Tag Archives: Elements of crime

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Vicarious liability

Case: 000260

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the defendant’s hearing on his petition filed under section 1172.6 for recall of sentence in light of the changes in homicide law, the trial court denied the defendant’s resentencing petition on the ground the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt he aided and abetted an implied malice murder. The trial court did not conclude that the defendant was the direct perpetrator or an aider and abettor in an express malice murder. The trial court misidentified the relevant life-endangering act and thereby used an incorrect legal standard for determining the defendant’s mens rea for aiding and abetting implied malice murder.

We therefore reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to conduct a new evidentiary hearing using the correct life-endangering act and consistent with this opinion. The trial court did not address the defendant’s convictions on counts 2 through 4 for attempted murder. Sentencing relief under section 1172.6 extends to attempted murder. In conducting a new evidentiary hearing following remand, the court shall make findings and rule on the defendant’s resentencing petition on the attempted murder convictions. The amended abstract of judgment indicates that the defendant pleaded guilty to second degree murder. That is incorrect: He was convicted by a jury, not pursuant to a plea agreement. The abstract of judgment must be corrected accordingly.

First Holding:

The trial court denied the defendant’s resentencing petition on the ground the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt he aided and abetted an implied malice murder. The trial court did not conclude that the defendant was the direct perpetrator or an aider and abettor in an express malice murder.

Murder is committed with implied malice when the killing is proximately caused by an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life. A defendant may directly aid and abet an implied malice murder. Notwithstanding Senate Bill 1437’s elimination of natural and probable consequences liability for second degree murder, an aider and abettor who does not expressly intend to aid a killing can still be convicted of second degree murder if the person knows that his or her conduct endangers the life of another and acts with conscious disregard for life.

Authority:

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 143

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990

Second Holding:

Direct aiding and abetting is based on the combined actus reus of the participants and the aider and abettor’s own mens rea. In the context of implied malice, the actus reus required of the perpetrator is the commission of a life-endangering act. For the direct aider and abettor, the actus reus includes whatever acts constitute aiding the commission of the life-endangering act. Thus, to be liable for an implied malice murder, the direct aider and abettor must, by words or conduct, aid the commission of the life-endangering act, not the result of that act. The mens rea, which must be personally harbored by the direct aider and abettor, is knowledge that the perpetrator intended to commit the act, intent to aid the perpetrator in the commission of the act, knowledge that the act is dangerous to human life, and acting in conscious disregard for human life.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990-991

Third Holding:

A life-endangering act is the act that proximately causes death. To be considered the proximate cause of the victim’s death, the defendant’s act must have been a substantial factor contributing to the result, rather than insignificant or merely theoretical. Here, the life-endangering act was the shooting by the co-defendant at the vehicle carrying the victim.

Authority:

People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 713, fn. 27

People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 643

Fourth Holding:

Although a homicide might have more than one proximate cause, to suffice for implied malice murder, the perpetrator’s act must not merely be dangerous to life in some vague or speculative sense; it must involve a high degree of probability that it will result in death.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 956, 963

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 989

Fifth Holding:

The co-defendant perpetrator’s act of bringing the gun to the anticipated confrontation with the other gang did not in itself give rise to a high probability that death would result. Rather, that act merely created a dangerous situation in which death was possible depending on how circumstances unfolded. Deeming a life-endangering act to be the act of the co-defendant perpetrator bringing the gun to the fight comes precariously close to a natural and probable consequences theory of liability: Bringing the gun to a gang fight becomes life endangering only because a natural and probable consequence of doing so is the gun is fired and someone is killed. [GARY NOTE: Implicit in that example is that the change in the homicide law eliminated the natural and probable consequences rationale as supporting a murder conviction of the non-killer.]

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 989

Sixth Holding:

By misidentifying the life-endangering act committed by the perpetrator, the trial court used the incorrect legal standard for determining mens rea for aiding and abetting implied malice murder.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990–991 [using incorrect life-endangering act constitutes legal error]

Seventh Holding:

We have the ability to order the correction of clerical errors in an abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–187

Abstracts and Minutes, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000257

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A jury found the defendant guilty of one count of murder, two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition. The trial court sentenced him on each count of conviction and did not stay the sentence on any count. The court improperly sentenced him on two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm when he had only committed a single violation of that crime. The court erred when it sentenced him for being both a felon in possession of a firearm and a felon in possession of ammunition. We vacate defendant’s conviction on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and stay his sentence for being a felon in possession of ammunition. The abstract of judgment incorrectly marks trhe determinate term on count 2 as “M” for middle term rather than “H” to reflect the high term that was actually imposed, and must be corrected.

First Holding:

Possession of a firearm by a felon is a continuing offense. In the case of continuing offenses, only one violation occurs even though the proscribed conduct may extend over an indefinite period. The crime of possession of a firearm by a felon continues for as long as the possession of the firearm continues and is not completed until the possession has ceased. Therefore, where there is no evidence that the defendant relinquished his possession of a firearm, or that his possession was interrupted for a time, he can be convicted of only one count of that offense. The defendant possessed the same firearm on both dates charged in the information. The People did not present any evidence to show that the defendant ceased his possession of that firearm at any time between the murder and the arrest. We therefore vacate defendant’s conviction on count 4.

Authority:

People v. Mason (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 355, 365, 366-367

Wright v. Superior Court (1997) 15 Cal.4th 521, 525, fn. 1

People v. Warren (1940) 16 Cal.2d 103, 112

Second Holding:

Section 654 provides that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. The statute bars multiple punishment for separate offenses arising out of a single occurrence when all of the offenses were incident to one objective. It prohibits punishment for both unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition when the only ammunition at issue was either found inside or fired from the firearm.

Authority:

People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 498

People v. Broadbent (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 917, 922–923

People v. Sok (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 88, 100

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 132, 138

Third Holding:

Where multiple punishments have been improperly imposed, the proper procedure is for the reviewing court to modify the sentence to stay imposition of the lesser term. Here, the trial court should have stayed the punishment on count 3, the lesser term. We will therefore modify the judgment to stay the sentence on that count.

Authority:

People v. Spirlin (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 119, 131

People v. Broadbent (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 917, 922–923

People v. Sok (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 88, 100

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 132, 138

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment for the determinate term on count 2 be modified to reflect that the defendant was sentenced to the high term (“H”), rather than the mid-term (“M”).

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 187

Sentencing

Case: 000256

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After a jury convicted the defendant of one count of kidnapping to commit a sex offense and five counts of forcible rape, he was sentenced to 25-years-to-life on one of the forcible rape counts, plus concurrent life terms on the remaining counts. The trial court also dismissed all fines and fees, although the abstract of judgment shows imposition of two $200 restitution fines. The sentence on the kidnapping to commit a sex offense count should be stayed because that count and the forcible rape count constituted a single criminal act. The court must correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that no restitution fines were imposed.

First Holding:

Section 209(d) provides that a person may be charged with a violation of section 209(b) and section 667.61, but that a person may not be punished under section 209(b) and section 667.61 for the same act that constitutes a violation of both section 209(b) and section 667.61.

Authority:

PEN 209(d)

People v. Adams (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 170

Second Holding:

Here, the defendant kidnapped the victim to commit a sex offense, and this act formed the basis for his convictions. Additionally, because the victim was not released until after she was dropped off near her relative’s house, there was only one kidnapping offense. Thus, there was a single common act, and the punishment on count 1 (kidnapping to commit a sex offense) must be stayed.

Authority:

People v. Thomas (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1328, 1334 [The forcible detention of a victim is an element of kidnaping and as long as the detention continues, the crime continues]

Third Holding:

At the sentencing hearing the trial court expressly dismissed all fines and fees in the interest of justice. The abstract of judgment, however, reflects the imposition of a restitution fine in the amount of $200 under section 1202.4(b) and a suspended parole revocation restitution fine of $200 under section 1202.45. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. If the clerk includes fines in the court’s minutes or the abstract of judgment that were not part of the oral pronouncement of sentence, those fines must be stricken from the minutes and the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

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

People v. El (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 963, 967

Fourth Holding:

Respondent argues the restitution fines are mandatory, and the trial court must impose them unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. Respondent notes the trial court did not provide any compelling or extraordinary reasons on the record, and the only referenced reason was defendant’s inability to pay, which is not a compelling and extraordinary reason to not impose a restitution fine. Respondent requests we correct the abstract to impose the minimum restitution fines, or remand the matter to the court for the limited purpose of either imposing the fines or stating extraordinary and compelling reasons for not imposing the fines. We decline to do so. Because the district attorney failed to object to the court’s omission of a statement of extraordinary and compelling reasons, the waiver doctrine bars the People from obtaining the relief they seek on appeal. Thus, respondent cannot challenge the court’s failure to impose restitution fines in this appeal.

Authority:

PEN 1204.2

People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 302

Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000254

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Penal Code section 654 prohibits punishment for both the murder and the burglary during which it occurred. In addition, the defendant is entitled to one more day credit for time served.

First Holding:

Section 654 provides in relevant part that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. It bars the imposition of multiple sentences for a single act or omission, even though the act or omission may violate more than one provision of the Penal Code. It has long been interpreted to preclude multiple punishments not only for a single act that violates more than one statute, but for an indivisible course of conduct. If all of the offenses were merely incident to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once.

Authority:

People v. Dowdell (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1413

People v. Mejia (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1042–1043

Second Holding:

On appeal, we review factual determinations under the deferential substantial evidence test, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People. We review de novo the legal question of whether section 654 applies.

Authority:

People v. Valli (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 786, 794

Third Holding:

Burglary consists of entry into a house with the intent to commit a felony. Thus, ordinarily, if the defendant commits both burglary and the underlying intended felony, section 654 will permit punishment for one or the other but not for both. Here, the record reflects that the intent and objective of both the burglary and the murder were the same, and this was the prosecution’s theory of the case at trial. Accordingly, in light of the evidence introduced at trial, the jury instruction on burglary, and the prosecutor’s argument, substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s order to sentence defendant consecutively on these counts. Rather, one of the sentences on counts 1 or 2 should be stayed pursuant to section 654. And, because section 654 provides the court with discretion with regard to which sentence will be stayed, remand is necessary for the court to exercise its discretion in modifying defendant’s sentence.

[GARY NOTE: Don’t ignore the importance of this last statement. While it may be hard to imagine a case in which a judge would sentence on the burglary and stay the sentence for the murder, the judge does have that discretion under section 654. You may have a case where your client may be more sympathetic and the crimes not so divergent in their relative seriousness. It is not inconceivable that you could persuade a judge to impose and execute sentence on the lesser evil committed by your client, staying execution of the sentence on the more serious offense.]

Authority:

People v. Centers (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 84, 98

People v. Islas (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 116, 130 [When a defendant is convicted of burglary and the intended felony underlying the burglary, section 654 prohibits punishment for both crimes]

Fourth Holding:

Defendant was entitled to one additional day of presentence custody credit because the court failed to include the day of his arrest.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5


People v. Taylor (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 628, 647


People v. Valdes (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 953, 955 [the day of arrest counts as a custody credit day]

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000253

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Insufficient evidence supported the defendant’s perjury conviction. We reverse the perjury conviction. His excess presentence custody credits must be applied to reduce his parole period. The record does not permit a determination of the precise number of excess custody credits. Because we are remanding for resentencing, we direct the trial court to calculate and determine the appropriate application of those credits.

First Holding:

A conviction under section 118(a) requires proof that the challenged statement was made under penalty of perjury, and that the sex offender registration form signed by the defendant did not contain such a declaration. Because the statutory element was not established, reversal is required.

Authority:

PEN 118(a)

Second Holding:

When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In conducting that review, we presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence. Reversal for insufficient evidence is warranted only where it appears that, under no hypothesis whatsoever, is there sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

Authority:

People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053

People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331

Third Holding:

Section 118(a) provides that a person commits perjury when he or she certifies under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter that he or she knows to be false. Proof that the false statement was made under penalty of perjury is therefore an essential element of the offense. Here, the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) Form 8102S signed by the defendant states: “I certify the information provided is true and accurate. I understand failure to comply with the registration requirements, providing false information on the form, or failing to provide accurate information is punishable as a criminal offense.” The form does not state that the certification is made under penalty of perjury. Because the prosecution failed to establish this essential statutory element, the evidence is insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for perjury under section 118(a). Accordingly, the conviction on that count must be reversed, and the matter remanded for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Tafoya (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 868, 902

Fourth Holding:

Section 2900.5 requires that all days a defendant spends in custody—including time in jail or a rehabilitation facility—be credited against the defendant’s term of imprisonment, which expressly includes any period of parole prior to discharge. By the time the defendant was sentenced, he had already served enough days in custody to qualify for release on parole.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

In re Ballard (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 647, 650

Fifth Holding:

The parties and trial court disagreed on how to calculate the time expected to complete a 16-month term against which the known number of days in custody would apply, but approaches proposed are flawed. Section 7(b)(13) defines a “month” as a “calendar month.” A calendar month is not a fixed number of days, but rather the space of time from any day of any such month to the corresponding day of the next, and may therefore vary in length. Consequently, a sentence expressed in months cannot be converted into a predetermined number of days by multiplying months by 30, nor by fractionalizing a year into parts. Instead, the proper calculation depends on the defendant’s actual dates of incarceration and release. Because the record does not disclose the precise date of the defendant’s incarceration, we cannot determine the exact number of days constituting his 16-month term. Accordingly, this issue must be remanded for the trial court to calculate his sentence based on his actual custodial dates and to apply any excess custody credits to reduce his parole period as required by section 2900.5

Authority:

PEN 7(b)(13)

In re Kemper (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 434, 439, fn. 2

People v. Superior Court (J.C. Penney Corp., Inc.) (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 376, 414, fn. 23 [a three-month statutory period may range from 89 to 92 days depending on the specific dates involved]

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000231

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The jury’s true finding in 2023 that the defendant suffered a prior serious felony and strike offense based on a past gang related conviction was error. We vacate the prior serious felony and strike conviction and remand for retrial and resentencing. Further, the abstract of judgment must be corrected because it reflects a conviction for first degree robbery when it should be second degree robbery.

First Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature amended the law prohibiting criminal gang activity law. In many respects, it changed the elements of a section 186.22 offense that the prosecution here did not prove. For a pre-AB 333 section 186.22 offense to qualify as a prior serious felony and strike offense, the prosecution was required to prove that the defendant’s past conduct met the post-AB 333 section 186.22 elements.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

AB 333

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 582-583

Second Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected.

[GARY NOTE: The opinion listed no authority for its order directing the correction of the abstract of judgment, likely because the legal principle is well-established and seems obvious. Other opinions have cited authority for the proposition that the appellate court itself has the power to correct the abstract of judgment. For convenience, and because my point in presenting unpublished cases in the first place is to provide education on principles that might not be obvious to find in published opinions that deal with new and nuanced problems, I have set forth some authority the appellate court could have cited]

Authority:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Standard of review

Case: 000219

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in instructing the jury that implied malice murder can be based on an act that was reasonably foreseeable to cause death rather than highly likely to cause death. The prosecutor erred by making arguments to the jury on the same point. The defendant’s convictions on the counts of murder are reversed. The charges may be retried on remand. [The defendant was convicted as a result of the death of three occupants of a vehicle he crashed into while he was driving under the influence.]

First Holding:

Malice may be implied when a defendant does an act with a high probability that it will result in death and does it with a base antisocial motive and with a wanton disregard for human life. The trial court erred here by requiring only that death be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of appellant’s act, rather than a highly probable one. Similarly, the prosecutor erred by arguing to the jury that it need not find that appellant’s act of driving impaired created a strong probability of death.

Authority:

People v. Dellinger (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1212, 1219

Second Holding:

When the trial court misinstructs the jury on an element of a charged crime, we consider prejudice under the standard of Chapman. Under that standard, we reverse the judgment unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

People v. Hendrix (2022) 13 Cal.5th 933, 942

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000214

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After the defendant was convicted, but before the judgment became final, AB 333 was enacted, and its application in defendant’s case. We vacate the gang enhancement allegation findings under section 186.22(b), and remand the matter to the trial court to permit the People to elect to retry the gang enhancements or, if the People do not so elect, for the trial court to proceed with resentencing petitioner in conformance with this opinion.

Holding:

AB 333 made substantial changes to the elements of criminal gang activity. These changes apply retroactively to all cases not yet final on the effective date of AB 333, January 1, 2022. A defendant is entitled to relief under AB 333 if an appellate court affirmed the judgment, but sentencing issues were pending upon remand as of its effective date.

Authority:

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

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

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000213

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court sentenced the defendant to a term of 15 years to life for the crime of attempted murder with premeditation. The correct sentence for that offense requires the defendant to serve only seven years before parole eligibility. The sentence imposed on count 2 for attempted murder is reversed and the matter is remanded for resentencing only.

First Holding:

When the punishment for attempted murder is a life term, the defendant must be confined for at least seven years before parole eligibility.

[GARY NOTE: The opinion does not specify why attempted murder in this case carries a sentence of life. The crime is described in the opinion simply as attempted murder. However, the normal sentence for attempted murder is a determinate term of five, seven, or nine years, unless it is pleaded and proved that the murder attempted was willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder, per Penal Code section 664(a). Given that the trial court imposed an indeterminate term, I must assume that the attempted murder qualified for a life sentence, in which case section 3046 requires a minimum of seven years, not fifteen years, before parole eligibility.]

Authority:

PEN 3046(a)(1)

Second Holding:

We review the length of the defendant’s attempted murder sentence de novo, as it involves an issue of statutory construction.

Authority:

People v. Jefferson (1999) 21 Cal.4th 86, 94

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000207

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the trial court’s finding that defendant’s 2014 conviction for violating former section 186.22(a) constituted a prior serious felony conviction for purposes of Three Strikes sentencing and imposition of a prior serious or violent felony conviction enhancement. Defendant’s sentence is vacated, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings to include the option to retry the allegation and for resentencing.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, the Legislature enacted AB 333 to narrow the definition of criminal street gang in order to focus on true gang-related crimes, having determined that in practice the original definition of a criminal street gang was not narrowly focused on punishing true gang-related crimes. The Legislature in AB 333 redefined the term criminal street gang so as to truly target the population of criminals for which an enhanced punishment is warranted. AB 333 made significant changes to the elements of gang offenses and enhancements as defined in section 186.22

Authority:

People v. Rojas (2023) 15 Cal.5th 561, 576

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 586

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

Second Holding:

Though the prior conviction of what purported to be a serious felony was sustained in 2014, where a defendant has suffered a conviction under the prior version of section 186.22, AB 333 applies to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements.

Authority:

APeople v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Fifth Amendment, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000206

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The true findings on the gang enhancements and gang-related firearm enhancements are vacated. The sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded. On remand, the People may retry the enhancement allegations under the law as amended by AB 333. If the People do not retry the enhancements, or at the conclusion of a retrial, the trial court shall conduct a full resentencing.

First Holding:

Several years after the defendant was sentenced, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) recommended recall and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.1(a)(1), based on the defendant’s exceptional conduct while incarcerated. The trial court recalled the sentence and resentenced him to 40 years to life, despite the recommendation by both parties that the sentence be reduced to a determinate term less than half that 40-year minimum. The trial court erred in not examining the impact of AB 333, which amended the gang activity statutes significantly. When the defendant’s sentence was recalled, the trial court regained the jurisdiction and duty to consider what punishment was appropriate for him, and the defendant regained the right to appeal whatever new sentence was imposed. His judgment thus became nonfinal, and it remains nonfinal in its present posture. The defendant is entitled to the benefits of AB 333’s ameliorative changes to section 186.22.

Authority:

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 161–162

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 312 [the application of law to undisputed facts is a question of law subject to de novo review]

Second Holding:

The evidence adduced at the defendant’s trial was insufficient to establish that the predicate offenses benefitted the gang beyond enhancing its reputation. Accordingly, we must vacate the true findings on the gang enhancements under section 186.22(b)(1), as well as the true findings on the gang-related firearm enhancements under section 12022.53(b), (c), (d), and (e)(1).

Authority:

People v. Lee (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 232, 239–240

People v. Perez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 192, 206, fn. 11

Third Holding:

Because we do not reverse based on the insufficiency of the evidence required to prove a violation of the statute as it read at the time of trial, the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution will not bar a retrial. Where, as here, evidence is not introduced at trial because the law at that time would have rendered it irrelevant, the remand to prove that element is proper and the reviewing court does not treat the issue as one of sufficiency of the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 669-670

Fourth Holding:

Whether the People decide not to retry the enhancements, or at the conclusion of such a retrial, the defendant is entitled to a full resentencing.

Authority:

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

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424–425 [the full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant]

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000186

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant—whom a jury convicted of first degree murder in 1992—appeals the trial court’s order denying his Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage. He contends he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his petition because the jury might have convicted him as a mere participant—rather than as the actual killer—under a felony murder theory of liability. The record of conviction, however, reveals no path permitting the jury to convict him as anything other than the actual killer. And he puts forth no specific facts that identify someone else as the direct perpetrator. Nor does he challenge any other elements of his conviction. We therefore conclude the court properly denied the petition, but we remand to give the defendant the opportunity to file an amended petition to address its current deficiencies.

Holding:

The record of conviction reveals no path permitting the jury to convict the defendant as anything but the actual killer. Out of an abundance of caution, however, we grant his request for an opportunity on remand to plead additional relevant facts in support of his petition. Accordingly, we conditionally affirm.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 567

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 462

People v. Glass (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 922, 925