Tag Archives: Elements of crime

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 Every plea shall be entered or withdrawn by the defendant himself or herself in open court.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.”

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