Tag Archives: Ex post facto

Discretion, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000981

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court abused its discretion by denying diversion after finding that the defendant is NOT likely to commit a super strike offense.

We reverse the judgment and direct the court to vacate its order denying mental health diversion and enter a new order granting the motion unless there is evidence of changed circumstances that provide a basis for denying the motion.

First Holding:

The defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause and appealed the denial of his motion for mental health diversion. Appeal lies from the judgment.

Authority:

PEN 1237.5 [appeal may be taken after a no contest plea if the court issues a certificate of probable cause]

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

Second Holding:

We review the diversion denial order for abuse of discretion, meaning the decision is arbitrary or capricious, applied the wrong legal standard, or is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795

Third Holding:

The diversion law promotes increased diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety. The potentially ameliorative benefit for criminal defendants who suffer from a qualifying mental disorder is balanced against protecting public safety. The law is intended to apply as broadly as possible.

Authority:

PEN 1001.35(a)

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 630-631

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1149

Fourth Holding:

A defendant charged with a felony may be referred to a program of mental health treatment utilizing existing inpatient or outpatient mental health resources” for up to two years. If the defendant performed satisfactorily in diversion, at the end of the period of diversion, the court shall dismiss the defendant’s criminal charges that were the subject of the criminal proceedings at the time of the initial diversion.

In other words, the arrest upon which the diversion was based shall be deemed never to have occurred. If the defendant performs unsatisfactorily in a treatment program or engages in criminal conduct, the court may reinstate criminal proceedings.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(f)(1)(A)(ii) and (C)(i), (g), and (h)

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 631

Fifth Holding:

A defendant is eligible for diversion if a mental health expert diagnoses the defendant with a qualifying mental disorder that was a significant factor in commission of the charged offense. A defendant is suitable for diversion if

(1) the expert opines that the defendant would respond to treatment;

(2) the defendant consents to diversion and waives the right to a speedy trial;

(3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment; and

(4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b) and (c)

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 452

Sixth Holding:

The only disputed issue in this appeal is public safety. The Legislature defined “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” by incorporating section 1170.18. Section 1170.18(c) defines “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” as an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony listed in section 667. The relevant violent felonies in section 667 are super strikes. Burglary–the charge the defendant faced–is not a super strike.

Courts limit discretion to deny diversion on “public safety” grounds to instances where a defendant is likely to commit a super strike.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449–450

People v. Williams (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 990, 1001

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1151

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896

People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113, 121

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 798–799

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 690–691

Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 67, 83, 87–88

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 454–455

Seventh Holding:

The Legislature is presumed to know about existing case law when it amends a statute. The Legislature amended section 1001.36 seven times between 2022 and 2026 without eliminating the reference to section 1170.18, despite the decisions cited above, which require a finding that the defendant poses a risk of committing super strikes.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1062

People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, 743

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 634

Eighth Holding:

Beginning in 2027, courts applying section 1001.36 will no longer use the old definition of “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” from section 1170.18. Instead, they will apply a new standard: “substantial and undue risk to the physical safety of another person.” Regardless of the forthcoming changes to section 1001.36, the version of the law applying to this defendant required a super strike finding.

The trial court found he did not pose a risk of committing super strikes, only that he poses an unreasonable risk of committing further residential burglaries. The court could not deny diversion based on a risk the defendfant will commit burglaries, thereby discounting the need to find public safety is imperiled by likely super strike offenses. The Legislature has specifically defined what constitutes ‘an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety’ under the statute, limiting it to the danger the defendant will commit a super strike.

Authority:

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 455

Ninth Holding:

Courts recognize “residual discretion” to deny diversion. However, while it is clear a trial court retains residual discretion to deny diversion even if all the threshold requirements are met, that does not mean, as the court suggested here, that it could reject a request for diversion based on an alternative meaning of public safety inconsistent with the specific statutory definition in section 1001.36(c)(4). In the guise of exercising its residual discretion, a court is not permitted to redefine public safety in a manner inconsistent with the Legislature’s expressed intent.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896

Tenth Holding:

Reasons the court might exercise discretion to deny diversion include lack of a treatment program; a defendant’s history of failed treatment or misconduct in prior programs; or the availability of a better program for the defendant’s needs.

Authority:

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 457

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 889–890

Sentencing

Case 000896

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant’s 10-year prison terms constitute ex post facto punishment. We reverse the judgment and remand for a new sentencing hearing.

First Holding:

The trial court instructed the jurors that the offenses charged in counts 1 through 4 allegedly occurred sometime between a specific date in 2007 and a specific date in 2015.

The jurors made no specific finding about the dates of the acts on which they convicted the defendant for counts 1 through 4. The jury made no finding that the offenses in counts 1 through 4 occurred before the Legislature increased the sentencing triad from 3-6-8 years to 5-8-10 yearson September 9, 2010. In addition, the record does not establish that the jury must have based its verdicts on acts occurring after that date.

Thus, we conclude the trial court violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws by imposing 10-year terms for the defendant’s convictions on counts 1 through 4.

Authority:

People v. Hiscox (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 253, 257–262

Second Holding:

As to the remedy for the ex post facto violation, we exercise our discretion to vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand the matter for full resentencing. On remand, the trial court should impose prison terms on counts 1 through 4 in accordance with the triad in effect prior to September 9, 2010.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Hiscox (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 253, 262

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

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000886

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

1n 1991, for a crime committed in 1989, the defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). When his case came up for resentencing under section 1172.75 in 2025, the court believed its only discretion was to impose less than the upper term on the determinate portion of his sentence. Defense counsel agreed. This was error. The court also erred in its calculation of credit for time served. And the restitution fine must be struck.

First Holding:

Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5(b) required trial courts to impose a sentence enhancement of one additional year for each of a defendant’s prior prison or jail terms. Section 1172.75(a) now provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, under section 667.5(b) is legally invalid.

Section 1172.75(b) and (c) mandate that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identify eligible individuals whose sentences include now-invalidated section 667.5 enhancements, and that the trial court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

While conducting the resentencing, section 1172.75(d)(2), provides the express instruction that 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.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1054

Second Holding:

Section 190.2(a) provides that where there has been a finding of certain enumerated special circumstances in connection with a defendant who has been found guilty of first degree murder, the penalty is death or LWOP. Section 1385 previously provided the trial court with the discretion to strike or dismiss the special circumstances.

Although the statute only authorizes such relief upon motion of the court or application of the prosecution, the defendant nevertheless has the right to invite the court to exercise its power by an application to strike a count.

Failure by a defendant to make such a request under section 1385 results in forfeiture of the issue. In the interests of justice, and in consideration of defendant’s alternative argument of ineffective assistance of counsel, we exercise our discretion to reach a question that has not been preserved for review by a party.

Authority:

PEN 190.2(a)

PEN 1385

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141, 1144

People v. Coleman (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 709, 724

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6

Third Holding:

Contrary to Section 1385, however, section 1385.1 provides that a judge shall not strike or dismiss any special circumstance which is admitted by a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or is found by a jury or court as provided in Sections 190.1 to 190.5, inclusive. The section was enacted as of June 6, 1990, via voter initiative Proposition 115. The dispute here centers around whether section 1385.1 serves as a bar to the trial court’s discretion to strike section 190.2 special circumstances when the court is resentencing a defendant pursuant to section 1172.75 for a pre-June 6, 1990, crime.

Authority:

PEN 1385.1

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141

Fourth Holding:

Ordinarily, we review the trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. However, defendant argues pursuant to McDavid that the trial court necessarily abused its discretion when it failed to strike his special circumstances because it was unaware that it had any discretion to do so.

We therefore examine whether the trial court had any discretion in this regard, which is a question of statutory interpretation to be reviewed de novo.

Authority:

People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 757

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1023

Fifth Holding:

The Nguyen court noted that section 1385.1 operates only prospectively, therefore, a trial court may dismiss a special circumstance allegation attached to any murders committed before June 6, 1990, the date that section 1385.1 became effective. Nguyen specifically relied upon Tapia.

In Tapia, Proposition 115 took effect while the defendant was in the process of being prosecuted for first degree murder. The defendant challenged the trial court’s decision to conduct voir dire pursuant to the new Proposition 115 procedures.

In examining whether Proposition 115’s provisions could be applied to crimes committed prior to its effective date after consideration of ex post facto concerns, the Supreme Court separated the provisions into four separate categories depending on their impact upon defendants.

Relevant to this inquiry, the high court expressly categorized section 1385.1 as falling within the category of provisions that change the legal consequences of criminal behavior to the detriment of defendants and therefore cannot be applied to crimes committed before the measure’s effective date.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141

Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 286-287, 297

Sixth Holding:

The mandate in section 1172.75(d)(2), that the trial court apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion” evidences a legislative intent that defendants are to be treated with more leniency, not less, when being resentenced pursuant to this statute. Because the trial court clearly expressed more than once its belief that it did not have any discretion with respect to the LWOP sentence on Count 1, we deem the court to have abused its discretion and reverse.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(2)

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1023 [A court acting while unaware of the full scope of its discretion is deemed to have abused it.]

Seventh Holding:

The court court failed to award the defendant 2 days of credit for time served, and we modify the judgment accordingly.

(Gary note: The court did not cite any authority, but it seems obvious that the court has the power to modify the credit for time served to the correct number. I have cited authority the court could have relied on. The issue does not seem so much a matter of the trial court refusing to award credit; rather, it was a mathematical error. I speculate that perhaps the court did not award credit for the first day in custody. Counting days is different than determining the number of days between dates. From January 1 through January 31 is 31 days, counting. But if you subtract January 1 from January 31, you will realize only 30 days.  For credit for time served, the correct number is the counting number–31 in my example.)

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

Eighth Holding:

As part of defendant’s original 1991 sentencing, the court ordered him to pay $10,000 to the state Restitution Fund pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4 (formerly Govt. Code sec. 13967(a).) In light of section 1465.9, which compels that restitution fines older than 10 years be vacated, we vacate that fine. In Salstrom, the court determined that the reference to 10 years is from the date the restitution fine was originally ordered.

Resentencing does not reset the 10-year limitation. Applying section 1465.9 to reduce defendant’s sentence as part of a section 1172.75 resentencing hearing gives effect to both statutes.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 652-653 [detailing the history of the restitution statutes]

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 599-601, review granted on unrelated issues, March 11, 2026, S295038

Mejia v. Reed (2000) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663 [when two codes are to be construed, they must be read together and so construed as to give effect, when possible, to all the provisions thereof]

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

Case 000828

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The Trial Court Erred by Failing to Instruct on the Lesser Included Offense of Nonforcible Lewd Acts as to Count 8.

First Holding:

A trial court must instruct on lesser included offenses, even in the absence of a request, whenever there is substantial evidence raising a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense are present. Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury, that is, evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 645

Second Holding:

On appeal, we review independently the question whether the trial court failed to instruct on a lesser included offense. Where a trial court has erred in failing to instruct on a lesser included offense, we review for prejudice under the standard set forth in Watson. Under this standard, the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense is not subject to reversal unless it is reasonably probable a more favorable result would have been obtained absent the error.

Authority:

People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 705

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

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

Third Holding:

Nonforcible lewd act under section 288(a), is a lesser included offense of forcible lewd act under section 288(b)(1). The crimes are distinguishable in that forcible lewd act requires the defendant to have committed the crime by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear.

Authority:

People v. Chan (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 408, 421

People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1015, 1026

Fourth Holding:

In this context, force means physical force substantially different from or substantially greater than that necessary to accomplish the act itself. Fear has been defined as (1) A feeling of alarm or disquiet caused by the expectation of danger, pain, disaster, or the like; terror; dread; apprehension and (2) Extreme reverence or awe, as toward a supreme power.

And duress as used in this context means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, hardship or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to (1) perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed or, (2) acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted.

Authority:

People v. Cochran (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 8, 13, disapproved on another ground in People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229, 248, fn. 12

People v. Cardenas (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 927, 939–940

Fifth Holding:

On this record, there is simply no evidence that the defendant employed the requisite force, duress, or fear to commit the forcible lewd act charged in count 8.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1319–1321

Sixth Holding:

Consequently, we must reverse the judgment and conviction for forcible lewd act under section 288(b)(1), as charged in count 8. Under settled law, the judgment will be modified to reflect a conviction for nonforcible lewd act under section 288(a), unless the People elect to retry the defendant on the greater charge and are successful.

Authority:

People v. Edwards (1985) 39 Cal.3d 107, 118

Seventh Holding:

The federal and state prohibitions against ex post facto laws apply to any statute that punishes as a crime an act previously committed which was not a crime when done or that inflicts greater punishment than the applicable law when the crime was committed.

It is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove to the jury that the charged offenses occurred on or after the effective date of the statute providing for the defendant’s punishment. When the evidence at trial does not establish that fact, the defendant is entitled to be sentenced under the formerly applicable statutes even if he raised no objection in the trial court.

And, where the prosecutor failed to establish at trial when the charged acts occurred, it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to review the record and select among acts that occurred before and after that date, or to infer that certain acts probably occurred after that date.

In sum, as to counts 8 and 10, the prosecution failed to present unambiguous evidence that the acts underlying these counts occurred after the law increasing the sentence range took effect. Given the ambiguity, the trial court was not permitted to impose the harsher penalty under the revised law as to these counts.

The defendant’s 10-year sentences on counts 8 and 10 therefore violate the ex post facto clause and resentencing is required on these counts. At resentencing, as to counts 8 and 10, the court must apply the sentencing provisions applicable before the statute was amended to increase the sentence range.

Authority:

People v. Hiscox (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 253, 256, 261

Eighth Holding:

Because we conclude that the judgment must be reversed in part and this action must be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, the defendant will ultimately be entitled to full resentencing.

Authority:

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

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681 [Although the Court of Appeal’s prior remand order was for resentencing on the modified convictions only, we believe a remand for a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.]

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000667

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, it was error to reimpose the restitution fine (as it was more than 10 years old) and to impose various fees that were not enacted until after the defendant was originally sentenced.

First Holding:

A restitution fine cannot be re-imposed more than 10 years after initially imposed.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d) [setting a 10-year limit as to the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4]

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 601, review granted Mar. 11, 2026, S295038, on another issue

Second Holding:

The assessment and fee did not become law until after defendant’s 1996 sentencing, and thus cannot be imposed.

Authority:

People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4th 749, 754 [applying section 1465.8 only to convictions imposed after its operative date of August 17, 2003]

People v. Davis (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 998, 1000-1001 [applying Government Code section 70373 only to convictions after its effective date of January 1, 2009]

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000480

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by failing to apply Penal Code section 1170(h)(5)(A) and (B), regarding mandatory supervision, after sentencing the defendant to county jail.

First Holding:

Punishment for a conviction of possession for sale of methamphetamine is governed by section 1170(h), which provides that punishment shall be by imprisonment in county jail. Although the section 12022(c) firearm enhancement directed imprisonment in state prison, section 1170(h)(9) required the sentence to be punishable as directed by the underlying offense. Under section 1170(h)(5)(A) and (B), a court imposing a sentence under subdivision (h)(1) must suspend execution of a concluding portion of the term for a period selected at the court’s discretion, known as mandatory supervision, unless it finds, in the interest of justice, that it is not appropriate in a particular case.

This section creates a statutory presumption in favor of the imposition of a period of mandatory supervision in all applicable cases, and, if the court denies mandatory supervision, it must state its reasons on the record. Given that the court ordered a term of imprisonment in county jail under section 1170(h), it is appropriate to remand for resentencing for consideration of mandatory supervision.

Authority:

PEN 1170(h)

Second Holding:

After the date of offense in this matter, section 12022(c)(2) was amended and now provides for imprisonment in state prison as punishment for a violation with a firearm enhancement under that section, not under section 1170(h). Applying this statute retroactively would likely violate the ex post facto clause.

Authority:

PEN 12022(c)

U.S. Const., art. I, secs. 9, 10

People v. White (2017) 2 Cal.5th 349, 360 [A statute violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws if it increases the punishment for a crime after it is committed]

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000368

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was sentenced to LWOP in the 1980s for his murder and robbery conviction. In a 2022 resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the superior court declined to resentence the defendant because of prior convictions for sexually violent offenses that made him ineligible. The court erred, as the prior prison term enhancement subjection to review under section 1172.75 was based on escape, not on his prior sexually violent offenses. His prior sexually violent offenses were not a basis to render him ineligible for resentencing.

First Holding:

Defendant’s prior prison term enhancement was imposed based on a conviction for escape, which is not a sexually violent offense as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600(b) Thus, the enhancement was not imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense under section 1172.75(a).

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(a)

WIC 6600(b)

People v. Green (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 365, 370-373

Second Holding:

Under section 1172.75(f), commencing on January 1, 2025, an individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600(b) and sentenced to death or a life term without the possibility of parole, who, as of January 1, 2025, has not had their judgment reviewed and verified by the sentencing court as provided in subdivision (c), is not eligible for recall and resentencing under this section. This subdivision does not apply retroactively. But the defendant’s sentence was reviewed in 2022, and by its terms the section 1172.75(f) restriction is not retroactive. The disqualification does not apply to the defendant.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(f)

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.”

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000204

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The 25 years to life sentences on three counts violate constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws because the offenses occurred prior to the effective date of the statute under which they were imposed. The trial record does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the offenses in the three counts occurred after the effective date of the statutory amendment increasing the penalty for the offenses.

First Holding:

The federal and state constitutions proscribe ex post facto laws. Both constitutions prohibit legislatures from retroactively increasing the punishment for a crime. The federal and state ex post facto laws are interpreted the same way.

Authority:

U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 9

Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 42–43

People v. Grant (1999) 20 Cal.4th 150, 158

People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1220

Second Holding:

Ex post facto principles have been applied to the One Strike law and its amendments. Where the ex post facto clauses apply, it is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove to the jury that the charged offenses occurred on or after the effective date of the statute providing for the defendant’s punishment. When the evidence at trial does not establish that fact, the defendant is entitled to be sentenced under the formerly applicable statutes even if he raised no objection in the trial court.

Authority:

People v. Canales (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1230, 1259–1260

People v. Hiscox (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 253, 256–262

People v. Riskin (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 234, 244–245

Third Holding:

An unauthorized sentence may also be corrected on appeal despite the absence of an objection below. A sentence is unauthorized if it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354

Fourth Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, a remand and full resentencing is generally appropriate so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion following the changed circumstances. However, when the trial court imposes the maximum possible sentence, there is no need to remand the matter for resentencing. Where there are no sentencing choices to restructure, it is appropriate to modify the sentence on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893, 896 fn 15

People v. Lopez (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 337, 342

People v. Francis (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 876, 887

Fifth Holding:

The one strike law includes a provision requiring consecutive sentences for some, but not all, of the offenses listed in section 667.61(c). The only crime for which the defendant was convicted is identified in section 667.61(c)(8) and therefore, defendant’s convictions do not implicate the mandatory sentencing provision in section 667.61(i). By implication, section 667.61(i) leaves the decision to impose consecutive or concurrent terms on the nonspecified offenses to the sentencing court’s discretion under section 669.

Authority:

PEN 667.61(i)

People v. Lopez (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 287, 291

People v. Valdez (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1515, 1524