The court concluded that because section 136.1(b)(2) is equally susceptible to both the conjunctive and disjunctive constructions, the rule of lenity points to an interpretation more favorable to the defendant. As a result, the statute must be read in the conjunctive construction, which does not permit a conviction to be based solely on proof of dissuasion from assisting in the prosecution of an already-filed charging document.

Consequently, because the defendant’s conduct in Reynoza amounted to, at most, dissuasion after a complaint was filed, the conviction had to be reversed. Therefore, where criminal charges have already been filed, postcharging dissuasion alone does not constitute an offense under section 136.1(b)(2).

[Gary note: Did I adequately mention that the ambiguity has been cleared up by the Legislature, effective 1/1/26, and now it is clear that section 136.1(b)(2) applies even if the only attempted dissuasion occurred after the charging document has been filed? Thus, Reynoza’s conclusion applies to only those cases in which the attempt at dissuasion occurred prior to 1/1/26.]

Authority:

People v. Reynoza (2024) 15 Cal.5th 982, 986, 987, 989, 1013

Third Holding:

[Gary note: to demonstrate the significance of choice of words, I have set forth the original language that was interpreted in Reynoza and the amended version. The only difference is the change from “and” to “or.” I have added *** on both sides of the affected word to highlight it better. Goes to show sometimes it’s just all in the wrist.]

Authority:

PEN 136.1(b)(2) PRIOR TO AMENDMENT 1/1/26: “Causing a complaint, indictment, information, or probation or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, *** and *** assisting in the prosecution thereof.”

PEN 136.1(b)(2) AS AMENDED EFFECTIVE 1/1/26: “Causing a complaint, indictment, information, or probation or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, *** or *** assisting in the prosecution thereof.”