Tag Archives: Forfeiture

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Jury trial, Pleading, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000680

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court committed three errors requiring reversal. It improperly imposed the upper term on the felony offense by considering an aggravating factor that the jury did not find. It improperly refused to award the defendant certain sentencing credits without giving him notice that it might do so. The defendant’s conduct can support only one conviction for drawing and exhibiting a firearm in an angry or threatening manner, not three convictions.

First Holding:

After the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, the prosecution presented evidence and argument to the jury on the aggravating factors that his unlawful possession of a firearm (1) was of increasing seriousness in relation to his earlier misdemeanor conviction and (2) occurred while he was on probation.

The jury found only the latter aggravating factor true. In selecting the upper term, the court relied on factors including that the defendant was armed and engaged in violent conduct, which indicates a danger to society, as well as the jury’s finding that he was on probation at the time of the offenses.

The trial court clearly erred by relying on an aggravating circumstance that the jury did not find—i.e., that the defendant engaged in violent conduct, which indicates a danger to society.

Authority:

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(1)

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1076 [criminal defendants are entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose them to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm]

Second Holding:

We do not have enough confidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found that circumstance in aggravation true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we remand for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087 [this kind of sentencing error requires reversal and remand unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all aggravating facts relied on to justify the upper term; the error is not harmless if the record contains evidence that could rationally support a contrary finding regarding the aggravating fact at issue]

Third Holding:

A circumstance that is an element of the substantive offense cannot be used as a factor in aggravation. This prohibition applies only if the crime as defined by statute cannot be accomplished without performance of the acts which constitute such factor.

Authority:

People v. Burbine (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1261-1262

Fourth Holding:

The People contend that the defendant forfeited his claims of improper sentencing by not raising them in the trial court. We exercise our discretion to consider them in the interests of justice.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1143 [in the interests of justice we have decided to overlook forfeiture, and remand the matter for resentencing]

Fifth Holding:

A single act of brandishing a firearm in the presence of multiple people can support only a single conviction for brandishing. Brandishing a deadly weapon in the presence of another person is not a crime of violence upon that person, but is committed in someone’s presence, a single act of brandishing can only support a conviction of a single count no matter how many people witness the act. Two of the three brandishing counts are reversed.

Authority:

In re Peter F. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 877, 881

Sixth Holding:

The general rule is that on remand for resentencing the trial court may reconsider all sentencing choices.

Authority:

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976

Seventh Holding:

The trial court erred in denying section 4019 conduct credits to the defendant at sentencing without giving him notice that it might do so.

Authority:

People v. Lara (2012) 54 Cal.4th 896, 906 [defendant is entitled to notice of the facts that restrict his ability to earn credits and, if he does not admit them, a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present a defense]

Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000678

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). It was therefore improper to impose a parole revocation fine, which applies only to non-LWOP sentences.

First Holding:

The trial court erred in imposing and staying a parole revocation fine under section 1202.45(a), because the defendant’s sentence did not include a period of parole.

Authority:

People v. Battle (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 50, 63 [parole revocation fine improperly imposed upon defendant sentenced to indeterminate term on one count and LWOP on another]

Second Holding:

The defendant also contends for the first time on appeal that the court violated his constitutional rights, by ordering him to pay a $10,000 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4(b), a court operations surcharge under Government Code section 69926(a), and court facilities and court operations assessments under Government Code section 70373 and Penal Code 1465.8(a)(1)), without first determining his ability to pay. Because these contentions were not raised below, they are forfeited.

Authority:

People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 856–859

People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 597–598

People v. Frandsen (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1126, 1153–1155

People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, overruled in part by People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000658

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was an improper delegation of authority to impose a condition of probation that left it up to the probation officer to decide whether treatment should be residential or outpatient. There was also error regarding imposition of fees.

First Holding:

Though the defendant did not object to the condition at the time, the issue is not forfeited on appeal. His claim is cognizable because it is a facial constitutional challenge presenting a pure question of law that does not depend on the underlying factual record. We thus address defendant’s constitutional challenge on the merits, which we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 901 [a facial constitutional challenge may be considered for the first time on appeal because it does not depend on the underlying factual record]

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 884–886

Second Holding:

Under the separation of powers doctrine, judicial powers may not be delegated to nonjudicial officers. While the probation officer may properly specify the details necessary to effectuate the court’s probation conditions, it is the court’s duty to determine the nature of the requirements imposed on the probationer.

A court may dictate the basic policy of a condition of probation, leaving specification of details to the probation officer, but the court’s order cannot be entirely open-ended. It is for the court to determine the nature of the prohibition placed on a defendant as a condition of probation. By leaving key determinations to be decided ad hoc, a vague probation condition may result in an impermissible delegation of authority to the probation officer.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. III, sec. 3

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

In Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 919

Third Holding:

A condition requiring the defendant to enter a residential drug treatment program but authorizing probation to select which residential program may be upheld. We remand for the trial court to either strike the condition, or modify it to specify the type of treatment program in which defendant is directed to participate, including whether it requires defendant to undergo residential treatment. The court’s decision may be informed by the results of any assessment and additional information provided by the parties.

Authority:

People v. Penoli (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 298, 307–308

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 903, 905,

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 13

Fourth Holding:

Appellants implicitly concede a respondent’s argument by failing to respond in their reply brief to the respondent’s argument on that point. A court may assume respondent’s claim was correct if the defendant did not dispute respondent’s claim in his reply.

Authority:

Rudick v. State Bd. of Optometry (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 77, 89–90

Reygoza v. Superior Court (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 514, 519 and fn. 4

Fifth Holding:

An order of probation, like an abstract of judgment, must specify the statutory basis of each fine or fee imposed.

Authority:

People v. Eddards (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 712, 716

Sixth Holding:

In general costs of prosecuting and rehabilitating criminals are not recoverable absent express statutory authority to the contrary. The Legislature repealed section 1203.1b (which authorized to court to impose an order for the cost of probation services, depending on ability to pay, and it could not be a condition of probation) and enacted section 1465.9, which states in relevant part, that on after July 1, 2021, the balance of any court-imposed costs pursuant to section 1203.1b [among numerous other statutes] shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

People v. Baker (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 550, 559–560

Seventh Holding:

The abstract of judgment contains an error. It states that the jury found true the enhancement for great bodily injury under section 12022.7. This conflicts with the actual oral statement of the judge (who conducted a court trial on the enhancement), in which the judge stated “I am not going to find true the allegation of great bodily injury.”

Where, as here, discrepancies exist between the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order, the oral pronouncement controls. The trial court should thus modify the probation order to conform to its oral pronouncement.

Authority:

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

Appellate Principles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000655

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The probation condition ordering treatment but permitting the probation officer to decide whether such treatment should be residential was an improper delegation of the court’s authority.

First Holding:

Under the state constitution, judicial powers may not be delegated to nonjudicial officers. Allowing the probation officer discretion to decide whether the probationer had to attend a residential program, as opposed to outpatient treatment, improperly delegated judicial authority in violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902-903

Second Holding:

The defendant did not object to this probation condition with the trial court, but his appellate claim is not forfeited because he claims a facial constitutional violation.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888–889 [appellate claim that a probation condition was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad was not forfeited by failure to object below where the facial challenge was a pure question of law]

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Due process, Elements of crime, Pleading, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000654

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed the wrong sentence for the consecutive term.

First Holding:

In one count, the defendant was convicted of second degree robbery (sec. 211). At sentencing, the trial court imposed an aggravated term of five years, which was ordered to be served consecutively at a subordinate term of one year four months. Because the robbery was a second degree felony, the middle term is three years in prison. As such, the consecutive subordinate term must be one-third the middle term, or one year. Thus, the sentence on that count must be reduced from 16 months to one year. We may correct this unauthorized sentence on appeal without remanding for a full resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1(a)

PEN 1260

People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 171–172

Second Holding:

The defendant argues that he should have been charged with only one count of attempting to dissuade a witness rather than the 10 charged and found true. The ten calls all occurred on the same day over a span of six hours. The issue is whether appellant may be lawfully subject to multiple convictions. We review this claim de novo.

Authority:

PEN 954

People v. Duffy (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 257, 261

Third Holding:

Section 954 defines what charges can be joined in one action. This statute does not permit multiple convictions for the same offense based on the same act or course of conduct. However, section 954 authorizes multiple convictions for different or distinct offenses. As a result, a defendant may be convicted of multiple counts of the same crime, such as grand theft, based on separate and distinct criminal acts, even if the acts were all part of a single overarching scheme.

Authority:

PEN 954

People v. Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632, 650

People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733, 74

Fourth Holding:

Determining whether a defendant has committed one or more criminal acts requires identifying what the Legislature intended to punish as a single offense under the relevant statute. Courts refer to this inquiry as determining the statute’s unit of prosecution. Courts should look to the characteristics of the crime, including both (1) the factual circumstances of the defendant’s criminal conduct and (2) the elements of the crime as defined by the Legislature in the relevant statute.

Authority:

Moore v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 441, 461

People v. Wilson (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 193, 199-200

People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733, 744 (conc. opn. of Liu, J.)

Fifth Holding:

Section 136.1(a)(2) makes it a crime to knowingly and maliciously attempt to prevent or dissuade a witness from attending or giving testimony at a trial, proceeding or inquiry authorized by law. In relevant part, malice is defined under this statute as an intent to thwart or interfere in any manner with the orderly administration of justice. This crime is completed upon any attempt.

Authority:

PEN 136.1

People v. Kirvin (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1519

Sixth Holding:

A trial court’s decision whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. A defendant bears the burden to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. In the absence of such a showing, a reviewing court presumes the trial court acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on appeal. Moreover, a decision will not be reversed merely because reasonable people might disagree. Instead, the decision must be so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.

Authority:

PEN 669(a)

People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 71–72

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376–377

Seventh Holding:

Once a trial court lawfully decides to impose consecutive sentences on convictions for violating section 136.1, section 1170.15 applies. If a person is convicted of a felony, and of an additional felony that is a violation of section 136.1 or 137 and that was committed against the victim of, or a witness or potential witness with respect to, or a person who was about to give material information pertaining to, the first felony the Penal Code provides that those subordinate terms shall consist of the full middle term.

Authority:

PEN 1170.15

Eighth Holding:

In relevant part, the rule against the dual use of facts prohibits a trial court from relying on the same fact “to impose both the upper term and a consecutive sentence. Only a single factor in aggravation is needed to support imposition of an upper term. Likewise, only one relevant and sustainable fact may explain a series of consecutive sentences. We presume the trial court acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 350, fn. 12

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 730

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376-377

Ninth Holding:

There is a developing split of authority regarding application of the forfeiture doctrine regarding the low term presumption under section 1170(b)(6). We need not decide that issue. Although the court did not specifically mention subdivision (b)(6), we presume it knew of that provision.

Authority:

People v. Achane (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1037, 1039, 1044 [forfeiture doctrine applied when defendant failed to raise in the trial court the presumption in favor of a lower term]

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 994, fn. 8 [sec. 1170 mandates application of the lower term presumption and is not subject to forfeiture]People v. Caparrotta (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 874, 905

Tenth Holding:

Under the cumulative error doctrine, errors that are individually harmless may nevertheless have cumulative prejudice. A claim of cumulative error is essentially a due process challenge. The issue is whether the defendant received a fair trial. Here, appellant’s claim of cumulative prejudice is without merit because we have rejected the individual claims. After reviewing the entire record, we are confident that appellant received due process throughout the entire proceeding, including sentencing.

Authority:

In re Avena (1996) 12 Cal.4th 694, 772, fn. 32

People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1436

People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1057

People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1009 [a defendant is “entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one”]

Duty of the court, Jury instructions, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000611

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court failed to instruct the jury about how a defendant who is an initial aggressor can regain the right to self-defense.

First Holding:

The defendant’s defense was self-defense, and the trial court accordingly instructed the jury on perfect and imperfect self-defense under CALCRIM No. 505. Over his objection, the trial court also instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 3471 regarding an initial aggressor’s right to self-defense. However, the trial court omitted language from CALCRIM No. 3471 about how an initial aggressor can regain the right to self-defense. Omission of that language was prejudicial error. Whether a trial court properly instructed a jury is a question of law that we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210

Second Holding:

A trial court in a criminal case must instruct on the general principles of law that are closely and openly connected to the facts before the court and are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case. This includes a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on an affirmative defense if it appears the defendant is relying on such a defense or if substantial evidence supports it and it is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.

Authority:

People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1021

People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 469

People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949

Third Holding:

It is error to give an instruction that is not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is evidence of reasonable, credible value sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury. In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 39–40

People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129

People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331

People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 835

People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982

Fourth Holding:

As an initial matter, the Attorney General contends the defendant forfeited his contention that it was error to omit the language on how an initial aggressor can regain his right to self defense, because he failed to ask the trial court to include the omitted language. Assuming forfeiture applies, we nonetheless may decline to apply it if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights. Because the contention affects the defendant’s substantial rights, we consider it.

Authority:

PEN 1259

People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 671 [party may not complain on appeal that instruction correct in law and responsive to evidence was too general or incomplete in absence of request for clarifying language]

People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949

Fifth Holding:

When a defendant engages in simple assault or trespass and his opponent responds with deadly force so suddenly that the person cannot withdraw, a defendant may immediately use deadly force in self-defense. The qualification in the language omitted from the jury instruction thus applies where the defendant commits a simple assault. But if one makes a felonious assault upon another, or has created appearances justifying the other to launch a deadly counterattack in self-defense, the original assailant cannot slay his adversary in self-defense unless he has first, in good faith, declined further combat, and has fairly notified him that he has abandoned the affray.

Authority:

People v. Quach (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 294, 301

People v. Conkling (1896) 111 Cal. 616, 626–627

People v. Hecker (1895) 109 Cal. 451, 464 [Where one is the first wrongdoer, but his unlawful act is not felonious, as a simple assault upon the person of another, or a mere trespass upon his property, even though forcible, and this unlawful act is met by a counter assault of a deadly character, the right of self-defense to the first wrongdoer is not lost]

People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949

People v. Gleghorn (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 196, 201

People v. Salazar (2016) 63 Cal.4th 214, 249-250 [exception did not apply where defendant approached victim with cocked gun]

Sixth Holding:

We apply the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in Chapman to determine whether the error merits reversal. The Chapman standard requires us to determine whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have rendered the same verdict absent the error. We must reverse the conviction under that standard unless we conclude that no rational juror who made the findings reflected in the verdict and heard the evidence at trial court could have had a reasonable doubt regarding the findings necessary to convict the defendant, absent the instructional error.

Authority:

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

People v. Quach (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 294, 303

People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 953

People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 831

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 244

Seventh Holding:

Simple assault requires an act that by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of physical force to another person, and the crime does not require actual physical injury or contact to the victim.

Authority:

People v. Harring (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 483, 503

Eighth Holding:

An instruction is inconsistent with defendant’s theory of case if it requires acknowledging, if only inferentially, existence of facts which defendant otherwise denied. The language omitted from the instruction was not inconsistent with the defendant’s defense.

Authority:

People v. Jo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1168–1169

People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982–983 [trial court has no duty to instruct on affirmative defense inconsistent with defendant’s theory of case]

Duty of the court, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000589

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We affirm the judgment of conviction, but vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand for a new trial on the aggravating factors because it was prejudicial error for the court to impose an upper term sentence based on uninstructed and unproven aggravating factors.

First Holding:

The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of due process entitle a criminal defendant to a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. Where enumerated aggravating factors operate as the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense, the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury.

Authority:

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 476-477

Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584, 609

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 288-289 [under Apprendi, aggravating circumstances supporting upper term sentence must be found by a jury]

Second Holding:

The trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the essential elements of the charged offense. It is, indeed, very serious constitutional error because it threatens the right to a jury trial that both the United States and California Constitutions guarantee. It is well settled that no objection is required to preserve a claim for appellate review that the jury instructions omitted an essential element of the charge.

Authority:

People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 477

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 409 [trial court erred by omitting essential elements of a special circumstance allegation]

Third Holding:

We review constitutional claims and claims of instructional error de novo. We must consider the claim of instructional error in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record. An instructional error that improperly describes or omits an element of an offense generally is not a structural defect in the trial mechanism that defies harmless error review and automatically requires reversal under the federal Constitution, unless the instructional error or omission amounts to the total deprivation of a jury trial.

Rather, where the trial court fails to instruct on necessary elements, generally this error is subject to harmless-error analysis under the test of Chapman, that is, whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. Overwhelming evidence, other properly given jury instructions, or a defendant’s concession of elements for which an instruction was omitted may render an error harmless.

Authority:

People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 326 [instructional error]

In re Taylor (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1019, 1035 [constitutional claims]

People v. Salazar (2016) 63 Cal.4th 214, 248 [The correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court]

People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 502-503

People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 830

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

Neder v. U.S. (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 15

People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 689, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22

Fourth Holding:

Forfeiture does not bar the defendant’s claim because the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on all essential elements of the charge. Further, the failure to instruct the jury on all essential elements is not a matter of discretion but raises a legal claim under the federal constitution subject to de novo review.

Authority:

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

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 46 [a defendant’s failure to object does not preclude his asserting on appeal that he was denied his constitutional right to a jury trial]

People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589, fn. 5

People v. Serrano (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 902, 908-909

People v. Lua (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1004, 1013

Fifth Holding:

The trial court failed to instruct properly on essential elements of the aggravating factor under rule 4.421(a)(1) that, to find the aggravating factor true, it must determine that the defendant’s conduct was distinctively worse than what was necessary to commit the crime, an element necessary to a true finding under the rule. The jury instructions omitted any definition of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness within the meaning of rule 4.421(a)(1).

This element of the aggravating factor may not be necessary in every case because “great bodily injury” alone may satisfy the requirements of rule 4.421(a)(1). But here, the defendant was also subject to a sentencing enhancement for inflicting great bodily injury under section 12022.7(a), and the trial court could not aggravate the defendant’s sentence on the same factual basis under section 1170(b)(5).

Authority:

People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 320

People v. Harvey (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 90, 116-117 [In imposing the upper term . under rule 421(a)(1) [now rule 4.421(a)(1)] the factfinder must convince itself that, when compared to other ways in which such a crime could be committed, the manner of this crime’s commission indicated viciousness and callousness]

People v. Webber (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1146, 1169

People v. Nevill (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 198, 206

People v. Gutierrez (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1729, 1735 [aggravating factor satisfied by finding of “great bodily injury”]

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 350 [a court generally cannot use a single fact both to aggravate the base term and to impose an enhancement]

People v. Castaneda (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 611, 614-615

People v. Hill (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1566, 1575

People v. La Fargue (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 878, 898

Sixth Holding:

It is the court’s duty to see to it that the jury are adequately informed on the law governing all elements of the case submitted to them to an extent necessary to enable them to perform their function in conformity with the applicable law. Accordingly, the trial court erred by omitting jury instructions on necessary elements of the aggravating factor allegation.

Authority:

People v. Sanchez (1950) 35 Cal.2d 522, 528

Seventh Holding:

In addition, the court imposed an upper term sentence based on untried aggravating facts, discussing aspects purportedly related to public safety. An upper term sentence may be imposed only when circumstances in aggravation justify that term, and only when the facts underlying those justifying circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury or court trial.

Here, the court erred by imposing an upper term sentence based on facts not found by the jury or stipulated to by the defendant, including that the defendant used a knife, that the assault occurred in a busy public area, and that his conduct endangered public safety. It was error for the court to consider these additional uncharged and unproven aggravating circumstances to impose an upper term sentence. We are unable to determine with a requisite degree of confidence that a jury would have found those facts to be factors in aggravation. We thus reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 759

People v. Whitten (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1761, 1767 [examination of aggravating factors necessarily involves subjective determinations based upon objectively demonstrated facts]

Discretion, Effective assistance of counsel, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000558

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The restitution amount is wrong, and the protective order is unauthorized.

First Holding:

Appellant contends changes to section 1001.36 that went into effect after she was denied pretrial diversion apply to her case. We agree. Appellant further contends this matter should be conditionally reversed and remanded so the trial court can exercise its discretion to determine her motion for pretrial diversion in light of the amendment. We disagree.

Appellant has forfeited this claim. Frahs, decided in 2020, made clear that recently enacted section 1001.36 applied in nonfinal cases. Thus, when the law was amended effective January 1, 2023, appellant should have known the amendments applied retroactively. Once the law was amended, appellant had more than three months before she pled and more than seven months before she was sentenced to seek reconsideration of the trial court’s denial of diversion. She did not.

Authority:

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 631-632

People v. Doron (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1, 6

People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 856

People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113, 128 [failure to seek reconsideration excused where amendment to statute effective after entry of plea but only 10 days before sentencing]

Second Holding:

In order to establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his or her counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the defendant suffered prejudice as a result of such deficient performance. The record is silent, however, why defense counsel failed to seek reconsideration under the amended law.

It is possible that counsel was unaware of the newly passed statute. It is also possible, however, that counsel had sound reasons not to pursue the issue. For example, appellant may have changed her mind and decided to refuse to accept the treatment required for participation in the diversion program. Because trial counsel’s reasons for not raising the issue are not readily apparent, the issue is more appropriately considered in a habeas corpus proceeding.

Authority:

People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181, 198

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-692

People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267

People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s restitution order for abuse of discretion. We apply the substantial evidence standard in a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to support a factual finding necessary for a victim restitution order. Sentencing judges are given virtually unlimited discretion as to the kind of information they can consider and the source from whence it comes because a hearing to establish the amount of restitution does not require the formalities of other phases of a criminal prosecution. The court may use any rational method of fixing the amount of restitution as long as it is reasonably calculated to make the victim whole. It may make a restitution order based on truncated evidence such as declarations or probation reports, business records, and checks.

Authority:

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 663

People v. Jessee (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 501, 507

People v. Hove (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1266, 1275

People v. Plains All American Pipeline L.P. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 872, 898-899

Fourth Holding:

The total restitution awarded to the victim includes two computational errors. The court erroneously included a $4,520 attorney fees bill twice and included $880 for an unknown reason. We will correct those errors.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 854

Fifth Holding:

Section 136.2(i) authorizes a court to issue an order restraining a defendant for up to 10 years when the defendant has been convicted of a qualifying crime. Appellant’s conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under section 245 is not a qualifying crime under section 136(i). The court did not have statutory authority to issue the protective order, therefore, the order must be stricken.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 901

Appellate Principles, Duty of counsel, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000548

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(GARY note: This case actually provided no relief at all to the defendant. It is included because it teaches a valuable lesson on the burden an appellant bears to prevail on appeal. The defendant argued that the protective order was unlawful because he was not convicted of a crime eligible for protective orders.

(But the Court of Appeal concluded that the defendant did not show that he did not commit the crime in the course of a domestic violence course of conduct, and the Court of Appeal must assume that the trial court made such a finding or it would not have imposed the order.

(The defendant was required to prove a negative. It is entirely possible that there was nothing in the record that would disprove there was or was not a domestic relationship. The conviction resulted from a plea bargain with a stipulated sentence. No objection was interposed at the time the protective order was issued.

But the case highlights the importance of understanding that an appellate court is not bound to help the defense. The conviction shifted the presumption from innocence to guilt, and the burden shifted likewise. The California Constitution requires upholding a conviction in the absence of a miscarriage of justice. Thus, the appellate courts start with a mandate that the conviction be affirmed. It is appellate counsel’s role to chip away at the presumption that orders of the superior court were properly issued. Don’t make any assumptions that cannot be backed up by the record.)

First Holding:

The defendant contends the trial court erred in issuing a criminal protective order pursuant to section 136.2(i) because his conviction for assault with a semiautomatic firearm (section 245(b)) is not an offense enumerated under the statute.

Assault with a semiautomatic firearm is not an explicitly enumerated offense under section 136.2(i). However, assault with a semiautomatic firearm can qualify under the statute as a crime involving domestic violence if the defendant’s abusive conduct is directed at someone with a qualifying relationship to him.

The record on appeal is silent as to the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the victim. The defendant has not remedied this silence with an adequate record from which we can discern whether his conviction constituted a crime involving domestic violence. On this silent record, we indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the criminal protective order, including the existence of a qualifying relationship between Hooks and the victim. Because the record does not support the defendant’s claim, he fails to meet his burden on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 13700

FAM 6203(a), 6211(c)

Second Holding:

The People assert the defendant forfeited his contention by failing to object in the trial court. As a general rule, an appellant waives issues on appeal that he or she did not initially raise in the trial court. But there are exceptions to this rule for unauthorized sentences and sentencing decisions that are in excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction. Because this case involves the jurisdictional validity of the trial court’s decision to issue a protective order during sentencing, we will consider the defendant’s claim on the merits.

Authority:

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 381-382

Third Holding:

Perhaps the most fundamental rule of appellate law is that the judgment challenged on appeal is presumed correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error. This presumption also applies to a lower court’s orders. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support the order on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. On appeal, the defendant must affirmatively demonstrate error below and provide an adequate record to support his arguments. Any uncertainty in the record must be resolved against the defendant. We will not presume error.

Authority:

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

People v. Sullivan (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 524, 549

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

Case 000538

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it contains several errors, including a representation that the court imposed a $300 restitution, contrary to the actual order.

First Holding:

The abstract of judgment reflects a $300 restitution fine under section 1202.4(b) and a $300 parole revocation fine under section 1202.45 that were not orally imposed during the sentencing hearing. Under section 1202.4(b), the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record.

Under section 1202.45, if a defendant’s sentence includes a period of parole or the defendant is subject to post-release community supervision or mandatory supervision, the court shall impose an additional fine in the same amount as the section 1202.4 fine.

The People did not object to the court’s failure to orally impose these fines. Because such fines 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 direct those fines to be stricken.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

The abstract of judgment reflects that the restitution fine was imposed, but it was not. The oral pronouncement controls, so we amend the abstract of judgment accordingly.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185, 188

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000526

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At sentencing, the trial court found the defendant, who was found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and vandalism, was not a suitable candidate for probation and imposed a custodial sentence. As part of that sentence, the court issued an indefinite stay-away order barring the defendant from the specific address of the apartment complex where the victim lived. It was improper to issue a protective order, which must be stricken.

First Holding:

Claims that a sentence is unauthorized may be raised for the first time on appeal and should be corrected whenever a reviewing court identifies the error.

Authority:

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 382

Second Holding:

Section 136.2(a)(1), allows a trial court to issue protective orders during a criminal case. But courts have read that provision to allow protective orders only while the criminal action is pending. In response, the Legislature added subdivision (i) to section 136.2, which allows postconviction protective orders lasting up to 10 years, but only when the defendant is convicted of domestic violence, certain sexual offenses, street terrorism, or crimes requiring sex offender registration.

Outside of those categories, section 136.2 does not give the trial court statutory authority to impose the postconviction protective order. The order here was unauthorized on two independent grounds. First, it was indefinite in duration and not tied to the pendency of the criminal proceedings. The trial court denied probation, so the order was not authorized as a condition of probation. A postjudgment restraining order imposed under these circumstances falls outside the authority granted by section 136.2 and must be stricken. Second, the trial court never made a finding of good cause to believe that the defendant posed an ongoing risk of intimidating or dissuading the vicitm or anyone else at the complex.

Authority:

PEN 136.2

People v. Corrales (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 283, 286

People v. Stone (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 153, 159

People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 901

Third Holding:

A criminal protective order must also rest on a finding of good cause to believe that the defendant is likely to try to intimidate or dissuade a victim or witness. The fact that a victim was harmed or threatened with harm is not enough on its own.

Authority:

Babalola v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 948, 962

Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Fifth Amendment, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000524

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing, it was error to increase the originally-imposed $300 restitution fine to $10,000.00. It was also error to fail to recalculate the defendant’s credit for time served.

First Holding:

Although defendant arguably has forfeited the claim of error because he did not object to the sentence below, we will reach the issue because he also contends his attorney was ineffective.

Authority:

People v. Daniels (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 29, 31

Second Holding:

When a defendant successfully appeals a criminal conviction, California’s constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy precludes the imposition of more severe punishment on resentencing. Statutorily mandated restitution fines constitute punishment and there is no principled basis for excluding them from the rationale of Henderson. The restitution fine imposed pursuant to section 1202.4(b) cannot exceed the $300 originally imposed. Therefore, we remand the matter and direct the trial court to reduce the restitution fine to $300, as originally assessed.

Authority:

 

People v. Henderson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 482

People v. Jones (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1780, 1783, 1785

People v. Hanson (2000) 23 Cal.4th 355, 357

People v. Daniels (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 29, 31-32

People v. Thompson (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1276 [court directed trial court to reduce increased section 1202.4 fine to amount originally assessed]

Third Holding:

A restitution fine under section 1202.4 constitutes punishment. It is required in every case where a person is convicted of a crime unless the court finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. For felony convictions, the required fine is not less than $300 and not more than $10,000.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 13

Fourth Holding:

When a trial court resentences a defendant on remand, it must credit him with all actual days he spent in custody up to that time, including his time in custody after the original sentencing. As the trial court failed to recalculate the credit for time served, the matter must be remanded for the custody credits to be recalculated.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37 [the trial court, having modified defendant’s sentence on remand, was obliged, in its new abstract of judgment, to credit him with all actual days he had spent in custody]