Tag Archives: Forfeiture

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 001140

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The evidence was insufficient to support an order requiring the defendant to submit to HIV/AIDS testing.

First Holding:

The trial court erred in ordering the defendant to submit to a blood test for HIV/AIDS pursuant to section 1202.1 because there was insufficient evidence of probable cause to require the testing. The conduct was contact by the defendant’s hands only, but there was no indication in the record that the touching would transmit bodily fluids.

Authority:

PEN 1202.1

Second Holding:

Defendant did not object below to the HIV/AIDS testing order. In general, absent an objection in the trial court, a defendant forfeits appeal of any deficiency in the statutorily required finding supporting an HIV testing order pursuant to section 1202.1. However, as the People point out, because mandatory HIV/AIDS testing is strictly limited by statute and Penal Code section 1202.1 conditions a testing order upon a finding of probable cause, a defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence even in the absence of an objection.

Authority:

People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1117,

People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, 1123

Third Holding:

Section 1202.1 requires the trial court to order every person who is convicted of a sexual offense listed in subdivision (e) to submit to a blood test for evidence of antibodies to the probable causative agent of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

The term “sexual offense” includes lewd or lascivious conduct with a child in violation of Section 288, but the statute provides that testing shall be ordered only if the court finds that there is probable cause to believe that blood, semen, or any other bodily fluid capable of transmitting HIV has been transferred from the defendant to the victim. The statute directs a court ordering such testing to note its finding on the court docket and minute order if one is prepared.

Authority:

PEN 1202.1

Fourth Holding:

A remand is warranted. Section 1202.1 is part of a broader statutory scheme of health and safety legislation intended to combat the further spread of HIV infection and promote prompt medical treatment for those already infected. Given the significant public policy considerations at issue, we conclude it would be inappropriate simply to strike the testing order without remanding for further proceedings to determine whether the prosecution has additional evidence that may establish the requisite probable cause. It would be unfair to both the victim and the public to permit evasion of the legislative directive if evidence exists to support a testing order.

Accordingly, we will vacate the HIV/AIDS testing order but remand the matter to permit a further hearing on the issue if the prosecution so requests.

Authority:

People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, 1128-1129

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case 001124

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse the denial of the petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 and direct the trial court to consider the defendant’s youth at the time of the killing as a relevant factor in determining whether the defendant formed the requisite mental state to be convicted of aiding and abetting an implied malice murder.

First Holding:

The trial court found that the defendant directly aided and abetted an implied malice murder. To satisfy the actus reus for that theory of liability, the aider and abettor must, by words or conduct, aid the commission of the life-endangering act, not the result of that act. The relevant act is the act that proximately causes death.

The required mens rea is knowledge that the perpetrator intended to commit the act, intent to aid the perpetrator in the commission of the act, knowledge that the act is dangerous to human life, and acting in conscious disregard for human life.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 991

Second Holding:

Based on our review of the trial court’s written order denying resentencing, we conclude the trial court understood and applied the elements of directly aiding and abetting an implied malice murder. We therefore review its decision for substantial evidence.

In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses 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 do not reweigh evidence or second-guess credibility determinations. We presume the existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence to support the judgment. To overturn a conviction based on insufficient evidence, it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support it.

Authority:

People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331

People v. Ramirez (2022) 13 Cal.5th 997, 1118

People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755

Third Holding:

The defendant asserts that the trial court failed to consider his youth when deciding the resentencing petition. He did not raise the issue in the trial court, arguably forfeiting the issue. But we agree that considering the issue on the merits is appropriate where this emerging area of the law was only developing at the time the trial court denied the petition.

In Pittman, for example, the defendant argued for the first time on appeal after the denial of resentencing that his youth (21 years old at the time of the offense) was relevant to whether he acted with implied malice and therefore could be found guilty of second degree murder. The appellate court observed that the policy interests underlying the felony-murder cases—that youth is relevant to a criminal defendant’s ability to perceive risk and consequences, and therefore to the level of culpability—apply equally in the context of implied malice murder.

The Pittman court further concluded that failure to consider Pittman’s youth was not harmless, given trial evidence of Pittman and his peers acting impulsively and under the influence of transient rashness.

Authority:

People v. Pittman (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 400, 416, 418 [Cases discussing the role of youth in relation to criminal culpability stress two areas: youthful offenders’ relative impulsivity and their vulnerability to peer pressure]

Fourth Holding:

The defendant was 20 years old at the time of the crime. Impulsivity and vulnerability to peer pressure may have contributed to his participation in the unplanned group attack of a rival gang member. We find it is reasonably probable a more favorable result would have been reached on the defendant’s petition had the trial court considered his youth.

Authority:

People v. Pittman (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 400, 417 (applying the Watson standard)

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 001118

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There are several errors in the abstract of judgment that require correction.

First Holding:

A $300 restitution fine that was not orally imposed appears in the abstract of judgment. Where the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment conflict, the oral pronouncement controls. Accordingly, we direct the trial court to issue a corrected abstract of judgment striking the $300 restitution fine.

Authority:

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

People v. Crenshaw (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1416

Second Holding:

Further, the defendant was convicted of an offense that carries a life term plus a firearm enhancement that carries 25 years to life. The court pronounced and the abstract reflects a sentence of 32 years to life: ostensibly seven years to life on the conviction and 25 years to life on the enhancement.

But while a sentence to a life term requires at least seven years in custody before parole elibility, the “seven years” is not part of the sentence. Accordingly, we modify the sentence and direct the court to issue a corrected abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Wong (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 972, 977, fn. 4

Third Holding:

By failing to object at the time of the order, the defendant forfeited his argument that it was improper to delegate authority to the probation officer to determine the amount of restitution.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 352, fn. 15 [When a defendant does not object to allowing the probation officer to determine the amount of restitution, the propriety of such an order has been waived for appellate purposes.]

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 001111

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate defendant’s restitution fine, and remand this matter for the trial court to recalculate defendant’s custody credits and issue an amended abstract of judgment. The argument regarding imposition of the upper term is forfeited for lack of objection in the trial court.

First Holding:

Under California’s determinate sentencing law as it currently stands, excluding properly proven prior convictions or a defense stipulation, a jury finding is now required for all facts actually relied on to impose an upper term and a Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established.

The violation is prejudicial unless an appellate court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court to justify an upper term sentence, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statutory requirements. If the reviewing court cannot so determine, applying the Chapmanstandard of review, the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 757

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

Second Holding:

A party in a criminal case may not, on appeal, raise claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices if the party did not object to the sentence at trial. The rule applies to cases in which the stated reasons allegedly do not apply to the particular case, and cases in which the court purportedly erred because it double-counted a particular sentencing factor, misweighed the various factors, or failed to state any reasons or give a sufficient number of valid reasons.

Authority:

People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 406

Third Holding:

Strong policy reasons support this forfeiture rule. It is both unfair and inefficient to permit a claim of error on appeal that, if timely brought to the attention of the trial court, could have been easily corrected or avoided. The law casts upon the party the duty of looking after his legal rights and of calling the judge’s attention to any infringement of them. If any other rule were to obtain, the party would in most cases be careful to be silent as to his objections until it would be too late to obviate them, and the result would be that few judgments would stand the test of an appeal

Authority:

People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114

People v. Salazar (2016) 63 Cal.4th 214, 239–240

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 46

Fourth Holding:

Even constitutional claims may be forfeited if the issue is not raised below, and discretion to excuse forfeiture should be exercised rarely and only in cases presenting an important legal issue.

Absent a substantive change in the law that applies retroactively or an extenuating circumstance such as the futility of objecting under the then-governing substantive law, neither of which is at issue here, the policy reasons underlying the forfeiture doctrine fully support its application where a defendant remains silent in the trial court during resentencing and then seeks to obtain appellate relief based on an asserted sentencing error that could have been raised at the time of sentencing.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880–881, 887-888, fn. 7

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 431–432

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 698–699

People v. Perez (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1, 7–8

People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 92

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 356 [complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on appeal]

Fifth Holding:

The restitution fine imposed in 2002 must be vacated under section 1465.9(d), which provides that upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

People v. Greeley (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 609, 626–627

Sixth Holding:

When a prison term already in progress is modified as the result of an appellate sentence remand, the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served, whether in jail or prison, and whether before or since he was originally committed and delivered to prison custody.

We remand for the court to determine the appropriate credit for time served.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

PEN 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29

People v. Salazar (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557 [trial court best positioned to ensure custody credits correctly calculated]

(Gary note: The court quoted Buckhalter language that did not involve determination of credit for time served up to the original date of sentence. Thus, it is not uncommon to see language citing Buckhalter to mention the actual days in custody, with no mention of conduct time earned under section 4019 prior to the original sentencing. Buckhalter was concerned only with the time between the original sentencing and the resentencing.

(If you are looking for authority regarding recitation of the conduct credits earned prior to the initial sentencing, you may wish to review Sek, which the Court of Appeal did not cite in this case. I do think, however, that it would be valuable to examine the authority Sek relied on for its conclusion that the court must calculate the defendant’s conduct credit earned prior to his original sentencing.)

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 673

Appellate Principles, Due process, Fines and fees, Pleading, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001092

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to sentence the defendant under the Three Strikes Law, because the prior serious felony was alleged in the information only as a five-year enhancement under section 667(a), not as a strike. In light of Kopp, the matter is remanded to permit the defendant to raise a challenge to the restitution fine of $10,000.

First Holding:

The three strikes law imposes an alternative sentencing scheme if the defendant has been convicted of a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior serious or violent felony convictions. The three strikes law thus requires that prior felony convictions be pleaded and proved.

In addition to the statutory requirement, the defendant has a due process right to fair notice of the specific sentence enhancements or alternative sentencing schemes that will be invoked to increase punishment. The touchstone of determining the adequacy of an accusatory pleading is whether the defendant had adequate notice of the charges against the defendant.

Authority:

PEN 667(c), (e)

PEN 1170.12(a), (c)

People v. Sawyers (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 713, 720

Second Holding:

As a preliminary matter, the People contend that the defendant forfeited any argument concerning his three strikes sentence by failing to object at the sentencing hearing. We exercise our discretion to reach the merits of defendant’s argument to forestall any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

We also exercise our discretion to reach the merits because the claimed error affected substantial rights by depriving the defendant of timely notice of the potential sentence he faced.

The operative information pled that he had a prior serious felony conviction under section 667(a), which subjected him to a sentence enhancement of five years. But it did not plead that the conviction qualified as a prior strike subjecting him to the alternative sentencing scheme of the three strikes law. The court therefore erred by imposing a three strikes sentence.

It was the People’s burden to properly plead the allegations under the three strikes law, not the defendant’s responsibility to ferret them out.

Authority:

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

People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 963

People v. Sawyers (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 713, 727, 726 [court erred by imposing a three strikes sentence when the information alleged a prior serious or violent felony under sec. 1170(h)(3), and a prior prison term enhancement under sec. 667.5(b), but did not refer to the three strikes law]

Third Holding:

The pleading requirement is meant to give sufficient notice to permit the defense to make informed decisions about the case.

Authority:

People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 964 [failure to plead a particular firearm enhancement was not harmless when the defendant received notice midway through the sentencing hearing, which was too late to consider the prosecution’s pretrial plea deal or reshape his trial strategy]

Fourth Holding:

A competent motion by the defense to urge the court to dismiss the strike would have required preparation and could not have been raised orally at the sentencing hearing, when the court announced its intention to impose a three strikes sentence.The violation of the statutory pleading requirement therefore was prejudicial.

And for the same reasons, to the extent that the pleading defect violated the defendant’s due process right to fair notice, the People have not shown that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

The violation of the pleading and proof requirement prejudiced the defendant. We therefore vacate his sentence on count 2 and direct the court to resentence him on that count without applying the three strikes law.

Authority:

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836

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

In re Vaquera (2024) 15 Cal.5th 706, 726 [the People’s failure to give the defendant notice of his potential sentence under the one strike law violated his right to due process and was not harmless]

Fifth Holding:

In light of Kopp, decided after the sentencing in this case, we remand the matter for the trial court to consider challenges to the imposition of the $10,000 restitution fine under the federal and state constitutional excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1