Tag Archives: Forfeiture

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001067

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief:

There is not sufficient nexus with the current offense or with future criminality to justify the imposition of the gang conditions of probation. In addition, payment for counseling cannot be ordered as a condition of probation. We direct the trial court to strike the gang conditions and to modify the counseling provision to clarify that payment of costs is not a condition of probation.

First Holding:

When a trial court grants probation, section 1203.1(j) states that the court may impose and require any or all of the terms of imprisonment, fine, and conditions specified in that section, and other reasonable conditions, as it may determine are fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done, that amends may be made to society for the breach of the law, for any injury done to any person resulting from that breach, and generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer.

Accordingly, courts have broad discretion to impose conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1(j)

People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120

Second Holding:

There are limits to the conditions a court may impose. Under Lent, a condition of probation will be invalid if it:

(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted,

(2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and

(3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality.

This test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term.

Authority:

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s decision to impose a given probation condition for an abuse of discretion, considering the facts of the underlying offense and the defendant’s background. (Olguin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 379; People v. Patillo (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1576, 1579.) We review constitutional challenges to specific conditions of probation—including assertions that a condition improperly delegates the trial court’s authority—de novo.

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

People v. Patillo (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1576, 1579

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902

Fourth Holding:

The defendant complains that the court should not have reviewed his juvenile record, as juvenile proceedings are confidential.

In general, juvenile court records are confidential. Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 governs the release of juvenile court records. It enumerates a list of persons who may inspect a juvenile case file without a court order, which includes, among others, court personnel, the district attorney, a city attorney, or city prosecutor authorized to prosecute criminal or juvenile cases under state law, attorneys for the parties, judges, referees, other hearing officers, probation officers, and law enforcement officers who are actively participating in criminal or juvenile proceedings involving the minor, and any other person who may be designated by court order of the judge or the juvenile court upon filing a petition.

Authority:

WIC 827

City of Eureka v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 755, 761

Fifth Holding:

Welfare and Institutions Code section 828(a)(2) states that a court shall consider any information relating to the taking of a minor into custody, if the information is not contained in a record that has been sealed, for purposes of determining whether adjudications of commission of crimes as a juvenile warrant a finding that there are circumstances in aggravation pursuant to Section 1170 of the Penal Code or to deny probation.

The defendant’s juvenile record has not been sealed. Thus, court personnel, the prosecutor, and the probation department were permitted to inspect the records without court order. Moreover, the court was permitted to consider information related to the taking of Reeves into custody for the purpose of determining whether to grant or deny probation.

Authority:

WIC(a)(2)

Sixth Holding:

Probation conditions need not relate directly to the underlying conviction, and may, instead, be reasonably related to future criminality. But here we cannot conclude that the gang conditions are reasonably related to future criminality. As discussed, even if appropriately considered, the defendant’s juvenile record is 10 years old, and in the intervening 10 years, there is no indication that the defendant has engaged in any criminal activity related to gangs.

Authority:

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486

Seventh Holding:

Courts may properly base probation conditions upon information in a probation report that raises concerns about future criminality unrelated to a prior offense. Yet Lent’s requirement that a probation condition must be reasonably related to future criminality contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition. Thus, not every probation condition bearing a remote, attenuated, tangential, or diaphanous connection to future criminal conduct can be considered reasonable.

Courts are not authorized to impose “conditions to shield probationers from exposure to people and circumstances that are less than ideal but are nonetheless unrelated to defendant’s current or prior offenses or any factor suggesting a risk of future criminal conduct. Accordingly, we conclude that the gang conditions are not reasonable under Lent and must be stricken.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1122

People v. Brandão (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 568, 574, 577

Eighth Holding:

The trial court may order a defendant to pay for reasonable costs of probation; however, such costs are collateral and their payment cannot be made a condition of probation.

Accordingly, we will direct the trial court to modify the condition with this clarification.

Authority:

Brown v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 313, 321

Ninth Holding:

The defendant’s remaining arguments about the propriety of the order directing that all costs are to be borne by the defendant are forfeited for lack of objection at the time they were ordered.

Authority:

People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 858–859 [defendant waived arguments regarding ability to pay probation costs by failing to raise them in the trial court]

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 001063

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by not staying the sentence on the felon in possession conviction (count 3) in Case B because the offense was based on the same act or course of conduct underlying the defendant’s hotel burglary conviction (count 1) for which the court imposed a six-year term. As we are remanding for a full resentencing, the parties may address their issues in the trial court with the accuracy of the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

Section 1237.5 provides that an appeal may not be taken after a plea of guilty or no contest unless the defendant has filed a statement showing reasonable grounds for appeal and the trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause.

Courts have recognized two exceptions to this certificate requirement. A certificate is not required for: (1) issues involving a search and seizure, the validity of which was contested under section 1538.5, and (2) issues regarding proceedings held after the plea for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed.

Regarding this latter category, the the critical inquiry is whether a challenge to the sentence is in substance a challenge to the validity of the plea, thus rendering the appeal subject to the requirements of section 1237.5. The parties to a plea agreement are free to make any lawful bargain they choose, and the exact bargain they make affects whether a subsequent appeal, in substance, is an attack on the validity of the plea.

Authority:

PEN 1237.5

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780, 781-782, 785

Second Holding:

Where a defendant has agreed to a specified sentence in return for his or her plea, the defendant must obtain a certificate of probable cause to challenge the trial court’s imposition of that exact sentence on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 73, 78 [one who agreed to a specific sentence in return for his plea must obtain a certificate of probable cause in order to claim on appeal that the agreed sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment]

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295 [defendants are estopped from complaining of sentences to which they agreed]

Third Holding:

But where a defendant negotiates a plea term which provides for a maximum sentence, rather than a specified sentence, which necessarily contemplates further adversary proceedings in which the trial court must exercise its discretion to determine the appropriate sentence within the constraints of the bargain, a certificate of probable cause is not required because, in substance, the defendant’s appeal of the selected sentence is not an attack upon the plea itself.

Authority:

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 785

Fourth Holding:

The trial court erred by not staying the sentence on the felon in possession conviction (count 3) in Case B because the offense was based on the same act or course of conduct underlying the defendant’s hotel burglary conviction (count 1) for which the court imposed a six-year term.

The defendant was convicted of burglary by taking the firearm and then of possessing the firearm after she took it. Under these circumstances, there is a course of conduct pursuant to one criminal objective—to possess the firearm by stealing it from the hotel room—and based on that defendant cannot be punished for both offenses under section 654.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Atencio (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1239, 1239 [sec. 654 precluded punishment for both grand theft of a firearm and being a felon in possession of the same firearm]

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468 [recognizing § 654 has been held to preclude punishment for both burglary and theft where the burglary is based on an entry with intent to commit that theft]

Fifth 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. At its simplest, section 654 proscribes double punishment for multiple violations of the Penal Code based on the same act or omission.

Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one. Previously, trial courts were required to impose the longest possible term when section 654 applied. In January 2022, the statute was amended to provide courts with discretion to select either the greater or the lesser term and stay execution of the remaining term.

(Gary note, of marginal historical interest at best–noted also in my summary of case 000855: Prior to 1998, Penal Code section 654 had exactly the same language as it currently has, and a court was free to impose sentence on any one of the counts to which section 654 applied. See People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1. In response to that Supreme Court decision, the Legislature amended section 654 to require that the court impose sentence on the count containing the longest potential term. Through AB 518, effective 1/1/2022, the Legislature restored section 654 to its former language, thus restoring to the court the discretion to choose on which count punishment should be imposed and executed. Now you know.)

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

People v. Atencio (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1239, 1243

People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1208

Sixth Holding:

A sentence in violation of section 654 is an unauthorized sentence that generally may be corrected on appeal without an objection by the defendant in the trial court. This general rule, however, is subject to an exception. Where a defendant has pleaded guilty in return for a specified sentence, appellate courts will not find error even though the trial court acted in excess of jurisdiction in reaching that figure, so long as the trial court did not lack fundamental jurisdiction. The exception does not preclude defendant from raising section 654 on appeal where the plea does not have the defendant agreeing to a specific term.

Authority:

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.412(b) [By agreeing to a specified term in prison personally and by counsel, a defendant who is sentenced to that term or a shorter one abandons any claim that a component of the sentence violates section 654’s prohibition of double punishment, unless that claim is asserted at the time the agreement is recited on the record]

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295

Seventh Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing, a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances. Upon remand, the trial court may revisit all of its sentencing choices in formulating an aggregate term, and must impose a sentence for each of defendant’s convictions.

Authority:

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

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

Eighth Holding:

Both parties agree that the abstract of judgment contains errors. They do not necessarily agree on the errors. Because we are remanding the case for a full resentencing hearing, which will necessitate a new abstract of judgment, we need not address the parties’ contentions regarding alleged errors in the current abstract. The parties may address any arguments regarding the correct amount of the fees and fines to the trial court during the resentencing hearing.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [an abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction and does not control if it differs from the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment]

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Fines and fees, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 001052

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Gary note:  This case had a ton of issues.  The wins consisted of striking two of the four counts of being a felon in possession of ammunition; because he did not waive his presence at the court trial, reversal of the findings on his prior convictions and aggravating circumstance in aggravation made in his absence; remand for a hearing on his strikes that were based on the pre-AB 333 amendments to the criminal gang activity statute; correction of the abstract of judgment that reflected fines and fees that were not orally pronounced; and correction of his credit for time served.  In the course of deciding the case, however, the court announced several principles that I feel are important, even though in this instance they were resolved against the defendant. 

I apologize for the length of the summary.  

First Holding:

In assessing a claim of insufficient evidence, we examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We presume the evidence of each element of the offense was sufficient, and defendant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating otherwise. To meet this burden, defendant must do more than just recite his own evidence or portray the available evidence in a light favorable to him.

We do not reweigh the evidence or revisit credibility issues, but rather presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact that could reasonably be deduced from the evidence. We must accept all logical inferences that the jury may have drawn from circumstantial evidence. If the circumstances reasonably justify the findings made by the trier of fact, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.

Authority:

People v. Martinez (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1329

People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573-1574

People v. Pham (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 919, 924-925

People v. Lucero (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 370, 411

Second Holding:

It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. Stated otherwise, a litigant may not change his or her position on appeal and assert a new theory. To permit this change in strategy would be unfair to the trial court and the opposing litigant. To be sure, we have discretion to consider a new theory on appeal when it is purely a matter of applying the law to undisputed facts.

But the defendant cannot now, for the first time, claim that insufficient evidence supports his convictions based on new evidence and and a new theory. Accordingly, we decline to consider defendant’s new theory on appeal.

Authority:

Brown v. Boren (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1316

Third Holding:

A trial court must give an instruction on every theory of the case that is supported by substantial evidence. But the court must not give an instruction that is not correct or pertinent, nor is it required to give an instruction that is not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1047

People v. Larsen (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 810, 823

Fourth Holding:

We note that defendant forfeited his challenge to (a particular jury instruction) because he did not raise the same instructional error issue in the trial court as he raises on appeal. We nonetheless address the merits because defendant maintains that (the jury instruction) as given was not a correct statement of the law.

Authority:

People v. Rios (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1139 [Generally, an issue is forfeited on appeal if the defendant failed to make a timely and specific objection on the ground asserted on appeal]

People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 719 [The rule of forfeiture does not apply, however, if the instruction was an incorrect statement of the law, or if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights]

Fifth Holding:

We review claims of instructional error de novo. We must review the wording of the jury instruction and assess whether it accurately states the law. We must also consider whether a reasonable likelihood exists that the challenged instruction caused the jury to misapply the law in violation of the Constitution.

The challenged instruction is viewed in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner. There is no error in a trial court’s failing or refusing to instruct on one matter, unless the remaining instructions, considered as a whole, fail to cover the material issues raised at trial.

As long as the trial court has correctly instructed the jury on all matters pertinent to the case, there is no error. We interpret the instructions so as to support the judgment if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.

Authority:

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

People v. Dieguez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 266, 277

People v. Vang (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1129

Sixth Holding:

On appeal, we review independently the question whether the trial court improperly failed to instruct on a lesser included offense.

Trial courts have a sua sponte duty to instruct juries on all lesser included offenses where there is substantial evidence raising a question as to whether all the elements of the charged offense are present. Under the substantial evidence standard, the trial court has no obligation to instruct on theories not supported, or only weakly supported by the evidence.

However, instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is substantial enough to merit consideration by the jury. Substantial evidence in this context is evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed.

Authority:

People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 113

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

People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 155, 162

People v. Reeves (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 14, 51

Seventh Holding:

The defendant cannot be convicted of multiple counts of being a felon in possession of different types of ammunition. Multiple items of contraband that are classified within a single statutory category or subdivision will support only a single violation of a possession statute. This includes possession of different types of ammunition.

There is, however, an exception when contraband is possessed by a defendant at different times or at different locations.

Authority:

In re Carleisha P. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 912, 923

De La Cerda v. Superior Court (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 40

People v. Sample (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1253

People v. Von Latta (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 329

Eighth Holding:

Defendant was not present for the bifurcated bench trial on his prior convictions and aggravating factors allegations. The parties agree that this was error because defendant did not expressly waive his right to be present for the bench trial in writing as required by section 977(b)(1).

Authority:

PEN 977(b)(1)

Ninth Holding:

A defendant has a right to be present at critical stages of a criminal prosecution, a right protected by both the federal Constitution and the state Constitution. California has also guaranteed the right by statute, under section 977. The defendant may waive that right.

The waiver of a defendant’s right to be present may be in writing and filed with the court or, with the court’s consent, may be entered personally by the defendant or by the defendant’s counsel of record. Although the defendant submitted a writing under which he waived his right to a jury trial on prior convictions and aggravating factors allegations, the waiver extended only to his right to a jury, not to his right to be present.

Authority:

PEN 977

U.S. Const., 6th and 14th Amends.

Cal. Const., art. I, secs. 15, 16

Kentucky v. Stincer (1987) 482 U.S. 730, 745

People v. Perry (2006) 38 Cal.4th 302, 311

Tenth Holding:

Absent a valid waiver, constitutional error concerning a defendant’s right of presence is subject to harmless error review under Chapman. We must therefore assess whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not contribute to the outcome of the proceeding.

Here, defense counsel did not call any witnesses and submitted on the prosecution’s exhibits at the bifurcated trial. Had defendant been present at the trial, he could have assisted in his defense and/or exercised his constitutional right to testify on his own behalf regarding any number of the aggravating factors that were alleged against him.

Thus, we cannot say that the exclusion of defendant at the bifurcated bench trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we will remand the matter for a new bifurcated trial on the prior convictions and aggravating factors.

Authority:

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23

People v. Millsap (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 368, 384

Eleventh Holding:

The trial court found true that defendant had been convicted in 1999 of unlawful possession of a firearm committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Based upon the recent decision in Fletcher, both parties request that the true finding on the prior gang-related enhancement be vacated and that the matter be remanded for a retrial in conformance with the changes to the law on criminal street gangs after AB 333.

Authority:

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

Twelfth Holding:

The Three Strikes law doubles a felony sentence if the defendant has a prior conviction for a serious felony, which includes any felony offense that would also constitute a felony violation of section 186.22. A prior felony firearm conviction constitutes a strike if committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang” pursuant to section 186.22(b)(1).

Authority:

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

PEN 667(d)(1), (e)(1)

PEN 1170.12(b)(1)(c)(1)

People v. Briceno (2004) 34 Cal.4th 451, 45

Thirteenth Holding:

AB 333, effective January 1, 2022, amended section 186.22 to narrow the definition of benefit to mean to provide a common benefit to members of a gang where the common benefit is more than reputational. Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational may include, but are not limited to, financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting a perceived or actual gang rival, or intimidation or silencing of a potential current or previous witness or informant.

This provision applies retroactively to cases that are not final on appeal to determine whether a prior violation of section 186.22 constitutes a strike. With regard to prior convictions that are premised on violations of section 186.22, current law applies in determining whether they qualify as prior serious felony convictions under section 1192.7(c)(28). The appropriate remedy is to remand to permit the prosecution the opportunity to establish that the prior conviction constitutes a strike under current law.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(g)

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 586-587, 607-608

Fourteenth Holding:

The trial court did not mention any fines or fees at the sentencing hearing and the minute order is also silent on this subject. However, the abstract of judgment reflects the following fines and fees were imposed: $300 for restitution (sec. 1202.4(b)); $400 for the court security fee (sec. 1465.8); and $300 for the criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373). The $300 parole revocation restitution fine (sec. 1202.45) was conditionally suspended.

Rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement. Entering the judgment in the minutes being a clerical function, a discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as entered in the minutes is presumably the result of clerical error. Nor is the abstract of judgment controlling. The abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction. By its very nature, definition and terms it cannot add to or modify the judgment which it purports to digest or summarize.


If there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minutes or abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.

Authority:

PEN 1207

People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471

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

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186

Fifteenth Holding:

The trial court did not orally impose restitution fines or fees, nor were any included in the Minute Order from the sentencing hearing. The People did not object to the court’s failure to orally impose the fines or fees.

Because the restitution fine and matching parole revocation fine are discretionary given the court’s ability to not impose them if it makes certain findings on the record, the People forfeited the imposition of the fines by not objecting. Accordingly, we decline the People’s request for a remand on the restitution fines and instead, direct those fines to be stricken.

Authority:

People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 303

Sixteenth Holding:

However, the same is not true for the two mandatory ancillary costs including the court operations assessment and the court facilities assessment. Indeed, the trial court was required to impose these fees but did not do so, nor did it state any reasons for declining to do so.

Accordingly, on remand, the trial court is directed to either impose these fees or state its reasons for declining to do so

Authority:

PEN 1465.8

GOV 70373

People v. El (2021) 65 Cal.App5th 963, 967

Seventeenth Holding:

The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects the credit for time served. Although there was no oral pronouncement of credit for time served at the sentencing hearing, the probation officer’s report shows that she calculated the total credit for time served based on defendant’s presentencing time in jail. We agree with the parties that this is a miscalculation, and any miscalculation of credits results in an unauthorized sentence, which may be corrected upon discovery.

Credits for presentence custody are calculated from the day of arrest through the day of sentencing. The defendant was sentenced 11 days later than reported by the probation officer. Accordingly, the correct number of actual days of presentencing time served is (a number greater than 900 days).

Because he was convicted of violent felonies, the defendant cannot earn conduct credit in excess of 15%.

Authority:

PEN 2933.1

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

People v. Ramos (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 810, 816 [explaining proper method of calculation for conduct credits under section 2933.1]

People v. Bravo (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 729, 735

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

Case 001050

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court improperly imposed fines and ancillary costs without considering the defendant’s ability to pay. The ancillary fees imposed on the defendant are vacated, and this matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to consider whether the defendant has the ability to pay the court operations assessment and the court facilities assessment imposed in his sentence.

First Holding:

We review the imposition of fines and assessments for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1043

Second Holding:

The respondent argues that the defendant forfeited the issue regarding his ability to pay because defense counsel did not object to the fines or assessments imposed. The defendant states that he personally objected that he was unable to pay, preserving the issue for appeal, or his counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object.

In light of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits of the defendant’s challenge.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

Kopp divided court-ordered payments into three categories: fines, ancillary costs, and victim restitution.

Addressing fines, Kopp held that fines (including restitution fines under section 1202.4) are punitive in nature, that fines should be analyzed under the excessive fines clauses in the United States and California Constitutions, and that courts need not hold a hearing on a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing all fines.

By contrast, Kopp continued, ancillary costs (including court facilities fees under Government Code section 70373 and court operations fees under section 1465.8) are not punitive in nature, and equal protection principles require a rational basis for treating ancillary fees for indigent criminal defendants differently than indigent civil litigants. Finding no such basis, Kopp concluded that, when requested, trial courts must consider a defendant’s ability to pay ancillary costs.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 18-24, 25, 28, 30

Fourth Holding:

Points perfunctorily asserted in briefing on appeal without argument in support are not properly raised.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 206

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation, Vicarious liability

Case 001049

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s petition at the prima facie stage. The jury instructions on aiding and abetting, implied malice, and lying-in-wait murder allowed for the jury to convict him of murder under a theory by which malice was imputed to him based solely on his participation in the crime.

First Holding:

SB 1437 became effective on January 1, 2019. SB 1437 amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

It amended section 188, which defines malice, and section 189, which defines the degrees of murder to address felony-murder liability, and it added what is now section 1172.6, which provides a procedure by which those convicted of murder can seek retroactive relief if the changes in the law would affect their previously sustained convictions.

Accordingly, section 188 now provides that, except as stated in section 189(e), in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought. Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime. The change reflects the Legislature’s intent that a person’s culpability for murder must be premised upon that person’s own actions and subjective mens rea.

Additionally, section 189 previously stated that all murder committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, various specified crimes, is murder of the first degree. SB 1437 amended section 189 to add subdivision (e), which provides that a participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of one of the enumerated feloines in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if:

(1) The person was the actual killer; or

(2) The person was not the actual killer, but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree; or

(3) The person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in section 190.2(d).

Authority:

PEN 188

PEN 189

Second Holding:

Section 1172.6 sets forth procedures on how the court is consider the petitions.

There is a first stage review to determine whether the petition states fact that demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to relief. The court is not permitted to do fact-finding at that stage, but it may review certain portions of the record to determine whether the record establishes that the defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

If a prima facie case appears from the petition, the court must then hold an evidentiary hearing, at which the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty under current law

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

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

Third Holding:

In SB 775, effective January 1, 2022, the Legislature amended the language of section 1172.6 to expand the scope of the petitioning procedure, in part, by expressly permitting persons convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to petition for relief.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

Fourth Holding:

There has been a split of authority on whether a defendant is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 if the defendant could have raised the the instructional argument in a prior appeal. (Gary note: For the main part, the discussions in the split cases were over the impact of various jury instructions that were given in the original trials, and whether the failure to raise those arguments gave rise to issue preclusion in determining the applicability of section 1172.6. If you are interested in reading the development and evolution of those cases, Lopez might be a good read.)

Lopez resolved the dispute by holding that a defendant is not barred by issue preclusion. The mere fact that a petitioner could have raised an analogous … claim of instructional error at trial or in his original appeal does not render him categorically ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. The primary and overarching purpose of SB 1437’s scheme is to identify and to afford resentencing relief, in qualifying cases, to those who may have been convicted under imputed-malice murder theories.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2026) 19 Cal.5th 639, 658, 661

Fifth Holding:

Resentencing courts should not ignore potentially ambiguous or even openly flawed instructions when evaluating a petitioner’s prima facie allegations merely because these flaws were not raised in a prior appeal. Rather, the section 1172.6 resentencing court should address on the merits the alleged flaws or ambiguities in instructions that may have resulted in conviction under now invalid theories of imputed malice.

After considering Lopez, we now agree with the defendant that the record here does not establish he is categorically ineligible for relief. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition for recall and resentencing at the prima facie stage and remand for the court to issue an order to show cause and hold a hearing pursuant to section 1172.6(d).

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2026) 19 Cal.5th 639, 658, 668

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 001027

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in imposing the upper term on factors that were not submitted to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution concedes the court prejudicially erred, but argues that the defendant forfeited the issue by failing to raise it below. Remanded for resentencing. On remand, the prosecution may choose to prove the necessary aggravating circumstances by any appropriate vehicle.

First Holding:

In order to encourage prompt detection and correction of error, and to reduce the number of unnecessary appellate claims, reviewing courts have required parties to raise certain issues at the time of sentencing. In such cases, lack of a timely and meaningful objection forfeits or waives the claim. This includes complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351, 356

Second Holding:

Achane held that a defendant forfeited a claim that a low-term sentence was mandated under section 1170(b)(6), which requires a factual basis that triggers the low term. Presented with a similar issue, Frederickson that where there was a presumption of a particular term without any factual findings, a defendant did not forfeit the benefit of the presumption, which is not subject to forfeiture. Lopez-Tapia sided with Frederickson.

Authority:

People v. Achane (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1037, 1044

People v. Frederickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 994 fn.8.

People v. Lopez-Tapia (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 690, 697

Third Holding:

Here, unlike the cases involving a low term presumption when facts support it, the defendant needed make no argument nor offer any evidence to obtain the benefit of the middle-term presumption, nor to trigger the requirement that the trial court state the reasons for choosing a higher sentence. What he is arguing for was required by statute.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(2), (b)(5)

Fourth Holding:

In any event, neither forfeiture nor application of the forfeiture rule is automatic. An appellate court may choose to refrain from applying the forfeiture bar, under its discretion. Here, we decline to decide whether there was any forfeiture; even if there were, we would exercise our discretion to address the issue on the merits to forestall a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593

People v. Lua (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1004, 1014

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

People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 146

Fifth Holding:

Under section 1170(b)(2) the court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation 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.

A defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm. The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the facts relied on to justify an upper term sentence.

If those facts are properly proven, the court may take them into account and exercise its discretion under section 1170(b) to determine what sentence to impose. The court shall set forth on the record the facts and reasons for choosing the sentence imposed.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(2), (b)(5)

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1086

Sixth Holding:

When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review. Under that standard, a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute. As the prosecution concedes here, we cannot find the error to have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000990

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court did not orally pronounce any fines or fees at sentencing, but the minute order and abstract of judgment reflect the imposition of a restitution fine, a stayed parole revocation fine, a court operations assessment, and a criminal conviction assessment. The abstract of judgment must be corrected.

First Holding:

Where there is a discrepancy between the oral imposition of sentence on the one hand and the minutes and abstract of judgment on the other, the oral judgment controls. An abstract of judgment must be corrected if it does not reflect the oral judgment accurately.

Authority:

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

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385, 387-389

Second Holding:

The court did not orally pronounce any fines or fees at sentencing, but the minute order and abstract of judgment reflect the imposition of a $300 restitution fine, a $300 stayed parole revocation fine, a $40 court operations assessment, and a $30 criminal conviction assessment.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4

PEN 1202.45

PEN 1465.8

GOV 70373

Third Holding:

We decline to remand the matter because no party objected to the trial court’s failure to impose fines and fees at sentencing. All claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices’ raised for the first time on appeal are not subject to review. Appellate courts may not correct a discretionary sentencing choice if the People failed to object at sentencing.

A restitution fine under section 1202.4 is a discretionary sentencing choice. And by waiving any objection to the restitution fine, the People also effectively waive any objection to the parole revocation fine, because the parole revocation fine must match the restitution fine as a matter of law.

As to the court operations assessment and the criminal conviction assessment, neither party asserts that the trial court’s failure to impose these fees was unauthorized or reflects an obvious legal error at sentencing that is correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings.

Absent such an argument, we decline to disturb the judgment.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852-853

People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1153

People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 303

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [sentence is unauthorized if it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case]

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 30 [equal protection principles permit trial courts to waive fees under sec. 1465.8 and Gov. Code, sec. 70373, upon request, where defendant lacks ability to pay]

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Appellate Principles, Jurisdiction, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000977

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals the no-contact and stay-away orders imposed by the trial court as part of his prison sentence and as a condition of his parole following his conviction for petty theft and making criminal threats.

The Attorney General argues the defendant forfeited this issue by failing to object to the orders in the trial court.

We disagree and strike the no-contact and stay-away orders because the trial court lacked authority to issue them and otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

Normally, only claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal. In the sentencing context, we have applied the rule to claims of error asserted by both the People and the defendant.

We have, however, created a narrow exception to the waiver rule for unauthorized sentences or sentences entered in excess of jurisdiction.

Authority:

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

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852

Second Holding:

A claim that a sentence is unauthorized may be raised for the first time on appeal, and is subject to judicial correction whenever the error comes to the attention of the reviewing court. A sentence is generally unauthorized where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. Such error is clear and correctable independent of any factual issues presented by the record at sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Dotson (1997) 16 Cal.4th 547, 554, fn. 6

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

Third Holding:

The trial court did not have statutory authority to impose no-contact or stay-away orders in these circumstances. While there are statutory provisions that allow a trial court to impose no-contact and stay-away orders in other circumstances, for example, domestic violence cases, cases involving sexual assault of a minor, stalking cases, as a condition of probation, or during active criminal proceedings, there are no statutes specifically authorizing the trial court here to impose no-contact and stay-away orders as part of the defendant’s prison sentence or as a condition of his parole.

Authority:

PEN 1203.097

PEN 1202.05(a)

PEN 646.9(k)

PEN 1203.1(j)

PEN 136.2

Fourth Holding:

Ponce rejected the argument that that trial courts, independent of statutes, have inherent authority to protect trial participants, citing both California and federal cases. It held that even if the trial court had relied on inherent judicial authority to issue its order, the result would not change.

An existing body of statutory law regulates restraining orders. Inherent powers should never be exercised in such a manner as to nullify existing legislation. Where the Legislature authorizes a specific variety of available procedures, the courts should use them and should normally refrain from exercising their inherent powers to invent alternatives.

The trial court here should have refrained from acting because there is an existing body of statutory law regulating no-contact and stay-away orders.

Authority:

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 383-384

Fifth Holding:

The Legislature has adopted specific statutory provisions authorizing parole boards to impose no-contact and stay-away orders as a condition of parole. Under this statutory scheme, the victims here can request the parole board to include no-contact and stay-away orders as a condition of the defendant’s parole.

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(a) authorizes trial courts to issue orders to protect against any threats or harassment after notice and hearing.

Therefore, because the Legislature already authorizes available procedures for no-contact and stay-away orders for the victims in this case, the trial court was not authorized to impose them under its inherent authority.

Authority:

PEN 3053.2(a) [the parole board must impose a no-contact order as a condition of parole if requested by the victim]

PEN 3053(a) [the parole board may also impose on the parole any conditions that it may deem proper]

CCP 527.6(a)

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000975

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing because the trial court erroneously believed the law required it to impose consecutive sentences for every count.

First Holding:

Under section 667.61(i), consecutive sentences are mandatory only to offenses listed in section 667.61(c), paragraphs (1) through (7). The crime of which the jury found the defendant guilty is described in 667.61(c), paragraph (8).

Thus, consecutive sentencing was not mandatory.

Authority:

PEN 667.61(c)

Second Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court, and a court that is unaware of its discretionary authority cannot exercise its informed discretion.

When a sentencing court was not aware of the full scope of its discretionary powers at the time the defendant was sentenced, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Belmontes (1983) 34 Cal.3d 335, 348, fn. 8

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 419

Third Holding:

The Attorney General argues that the defendant forfeited his sentencing contention by failing to object below to the court’s error, and that the defendant cannot show his counsel was ineffective for failing to object because it was not reasonably likely the court would have imposed anything less than the 150-year sentence that it did.

We exercise our discretion to reach the question, notwithstanding forfeiture.

Authority:

People v. Leon (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1003 [the trial court’s erroneous understanding that it had no discretion to impose concurrent sentences may fall within a narrow class of sentencing issues that are reviewable in the absence of a timely objection, and in any event, we would exercise our discretion to resolve the claim in the interests of fairness and judicial economy and to forestall unnecessary ineffective assistance of counsel claims.]

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 162, fn. 6 [An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party]

Fourth Holding:

The trial court’s repeated references to section 667.61(i)’s requirement that it impose consecutive sentences leaves no doubt that the court here did not know it retained the discretion to impose concurrent sentences per victim.

The court provided no other reason for imposing consecutive sentences, including no comment that the aggravating factor warranted a maximum sentence or any similar comment.

We therefore cannot conclude that the record clearly indicates the court would have imposed the same sentence if it had understood its full sentencing discretion. We accordingly remand the matter for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 419

Appellate Principles, Due process, Duty of the court, Standard of review

Case 000954

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in by using the wrong standard in ruling on the defendant’s motion to modify the verdict pursuant to Penal Code section 1181(6). We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for reconsideration of appellant’s motion to modify the verdict.

First Holding:

The defendant’s claim that the prosecution engaged in misconduct during oral argument is forfeited because there was no objection. Generally, a defendant must make a timely objection and a request that the jury be admonished to disregard the impropriety, unless the objection would have been futile or the error could not be cured by an admonition.

Authority:

People v. Aguirre (2025) 18 Cal.5th 629, 705

Second Holding:

It is true that a prosecutor may violate a defendant’s constitutional rights when the prosecutor engages in a course of conduct so egregious that it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process. The claimed misconduct here was not so egregious as to result in a denial of due process.

Authority:

Miller v. Pate (1967) 386 U.S. 1, 7 [multiple misrepresentations of fact]

Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 [withholding of exculpatory evidence]

Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [the prosecutor’s argument prejudices a specific right, such as the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination]

Third Holding:

After the jury returned the verdict, the defendant brought a motion to modify the verdict pursuant to section 1181(6) on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction for first degree murder. The defendant asked the court to review and reweigh the evidence presented at trial and modify the verdict to a finding of second-degree murder or manslaughter. The court applied the wrong standard in considering and denying the motion. It stated that had the judge been on the jury, he likely wuold have had a different decision, but he was not the jury, and he was required to honor the sanctity of the jury.

This is an inaccurate statement of the correct standard. The court conflated a sufficiency of the evidence review, in which the verdict is upheld if there is any evidence to support it, with its duty to independently determine whether the element of premeditation had been proven. Under the correct standard, in considering a motion under section 1181(6), the trial judge independently weighs the evidence, rather than applying the substantial evidence rule and determining legal sufficiency.

Authority:

People v. Veitch (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 460, 468

Fourth Holding:

Section 1181(6) provides in relevant part that the court may grant a new trial when the verdict or finding is contrary to law or evidence, but if the evidence shows the defendant to be not guilty of the degree of the crime of which he was convicted, but guilty of a lesser degree thereof, the court may modify the verdict or judgment accordingly without granting or ordering a new trial.

Authority:

PEN 1181(6)

Fifth Holding:

In considering a motion under section 1181(6), the court extends no evidentiary deference in ruling on the motion. Instead, it independently examines all the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to prove each required element beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge, who sits, in effect, as a 13th juror. It is the trial court’s function to determine independently whether it is satisfied that there is sufficient credible evidence to sustain the verdict.

Authority:

Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 133

People v. Dickens (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1254

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case 000923

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The instructional errors were prejudicial regarding the multiple-murder and lying-in-wait special circumstance findings attached to counts 1, 2 and 3.

We reverse those findings, but the prosecution may retry these special circumstance allegations.

The firearm enhancements found true as to counts 1, 2 and 3 must be reversed due to prejudicial error, including pleading deficiencies and insufficiency of the evidence. Retrial of the firearm enhancements is barred by principles of double jeopardy.

The trial court also erred by denying the defendant’s renewed motion for a transfer hearing in juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 as amended by AB 2361 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.).

Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the judgment and remand the matter with directions to refer the case to the juvenile court for a transfer hearing under current law.

First Holding:

In setting forth the relevant pertinent facts in an appellate opinion, we view the record in the light most favorable to the judgment.

Authority:

In re Jesus O. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 859, 861

People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578

Second Holding:

In counts 1 through 3, the jury convicted appellant of first degree murder. The jury found true four special circumstance allegations: (1) lying in wait; (2) multiple murders; (3) murder in the commission of robbery; and (4) murder in the commission of burglary. Because of the special circumstance findings, appellant was sentenced to three consecutive LWOP terms.

There were several instructional errors, but many we find to have been harmless error. The instructional errors were prejudicial regarding the multiple-murder and lying-in-wait special circumstance findings attached to counts 1, 2 and 3.

We reverse those findings, but the prosecution may retry these special circumstance allegations. Even if the People do not elect to do so, however, a full resentencing is required.

(Gary note: The opinion concluded that some of the instructions permitted finding guilt on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, which has been abolished. Cutting to the chase in this summary, the court stated in its analysis whether the instructional error was harmless, the court stated, that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that appellant acted as a major participant in these crimes and with his own reckless indifference to human life. It was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that any rational juror who convicted appellant of first degree murder would have necessarily found the facts required under section 189(e)(3).

(Also, the jury was erroneously told at times that, if appellant was not an actual killer, the lying-in-wait and the multiple-murder special-circumstance allegations could be found true merely if he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. This was legally incorrect. If appellant was not the actual killer, then the prosecution was required to prove that he acted with an intent to kill for each murder in order to establish these special circumstance allegations. The court did not find the error harmless on those instructions, and reversed those special circumstances, allowing the prosecution to retry them.)

Authority:

PEN 188(a)(3) [Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime]

PEN 190.2(c) and (d)

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 449

People v. Hallock (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 595, 607 [conviction reversed for instructional error may be retried if supported by sufficient evidence]

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [when part of a sentence is stricken on review, a full resentencing is required so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances]

Third Holding:

We reject the prosecution’s contention that the defendant has forfeited claims of instructional error by failing to object. Trial courts have a sua sponte duty to correctly instruct on the elements of the charged offenses and on special circumstance allegations.

No objection is required to preserve a claim for appellate review when the jury instructions omit an essential element of a charge.

Moreover, a court may review any question of law involved in an instruction which affects the substantial rights of the defendant. As alleged, the instructional errors in this matter altered the mens rea and actus reus elements that the jury was required to find.

Accordingly, we decline to find forfeiture, and we will review this claim on its merits.

Authority:

PEN 1259

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 409

People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56, 91 [declining to rely on forfeiture doctrine where alleged instructional errors would have impacted defendant’s substantial rights].

Fourth Holding:

The instructional errors impacted appellant’s constitutional rights because they permitted the jury to convict him on an invalid legal theory. Accordingly, we must reverse the convictions unless, after examining the entire cause—including the evidence and considering all relevant circumstances—we determine the errors, including the disputed ones, were all harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

In re Ferrell (2023) 14 Cal.5th 593, 602

People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 13

Fifth Holding:

When a jury is instructed on both a legally valid theory and a legally invalid theory of guilt, harmlessness can be shown if the jury verdict on other points effectively embraces the valid theory or if, based on the evidence, it is impossible to have found what the verdict did find without also finding the facts underlying the valid theory.

To make this assessment, we must rigorously review the evidence to determine whether any rational juror who found the defendant guilty based on an invalid theory, and made the factual findings reflected in the jury’s verdict, would necessarily have found the defendant guilty based on a valid theory as well.

We must be convinced that the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and we must be satisfied that this standard is beyond serious debate.

We have rigorously reviewed the totality of the record to determine whether, based on the evidence, it is impossible for a rational juror to have found what the verdicts did find without also finding the facts underlying a valid theory.

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 443-444

In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562, 568

In re Ferrell (2023) 14 Cal.5th 593, 602

Sixth Holding:

Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court’s instructions.

Authority:

People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852

Seventh Holding:

Section 12022.53(d) requires personal discharge by the defendant; it does not impose vicarious liability for another principal’s firearm discharge. Vicarious firearm liability is available only when a gang enhancement is proven. Once the gang allegations were dismissed on motion of the prosecution, the vicarious theory was unavailable.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53(d) and (e)

PEN 186.22(b)(1)

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 746

Eighth Holding:

Because personal discharge by appellant was neither charged nor expressly found true by the jury in the verdict forms, the court could not supply that missing fact at sentencing. Any fact increasing punishment must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

The trial court lacked authority to stay the count 1 enhancement merely as an exercise of sentencing discretion. The court was only authorized to strike or dismiss the enhancement, not to stay it even based on its own discretionary sense of justice. Based on principles of double jeopardy, retrial is barred.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53(j)

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 355, 364

Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 132–133 [“Because the prosecution had a full opportunity to prove the facts necessary for a conviction but failed to do so, double jeopardy bars a second bite at the apple”]

Curry v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 712 [jeopardy attaches when a defendant is placed on trial in a court of competent jurisdiction on a valid accusatory pleading]

Ninth Holding:

In January 2011, appellant was 16 years old when he committed the present crimes. In 2012, he was charged directly in adult court. In 2016, appellant filed a motion for remand to the juvenile court and a transfer hearing under Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57). Proposition 57 was passed in November 2016, and it prohibited prosecutors from charging crimes against juveniles directly in adult court.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 303

Tenth Holding:

Before sentencing occurred in this matter, AB 2361 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. These changes were effective January 1, 2023.

AB 2361 increased the burden of proof the prosecution was required to establish in order for a juvenile to be prosecuted in adult criminal court.

Under the newer heightened standard, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that a juvenile should be transferred to adult criminal court.

These developments materially changed the requirements for transfer in effect when the defendant originally waived his right to a transfer hearing. AB 2361 applies retroactively to nonfinal cases.

Authority:

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 416

In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1284

Eleventh Holding:

A person who is eligible to have his case proceed in juvenile court may knowingly waive this statutory right. A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.

A criminal defendant cannot be deemed to have waived or forfeited a legal argument that was not recognized at the time of his trial. Even where a right may be waived, a waiver generally does not include protections that were not reasonably available or contemplated at the time.

The matter must be remanded to the juvenile court to conduct a transfer hearing.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1620

People v. Johnson (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 123, 132 [legal counsel may waive the right to a juvenile fitness hearing for an accused who has reached adulthood]

Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) 304 U.S. 458, 464

People v. Cardenas (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1468, 1479

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 48 [in a negotiated plea, waiver of right to jury trial on charged offenses does not extend to proof of aggravating circumstances when no such jury right was recognized at time of plea]

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 85 [general waiver of right to appeal from a negotiated plea agreement will not bar the appeal of sentencing errors occurring subsequent to the plea]
People v. Becerra (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 178, 188 [defendant cannot knowingly and intelligently waive right to appeal an issue not contemplated at time of waiver].

 

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000906

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the trial court struck the one-year prior but otherwise declined to reduce the defendant’s sentence. The trial court did not apply the correct standard of law and therefore abused its discretion. We reverse the order.

First Holding:

SB 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess. amended section 667.5b) to allow courts to impose one-year prior prison term enhancements only for specified sexually violent offenses. Thereafter, SB 483 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) made the amendment retroactive to final cases and added what is now section 1172.75.

Section 1172.75 sets forth the process for recalling sentences and resentencing. If a judgment includes a qualifying enhancement, the trial court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. Resentencing shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed inclusive of the enhancements unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.

At resentencing, the court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the defendant’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.

Authority:

PEN 667.5(b)

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

Unless the court originally imposed the upper term, the court may not impose a sentence exceeding the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and those facts 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.

At a hearing under section 1172.75, the resentencing court shall 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(d)(2)

Third Holding:

As relevant here, SB 81 (2021–2022) effected a change in law by adding subdivision (c) to section 1385. That subdivision provides that, notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute. In exercising its discretion under this subdivision, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present.

Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. ‘Endanger public safety’ means there is a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)

Fourth Holding:

Section 1385(c) sets forth several mitigating circumstances for consideration. Two of them are relevant in this case. Under section 1385(c), absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a court retains the discretion to impose or dismiss enhancements provided that it assigns significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances when they are present.

Stated simply, if the court does not conclude that dismissal would endanger public safety, then mitigating circumstances strongly favor dismissing the enhancement. But ultimately, the court must determine whether dismissal is in furtherance of justice.

This means that, absent a danger to public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1029, 1038

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s sentencing decision under section 1172.75 for abuse of discretion and ask whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether its rulings of law are correct, and whether its application of the law to the facts was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

We similarly review a trial court’s decision not to dismiss a sentencing enhancement for an abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 857

Nazir v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 478, 490

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

Sixth Holding:

We reject the Attorney General’s argument that the defendant forfeited this contention because he failed to raise it below. The defendant did not have to ask the trial court to apply the correct standard of law to preserve a claim on appeal that the trial court applied an incorrect one. Rather, a defendant is entitled to sentencing decisions based on the sentencing court’s informed discretion, including one informed by the correct law. In any event, we may review any question of law involved in any ruling or order that affects the defendant’s substantial rights, even if the defendant did not object below.

(Gary note: The court proceeded to analyze the trial court’s treatment or lack thereof of facts specific to this defendant that demonstrated the abuse of discretion.)

Authority:

PEN 1259

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424