Tag Archives: Elements of crime

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Due process, Elements of crime, Pleading, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000654

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed the wrong sentence for the consecutive term.

First Holding:

In one count, the defendant was convicted of second degree robbery (sec. 211). At sentencing, the trial court imposed an aggravated term of five years, which was ordered to be served consecutively at a subordinate term of one year four months. Because the robbery was a second degree felony, the middle term is three years in prison. As such, the consecutive subordinate term must be one-third the middle term, or one year. Thus, the sentence on that count must be reduced from 16 months to one year. We may correct this unauthorized sentence on appeal without remanding for a full resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1(a)

PEN 1260

People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 171–172

Second Holding:

The defendant argues that he should have been charged with only one count of attempting to dissuade a witness rather than the 10 charged and found true. The ten calls all occurred on the same day over a span of six hours. The issue is whether appellant may be lawfully subject to multiple convictions. We review this claim de novo.

Authority:

PEN 954

People v. Duffy (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 257, 261

Third Holding:

Section 954 defines what charges can be joined in one action. This statute does not permit multiple convictions for the same offense based on the same act or course of conduct. However, section 954 authorizes multiple convictions for different or distinct offenses. As a result, a defendant may be convicted of multiple counts of the same crime, such as grand theft, based on separate and distinct criminal acts, even if the acts were all part of a single overarching scheme.

Authority:

PEN 954

People v. Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632, 650

People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733, 74

Fourth Holding:

Determining whether a defendant has committed one or more criminal acts requires identifying what the Legislature intended to punish as a single offense under the relevant statute. Courts refer to this inquiry as determining the statute’s unit of prosecution. Courts should look to the characteristics of the crime, including both (1) the factual circumstances of the defendant’s criminal conduct and (2) the elements of the crime as defined by the Legislature in the relevant statute.

Authority:

Moore v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 441, 461

People v. Wilson (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 193, 199-200

People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733, 744 (conc. opn. of Liu, J.)

Fifth Holding:

Section 136.1(a)(2) makes it a crime to knowingly and maliciously attempt to prevent or dissuade a witness from attending or giving testimony at a trial, proceeding or inquiry authorized by law. In relevant part, malice is defined under this statute as an intent to thwart or interfere in any manner with the orderly administration of justice. This crime is completed upon any attempt.

Authority:

PEN 136.1

People v. Kirvin (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1519

Sixth Holding:

A trial court’s decision whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. A defendant bears the burden to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. In the absence of such a showing, a reviewing court presumes the trial court acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on appeal. Moreover, a decision will not be reversed merely because reasonable people might disagree. Instead, the decision must be so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.

Authority:

PEN 669(a)

People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 71–72

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376–377

Seventh Holding:

Once a trial court lawfully decides to impose consecutive sentences on convictions for violating section 136.1, section 1170.15 applies. If a person is convicted of a felony, and of an additional felony that is a violation of section 136.1 or 137 and that was committed against the victim of, or a witness or potential witness with respect to, or a person who was about to give material information pertaining to, the first felony the Penal Code provides that those subordinate terms shall consist of the full middle term.

Authority:

PEN 1170.15

Eighth Holding:

In relevant part, the rule against the dual use of facts prohibits a trial court from relying on the same fact “to impose both the upper term and a consecutive sentence. Only a single factor in aggravation is needed to support imposition of an upper term. Likewise, only one relevant and sustainable fact may explain a series of consecutive sentences. We presume the trial court acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 350, fn. 12

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 730

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376-377

Ninth Holding:

There is a developing split of authority regarding application of the forfeiture doctrine regarding the low term presumption under section 1170(b)(6). We need not decide that issue. Although the court did not specifically mention subdivision (b)(6), we presume it knew of that provision.

Authority:

People v. Achane (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1037, 1039, 1044 [forfeiture doctrine applied when defendant failed to raise in the trial court the presumption in favor of a lower term]

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 994, fn. 8 [sec. 1170 mandates application of the lower term presumption and is not subject to forfeiture]People v. Caparrotta (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 874, 905

Tenth Holding:

Under the cumulative error doctrine, errors that are individually harmless may nevertheless have cumulative prejudice. A claim of cumulative error is essentially a due process challenge. The issue is whether the defendant received a fair trial. Here, appellant’s claim of cumulative prejudice is without merit because we have rejected the individual claims. After reviewing the entire record, we are confident that appellant received due process throughout the entire proceeding, including sentencing.

Authority:

In re Avena (1996) 12 Cal.4th 694, 772, fn. 32

People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1436

People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1057

People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1009 [a defendant is “entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one”]

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case 000645

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

As to the section 1172.6 petition, the trial court denied the petition. This ruling was in error because the record of conviction does not establish as a matter of law that the defendant is ineligible for relief.

First Holding:

Under Penal Code section 1172.6, a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the record of conviction at the prima facie stage conclusively refutes—as a matter of law—defendant’s claim that he was convicted of a homicide offense under a now invalid legal theory.

Authority:

People v. Ervin (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 90, 101

Second Holding:

In reviewing any part of the record of conviction at this preliminary juncture, a trial court should not engage in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 972

Third Holding:

On the plea form in 1994, the defendant stated that he was both an aider and abettor and the shooter. These statements are internally inconsistent. A defendant cannot be both an aider and abettor, and a direct perpetrator (the shooter). The defendant’s admission to the personal use of a firearm does not resolve the issue because a defendant can personally use a firearm without shooting it (e.g., brandishing a firearm).

Authority:

PEN 31

People v. Arzate (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 390, 400

Fourth Holding:

While we could reject his statement that he was an aider and abettor and accept his statement that he was the shooter, we cannot engage in judicial discretion at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1756, 1771 [an exercise of discretion means different courts may reasonably arrive at different decisions, even on the same facts]

Fifth Holding:

We review de novo a trial court’s denial of a section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage. Appellate courts also interpret statutes under a de novo standard.

Authority:

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52

John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91, 95

Sixth Holding:

Generally, a person may be liable for a crime either as a direct perpetrator or as an aider and abettor. A person can be held liable for crimes that were intentionally aided and abetted (target offenses); a person can also be held liable for any crimes that were not intended but were reasonably foreseeable (nontarget offenses). Liability for an intentional, target offense is known as direct aider and abettor liability; liability for an unintentional, nontarget offense is known as the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Authority:

PEN 31

People v. Laster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1450, 1462–1463

People v. Montes (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1055

Seventh Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature narrowed accomplice liability theories for murder and attempted murder.The Legislature eliminated natural and probable consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting, and limited the scope of the felony-murder rule. The Legislature also created a special procedural mechanism for those convicted under the former law to seek retroactive relief under the law as amended.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957

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

Eighth Holding:

Direct aider and liability is still a valid legal theory for homicide offenses after the Legislature amended sections 188 and 189. We have generally described the requisite mens rea for direct aiding and abetting as knowledge of the direct perpetrator’s unlawful intent and an intent to assist in achieving those unlawful ends.

Authority:

People v. Medrano (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 177, 183

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 468

Ninth Holding:

Under section 1172.6, if the petitioner makes a prima facie showing, the trial court must issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing. At the prima facie stage, the trial court examines the underlying record of conviction, but the court should not engage in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 972

Tenth Holding:

The trial court accepts the petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved. The court may consider jury instructions, jury verdicts, and other documents that are part of the record of conviction to determine whether the petitioner satisfies the conditions for relief.

If the record, including the court’s own documents, contains facts refuting the allegations made in the petition, then the court is justified in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner at the prima facie stage. For example, if the record of conviction irrefutably establishes as a matter of law that the jury determined that the petitioner was the actual killer, the trial court may properly deny the petition at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

People v. Flores (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1164, 1170

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 56, 60

Eleventh Holding:

When a petitioner’s conviction results from a guilty plea, the record of conviction includes facts “the defendant admitted as the factual basis for a guilty plea. And when a defendant pleads guilty, he or she admits every element of the charged offense. However, in a section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage, the court may ordinarily only consider the facts the defendant has stipulated to as part of the guilty plea to determine the theory under which the defendant was convicted.

Authority:

People v. Gallardo (2017) 4 Cal.5th 120, 136

People v. Rivera (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 217, 234

People v. Davenport (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 476, 484

Twelfth Holding:

The defendant’s ambiguous statement in his felony plea form that he was both an aider and abettor and the shooter does not refute as a matter of law his later averment in his section 1172.6 petition that he was convicted as an aider and abettor under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. In order to resolve the defendant’s factual claim there must be an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

People v. Ervin (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 90, 101

 

 

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000634

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erroneously denied Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing relief at the prima facie stage. We reverse the trial court’s order denying resentencing relief and direct the trial court to issue an order to show cause.

First Holding:

SB 1437, effective as of January 1, 2019, made ameliorative changes to our state’s homicide law. As part of these ameliorative changes, malice, a key element the People must prove in a murder prosecution, may no longer be imputed to a defendant solely because the defendant participated in another crime. This means, for instance, that a defendant is no longer guilty of murder as an aider and abettor solely because the natural and probable consequences of that other crime included a confederate’s commission of murder.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558

Second Holding:

These ameliorative changes apply retroactively through the resentencing process set forth in section 1172.6. Those convicted of murder or attempted murder under certain imputed malice theories may seek resentencing. So may a person convicted of manslaughter who was charged with murder when three conditions apply. First, the charging document allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of murder in which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime. Second, the petitioner accepted a manslaughter plea offer in lieu of a trial on such a murder charge. And third, the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder because of the changes to homicide law that took effect in 2019.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558

Third Holding:

Upon receipt of a facially sufficient petition — along with briefing in opposition or support — the trial court holds a hearing to determine whether a petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief. If so, the court issues an order to show cause and then holds an evidentiary hearing to determine entitlement to relief. If not, the court denies the petition.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 559, 562

Fourth Holding:

We independently review a trial court’s conclusion that a petitioner failed to make a prima facie case for relief. The record of conviction informs the prima facie determination. And that record includes a preliminary hearing transcript preceding a guilty plea. A court, however, may not engage in factfinding, weigh the evidence, or make credibility determinations at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, 14

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971, 972

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 559, 568

Fifth Holding:

A review of the preliminary hearing transcript in this case reveals that it possible the defendant could have been convicted at trial under a now-invalid theory. There was witness testimony that two unidentified men initiated the attack, which raises at least a triable issue as to whether the defendant was the actual killer, and if he was not, whether he knew of and intended to aid in the criminal purpose of the actual killer as required for direct aiding and abetting. Given this state of the record of conviction, the defendant’s guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter does not prove that he could still be convicted of murder under current law.

Authority:

People v. Gaillard (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1206, 1213

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 567 [A dispute regarding the basis of a conviction might arise if, for instance, a petitioner points to specific facts that identify someone else as the direct perpetrator.]

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

Case 000624

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding unlawful detention or unlawful arrest. The judgment is reversed. Because there was sufficient evidence that a properly instructed jury could have returned the same verdict, double jeopardy principles do not apply and the matter may be retried.

First Holding:

All criminal defendants have the right to a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the essential elements of the charged offense.

A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.

Similarly, if the trial court decides to provide supplemental instruction to the jury during deliberation, we review de novo the legal accuracy of any supplemental instructions provided.

Authority:

People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824

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

People v. Parker (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1261, 1271

Second Holding:

Section 69 provides that every person who attempts, by means of any threat or violence, to deter or prevent an executive officer from performing any duty imposed upon the officer by law is punishable by a fine or by imprisonment. Similarly, section 148(a)(1) prohibits resisting an officer in the performance of duty, though the resistance need not be forceful or violent.

Authority:

PEN 69

PEN 148

People v. Hupp (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 946, 950

In re A.L. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 15, 22

Third Holding:

The lawfulness of an officer’s conduct is an essential element of both offenses because there is no distinction between performing a duty and lawfully performing a duty, since an officer who is acting unlawfully cannot be said to be performing his or her duty. And the prosecution has the burden of proving the lawfulness of the officers’ conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the lawfulness of the officers’ conduct is an essential element upon which the trial court had a sua sponte duty to properly instruct the jury.

Authority:

In re A.L. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 15, 25

People v. Southard (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 424, 435

Fourth Holding:

To convict defendant of a violation of section 69 or 148, the prosecution was required to prove, and the jury was required to find, that officers were engaged in the lawful performance of their duties. The pattern jury instructions include definitions for various scenarios in which an officer can be considered engaged in a lawful performance of duty, including during a detention, an arrest without a warrant, and an arrest for a misdemeanor offense. (CALCRIM 2670.)

However, the trial court did not give any of these definitions to the jury. Nor did the trial court offer its own definition for the jury to consider. In essence, the trial court instructed the jury that it was required to find that the officers were engaged in a lawful performance of duty but provided no definitions or guidance to the jury regarding how to make this finding. This was clearly error.

Authority:

People v. Serrano (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 902, 913 [Where a term or phrase has a special definition for purposes of a statute, the failure to define it for the jury is error.]

People v. Reyes (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1598, 1601 [Failure to define terms essential to an element of an offense is “equivalent to the omission of an element from the definition of the crime given to the jury.]

Fifth Holding:

The question of reasonable or probable cause is ordinarily one for the court and, where there are disputed facts to be resolved by a jury, the jury is to be told that if it finds the facts in a designated way such facts do or do not amount to probable cause.

Authority:

Roberts v. City of Los Angeles (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 625, 629-630

Sixth Holding:

Whether an offense has been committed in an officer’s presence is determined by whether the officer could testify to actual knowledge to every element of the offense.

Authority:

People v. Garrison (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 549, 557

In re Alonzo C. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 707, 714

People v. Welsch (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1038, 1044

Seventh Holding:

When the jury is misinstructed on an element of the offense reversal is required unless we are able to conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In such cases, a reviewing court must determine whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have rendered the same verdict absent the error. Here, we cannot say with any confidence that the jury would have reached the same verdict had it been properly instructed in this case.

Authority:

People v. Wilkins (2013) 56 Cal.4th 333, 348

People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 831

Eighth Holding:

It has long been settled that the Double Jeopardy Clause’s general prohibition against successive prosecutions does not prevent the government from retrying a defendant who succeeds in getting his first conviction set aside, through direct appeal or collateral attack, because of some error in the proceedings leading to conviction. However, a settled exception to this rule permitting retrial after a successful appeal occurs when a conviction has been reversed due to insufficiency of the evidence.

Thus, even where reversal is required based on instructional error, an appellant’s arguments regarding insufficiency of the evidence should be considered to determine whether retrial is barred by double jeopardy principles. The inquiry at this stage is to determine whether, if properly instructed, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 852-853

People v. Wetle (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 375, 388

People v. Hallock (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 595, 608-609;

In re Martinez (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1216, 1224 [Where instructional error occurs, retrial is barred if defendant can show there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction even when the law is properly construed.]

Ninth Holding:

While an offense may be considered a “wobbler” punishable as either a misdemeanor or felony, its status as a wobbler has no bearing on the lawfulness of a warrantless arrest. This is because the commission of a wobbler is a felony at the time it is committed and remains deemed a felony unless charged as a misdemeanor by the People or reduced to a misdemeanor by the sentencing court.

Authority:

People v. Moomey (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 850, 857-858

People v. Statum (2002) 28 Cal.4th 682, 685

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000615

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals an order partially denying her request for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75. We reverse the order because she was entitled to have the court consider her eligibility for ameliorative relief under changes to the former version of section 186.22 (under which she had been convicted) made by AB 333.

First Holding:

The defendant’s judgment became nonfinal when she returned to the trial court under section 1172.75 for recall and resentencing. Section 1172.75 provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense, is legally invalid.

Once the trial court verifies the current judgment includes the enhancement, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. When resentencing the defendant, the court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

By the plain language of the statute, the defendant was entitled to be considered for any legislative enactments that might provide for a reduction of sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Saldana (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1270, 1276

Second Holding:

In the criminal law context, when ameliorative legislation goes into effect, we generally presume the Legislature intends the benefits of the new enactment to apply as broadly as constitutionally permissible to all nonfinal cases. For purposes of Estrada, the test for finality is whether the criminal prosecution or proceeding as a whole is complete.

The meaning of finality in the Estrada context is distinct from the issue of whether a judgment is final for purposes of appealability. In the context of recall and resentencing, a granting of a petition for resentencing renders a conviction nonfinal for purposes of retroactive application of ameliorative legislation.

Authority:

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

People v. Esquivel (2021) 11 Cal.5th 671, 679

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 392-393

People v. Trent (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 251 [defendant entitled to retroactive application of Assembly Bill No. 333 upon resentencing under section 1172.6 based on changes to felony murder rule]

People v. Keel (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 546, 551 [defendant entitled to retroactive application for Proposition 57 and Senate Bill No. 1391 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) upon resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6]

Third Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature passed AB 333, enacting the STEP Forward Act of 2021. AB 333 made several changes to the law on gang enhancements.

First, it substantively narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang.

Second, it also changed former subdivision (f)’s requirement that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang to now require that any such pattern be collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, it also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (l) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as oppose to just persons; (3) the offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Fourth, it narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational. The defendant was entitled to the benefit of AB 333 because her judgment was not final when the court engaged in resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75

Authority:

PEN 186.22

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