Two murders support only one special circumstance of multiple murders. We strike one of the two multiple-murder enhancements.
Two murders support only one multiple-murder special circumstance.
People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394, 425
The trial court violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights by imposing a sentence based on aggravating circumstances that were neither admitted by him nor tried to a jury. The trial court conducted an inadequate inquiry when the defendant requested that new counsel be substituted.
[GARY NOTE: The unpublished opinion lays out several observations that it characterizes as possibly arguable deficiencies in counsel’s performance that would support a finding that it would be necessary to substitute new counsel as the defendant requested. Many of the specifics have been redacted from the filed opinion itself, as the Marsden hearing is a confidential inquiry conducted outside the presence of the prosecution and the public, and the matters stated by any participants (the defendant, the attorney for the defendant, the court) at the hearing are not subject to public disclosure.]The defendant is entitled to resentencing because the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by relying on aggravating circumstances based on facts that had not been admitted or tried to a jury. Although the defendant did not preserve this claim in the trial court, his failure to do so does not forfeit his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47-48
In Cunningham, the United States Supreme Court held that, except for prior conviction allegations, the Sixth Amendment requires any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence to be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The sentencing scheme in effect in California at the time violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because it allowed a defendant’s prison sentence to be increased beyond the statutory maximum based on facts that had not been found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or admitted by the defendant. The statutory maximum, for Sixth Amendment purposes, is the maximum sentence the court may impose without finding any additional facts beyond those necessary to support the verdict. Cunningham explained that California could comply with the Sixth Amendment either by requiring jury findings for any facts necessary to impose an aggravated sentence or, alternatively, by authorizing sentencing courts to exercise broad discretion within a statutory range.
Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281, 294
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 746-747
California’s current sentencing scheme (in effect at the time of the defendant’s sentencing) adopts the first option Cunningham outlined. Under section 1170(b), when a statute specifies three possible terms, the court must order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial. After revoking the defendant’s probation, the court found in aggravation that the crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threats of great bodily harm, and other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness. But this aggravating factor was not admitted or otherwise proved to the trier of fact.
Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 294
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 748
We apply the rigorous Chapman standard of review to determine whether the trial court’s reliance on unproven aggravating circumstances was prejudicial. Under that standard, the violation is prejudicial unless we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a jury would have found true all the aggravating facts upon which the challenged sentence was based. The defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing unless the appellate court can conclude that the omission of a jury trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to every aggravating fact the trial court used to justify an upper term sentence. Put another way, the defendant is entitled to a remand unless no reasonable jury would have found in favor of the defendant as to any of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court. In conducting this analysis, moreover, we may not assume that the record contains all the evidence that would have been presented had the aggravating circumstances been tried to a jury.
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768, 775
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087
Further, because the court imposed an enhancement for great bodily injury under section 12022.7, it was improper to also rely on great bodily injury as a factor in aggravation for purposes of imposing the upper term, although that error is subject to harmless error analysis. The court could, without running afoul of section 1170(b)(5), rely on other aggravating circumstances independent of the great bodily injury enhancement, such as a finding that the offense involved great violence or reflected a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness.
PEN 1170(b)(5) [a court cannot impose an upper term by using the fact of any enhancement upon which sentence is imposed under any provision of law]
Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1)
People v. Gutierrez (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1729, 1735-1736
People v. Castaneda (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 611, 614-615
When a defendant requests that his appointed counsel be relieved and new counsel be appointed under Marsden, the trial court must give the defendant an opportunity to explain his concerns about his counsel’s performance and provide examples of deficiencies. The defendant is entitled to substitute counsel when the record clearly shows that the appointed counsel is not providing adequate representation. The trial court abuses its discretion when the defendant has shown that a failure to replace the appointed attorney would substantially impair the right to assistance of counsel. The trial court also abuses its discretion if it does not conduct an adequate inquiry into the defendant’s motion. When the defendant has identified shortcomings by counsel, the court must obtain counsel’s response and conduct any further inquiry that is needed to determine whether counsel had adequate explanations for all of the defendant’s complaints.
The critical factual inquiry in a Marsden hearing will often involve whether counsel consulted sufficiently with their client, adequately investigated the facts, and properly prepared for the relevant hearing. When the trial court’s inquiry is deficient, we remand the case for a new Marsden hearing. On this record, the trial court lacked an adequate basis to determine whether counsel had properly investigated and prepared the defendant’s mitigation case for the sentencing hearing. Likewise, we lack an adequate record to review the trial court’s denial of Marsden relief. On remand, the trial court should conduct a Marsden hearing to determine whether the defendant is entitled to substitute counsel for purposes of his resentencing.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 123-124
People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 599
People v. Carter (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1092, 1099, 1102-1104
People v. Ng (2022) 13 Cal.5th 448, 500
People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 488
People v. Ivans (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1666 [stating the trial court must make a careful inquiry before it can intelligently rule on the Marsden motion]
We reverse and vacate the true findings on the gang murder special circumstances for counts 1 and 4. We also reverse and vacate the true findings on the gang enhancements for counts 1, 2, and 4. We remand the matter to the trial court to allow the District Attorney to retry the gang murder special circumstance and the gang enhancement for count 4 under the current version of the laws as amended by AB No. 333. Principles of double jeopardy preclude retrial as to the gang murder special circumstance for count 1 and the gang enhancement for counts 1 and 2.
Effective January 1, 2022, AB 333 amended section 186.22. The amendment narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang as used for the gang enhancement in section 186.22(b) and the gang murder special circumstance in section 190.2(a)(22). It changed the definition to an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons whose members collectively engage in, or have engaged in, a pattern of criminal gang activity, rather than individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal gang activity under the former version of section 186.22. A pattern of criminal activity under former section 186.22(e) required two or more predicate offenses committed on separate occasions or by evidence of such offenses committed by two or more persons on the same occasion.
The amendment changed the requirements of a pattern of criminal activity in four ways. First, a pattern of criminal activity now requires the predicate offenses to be separate from the currently charged offense or offenses. Second, the last predicate offense must have occurred within three years of the commission of the currently charged offense. Third, it requires that the predicate offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to persons. Fourth, the predicate offenses must have commonly benefited a criminal street gang. AB 333 narrowed the common benefit for the gang by the commission of an offense to be more than reputational. The prosecution must show how the predicate offenses provided an actual common benefit to the gang, and that they did not merely enhance the reputation of its individual members.
PEN 186.22(g)
People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 738
People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 460-461
People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206
People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 450
AB 333 applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments as we have here. The instructions read to the defendant’s jury preceded the effective date of AB 333 and his appeal was pending on that effective date. The new requirements in section 186.22 apply retroactively to his case on appeal.
People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 396
In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745
People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 738-739
We must reverse the gang enhancements and the gang murder special circumstance if any rational fact finder could have come to the opposite conclusion regarding the new requirements of AB 333.
People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 462
People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 739
People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 453
The double jeopardy clause of the federal constitution’s Fifth Amendment provides that no person may be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. The state constitution provides the same protection. A defendant may not be tried a second time for the same offense if the conviction is set aside for insufficiency of the evidence. Our conclusion that the gang special circumstance and the gang allegation were unsupported by sufficient evidence bars retrial.
Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 15
People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 454-455, 468
Because of insufficient evidence of the predicate offense, we reverse the juvenile court’s true finding on the gang enhancement as to count 1 pursuant to section 186.22(b)(1)(A) and remand the matter for resentencing. The prosecution did not present any evidence of predicate offenses showing the alleged gang members individually or collectively engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity. Thus, it did not prove that the robbery was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang.
Pursuant to section 186.22(b)(1)(A), the juvenile court may impose a sentencing enhancement for a felony committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang.
PEN 186.22(b)(1)(A)
A gang is an ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, having as one of its primary activities the commission of one or more enumerated offenses, having a common name or common identifying sign or symbol, and whose members individually or collectively engage in, or have engaged in, a pattern of criminal gang activity.
PEN 186.22(f)
A pattern of criminal gang activity is the commission of, attempted commission of, conspiracy to commit, or solicitation of, sustained juvenile petition for, or conviction of, two or more enumerated offenses, provided at least one of these offenses occurred after the effective date of [the criminal gang activity chapter], and the last of those offenses occurred within three years of the prior offense and within three years of the date the current offense is alleged to have been committed, the offenses were committed on separate occasions or by two or more members, the offense commonly benefited a criminal street gang, and the common benefit from the offenses is more than reputational.
PEN 186.22(e)(1)
The offenses comprising a pattern of criminal gang activity are referred to as predicate offenses. The term ‘commission’ includes the broader statutory inclusion of the ‘attempted commission of, conspiracy to commit, or solicitation of, sustained juvenile petition for, or conviction’ of a predicate offense.
People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818, 82
Section 186.22(e) does not state that a predicate offense must be committed by a gang member. However, that requirement derives from the definition of a criminal street gang, which includes proof that the gang’s members individually or collectively engage in, or have engaged in, a pattern of criminal gang activity. It follows, then, that the proof of a predicate offense must establish that a member of a defendant’s alleged gang was involved in its commission. Taken together the statutory scheme requires proof that gang members committed at least two predicate offenses within the statutory timeframe. Such proof will generally require evidence of who committed the crime and when they did so, as well as evidence of their gang membership and the nature of the crimes.
People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818, 829–830
When assessing a claim of sufficiency of evidence of a gang enhancement under section 186.22, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. While substantial evidence may consist of inferences, such inferences must be a product of logic and reason and must rest on the evidence’; inferences that are the result of mere speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding.
People v. Shively (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 460, 468
Kuhn v. Department of General Services (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1627, 1633
The defendant was sentenced to prison terms of 60-to-life plus 13 years under both the Three Strikes law (section 667) and the Habitual Offender provisions of section 667.7. The sentence included 13 years for enhancements. The judgment is modified to strike the great bodily injury enhancement imposed under section 12022.7(a) and the two prior serious felony enhancements imposed under section 667(a). On the amended abstract of judgment form, the court should indicate in section No. 8 that the defendant was sentenced pursuant to both section 667.7 and the Three Strikes law.
As relevant here, section 667.7 defines a habitual offender as any person convicted of a felony in which the person inflicted great bodily injury as provided in section 12022.53 or 12022.7, or personally used force which was likely to produce great bodily injury, who has served two or more prior separate prison terms as defined in section 667.5 for the crime of assault with a deadly weapon. A habitual offender with two prior separate prison terms shall be sentenced to life in prison and shall be ineligible for parole for a period of time calculated as the longest of three options: (1) 20 years; (2) the determinate term that would be imposed under section 1170, including any enhancements; or (3) any period prescribed by Section 190 or 3046. In other words, a habitual offender is not eligible for parole for a minimum of 20 years and for at least the duration of the sentence that would otherwise be imposed for the crime, including applicable enhancements.
[Gary note: The minimum term was set at 60 years, which was arrived at by tripling the minimum 20 years to life set by section 667.7 in keeping with section 667(e)(2)(A)(i), which sets the minimum term for Three Strikes sentences at “three times the term otherwise provided as punishment for each current felony conviction” if that produces the greatest Three Strikes sentence. The third option listed above–the reference to section 3046–is what makes that the applicable minimum term under section 667.7.]PEN 667.7
PEN 3046(a)(2) [(a) An inmate imprisoned under a life sentence shall not be paroled until he or she has served the greater of the following: … (2) A term as established pursuant to any other law that establishes a minimum term or minimum period of confinement under a life sentence before eligibility for parole.]
Section 667.7 is a self-contained sentencing scheme for habitual violent offenders. Because section 667.7 ensures that a habitual offender’s parole ineligibility lasts at least as long as the corresponding determinate sentence would, including enhancements, a sentencing court may not impose determinate sentence enhancements to further lengthen this period of parole ineligibility.
People v. Jenkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 234, 241
People v. Victor (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 518, 524-526
People v. Tuggle (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 147, 157-158, disapproved on another ground in Jenkins, at p. 252
Permitting determinate enhancements to be imposed on top of a habitual offender life sentence would lead to absurd, anomalous, results. Section 667.7 expressly authorizes courts to use applicable enhancements to calculate the offender’s hypothetical determinate sentence. If the total exceeds 20 years, the determinate sentence defines the offender’s minimum parole eligibility. Thus, if the determinate sentence, including enhancements, for habitual offender A equaled 21 years, this would become his minimum term. Since the enhancements were used to calculate this actual minimum term, the court could not recycle the enhancements to add another five or ten years. If the determinate sentence, including enhancements, for habitual offender B, a less serious offender, did not exceed 20 years, then B would be hit twice. First, as the Legislature intended, his minimum term would be the statutory floor, 20 years. Second, the same enhancements, which were not enough to put his determinate term over 20 years, would then be added on top of the statutory floor. This is not what the Legislature intended.
People v. Victor (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 518, 524-525
People v. Jenkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 234, 253 [noting that engrafting a term of enhancement onto the life term would lead to a result inconsistent with the statute’s methodology for setting the minimum period of required imprisonment, and nothing in the statute suggests that the Legislature intended that those same enhancements be used again to add an additional term of imprisonment onto the life term]
An appellate court may correct a sentence that is not authorized by law. Accordingly, we will strike the unauthorized enhancements from the defendant’s sentence.
In re Ricky H. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 176, 191
In re Sandel (1966) 64 Cal.2d 412, 417-419
People v. Skeirik (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 444, 468-469
On the amended abstract of judgment form, the court should indicate in section No. 8 that the defendant was sentenced pursuant to both section 667.7 and the Three Strikes law.
[Gary note: The court cited no authority for its directive for the correction of the abstract of judgment. It isn’t entirely clear that the abstract was incorrect, but a fair reading led me to that conclusion. In any event, there is much authority supporting the court’s ability to order correction of abstracts of judgment and minute orders, and I have set out some below.]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