Tag Archives: Gang activity

Due process, Elements of crime, Pleading, Sentencing

Case 001133

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The gang conspiracy convictions are unsupported by substantial evidence that defendants committed the target offense charged, i.e., a violation of section 26100(c). We therefore modify the verdicts on count 5 to reflect convictions for gang conspiracy based on a lesser included target felony violation of section 26100(d). Resentencing is required on this count and vacate the sentences.

The sentences on count 2 must be vacated because the alternate penalty provision set forth in section 186.22(b)(4) was neither pled nor proved. Additionally, imposition of both the gang enhancement and firearm enhancement on this count violates the dual use prohibition set forth in section 12022.53(e)(2).

We remand for resentencing.

(Gary note: This was a multiple-defendant case with an extremely long opinion. There were many issues, most of which resulted in a finding of no error, and I have not attempted to list them all.)

First Holding:

The information charged defendants in count 5 with gang conspiracy for promoting, furthering, assisting, or benefitting from felonious criminal conduct, specifically Penal Code section 26100(c). Section 26100(c) is violated by the willful and malicious discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle at another person other than an occupant of a motor vehicle.

Authority:

PEN 26100(c)

Second Holding:

In this case there was no evidence that a firearm was discharged at anyone other than an occupant of a motor vehicle. Under sections 1181 and 1260, an appellate court that finds that insufficient evidence supports the conviction for a greater offense may, in lieu of granting a new trial, modify the judgment of conviction to reflect a conviction for a lesser included offense.

In a conspiracy case, the defendant may be convicted of conspiring to commit a lesser crime included in the alleged target offense.

Authority:

PEN 1181

PEN 1260

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 671

People v. Fenenbock (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1688, 1706 [the trial court has a sua sponte obligation to instruct on lesser included target offenses if there is evidence from which the jury could find a conspiracy to commit a lesser offense]

Third Holding:

It is well settled that a section 182.5 conspiracy (i.e., conspiracy in connection with participation in a criminal street gang) relates only to the commission of a felony. Thus, a gang conspiracy requires the actual commission of felonious criminal conduct as either an attempt or a completed crime.

A violation of section 26100(d) [discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle] is a wobbler, meaning it is chargeable or, in the discretion of the court, punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor. An attempted or completed felony violation of section 26100(d) may appropriately serve as the target offense for a gang conspiracy conviction.

In light of the insufficient evidence of a violation under subdivision (c), we will modify the verdicts on count 5 to reflect the gang conspiracy convictions are predicated upon a felonious violation of section 26100(d).

Authority:

PEN 26100(d)

People v. Johnson (2013) 57 Cal.4th 250, 262

People v. Park (2013) 56 Cal.4th 782, 789

Fourth Holding:

In general, a person may be convicted of, although not punished for, more than one crime arising out of the same act or course of conduct. However, a judicially created exception to the general rule permitting multiple conviction prohibits multiple convictions based on necessarily included offenses.

When a defendant is found guilty of both a greater and a necessarily lesser included offense arising out of the same act or course of conduct, and the evidence supports the verdict on the greater offense, that conviction is controlling, and the conviction of the lesser offense must be reversed.

An offense is necessarily included within another if the statutory elements of the greater offense include all of the statutory elements of the lesser offense, such that all legal elements of the lesser offense are also elements of the greater. In other words, if a crime cannot be committed without also necessarily committing a lesser offense, the latter is a lesser included offense within the former.

Authority:

People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224, 1226-1227

People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 736

People v. Sanchez (2001) 24 Cal.4th 983, 987 [a defendant cannot be convicted of both a greater offense and a necessarily included offense based on the commission of the same act]

People v. Robinson (2016) 63 Cal.4th 200, 207

Fifth Holding:

The elements of the crimes of active participation in a gang (section 186.22) and gang conspiracy (section 182.5) are nearly identical.

However, whereas active participation may be committed by any of the alternative means of promoting, furthering, or assisting in felonious conduct by gang members, gang conspiracy may be committed by any of the alternative means of promoting, furthering, assisting, or benefitting from the felonious conduct of gang members.

Although all the elements of the active participation offense are also included in the gang conspiracy offense, it is possible to commit gang conspiracy without committing the active participation offense if the defendant merely benefits from the felonious criminal conduct of fellow gang members.

Thus, because gang conspiracy may be committed without necessarily committing the offense of active participation in a criminal street gang, active participation is not a necessarily included lesser offense.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

PEN 182.5

People v. Robinson (2016) 63 Cal.4th 200, 207

People v. Hinojos (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 19, 33–34 [utilizing the same reasoning to hold that section 654 did not bar imposition of the gang enhancement on the defendant’s gang conspiracy convictions]

Sixth Holding:

The court erred in sentencing defendants pursuant to section 186.22(b)(4) because this alternate penalty provision was not alleged in the information. Section 186.22(b)(4) is an alternate penalty provision prescribing indeterminate terms of life imprisonment for those who committed certain enumerated felonies under the same gang-related circumstances described elsewhere in section 186.22. If the elements are present, the sentence will be an indeterminate term of life, with a specified minimum term.

A defendant has a due process right to fair notice of any sentencing allegation that, if proven, will increase the punishment for a crime. As a matter of due process, an alternative punishment provision must be pleaded and proved.

The failure to plead an alternate penalty provision deprives the defendant of fair notice of his or her sentencing exposure by failing to inform him or her that an alternate sentence carrying a higher term will be pursued.

Additionally, a defendant is deprived of adequate notice if punishment is imposed under one provision, and an enhancement was alleged under a different, mutually exclusive provision, even if facts supporting the alternate allegation are contained in the information.

Even if the statute alleged in the information cross-references the statute under which an alternate penalty is pursued, the information fails to inform the defendant that the prosecution will seek to impose the more stringent sentence; therefore, imposition of the higher alternate sentence would violate due process.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2022) 12 Cal.5th 957, 970

Robert L. v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 894, 899–900, and fn. 6

In re Vaquera (2024) 15 Cal.5th 706, 717, 723, 724 [information alleging One Strike allegation pursuant to sec. 667.61(b)/(e)(4) for an offense against more than one victim was inadequate to provide the defendant notice the prosecution might seek a One Strike sentence pursuant to sec. 667.61(j)(2) for an offense against a child under 14 years of age, even though the facts supporting the allegation were contained in the information].

People v. Sweeney (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 295, 301 [information alleging gang enhancements under sec. 186.22(b) did not give the defendant adequate notice that an alternate sentence under subd. (d) might apply]

Seventh Holding:

The matter must be remanded for full resentencing.

Authority:

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

People v. Shaw (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 582, 588–589 [remanding for a full resentencing hearing as to all counts in light of an unauthorized enhancement]

People v. Delgado (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 839, 855 [It is perfectly proper for this court to remand for a complete resentencing after finding an error with respect to part of a sentence]

People v. Lopez (2022) 12 Cal.5th 957, 975–976 [remanding for resentencing after finding the alternate penalty provision set forth in sec. 186.22(b)(4) to be inapplicable]

Eighth Holding:

In a case in which it is proper to invoke section 186.22(b)(4), the court cannot both invoke that alternative sentencing scheme and impose the firearm enhancement under section 12022.53(e) on a principal who did not personally use the firearm. Only one of these enhancements may be imposed.

Section 186.22(b)(4) permits an indeterminate life sentence for criminal gang activity if certain conditions are present. Section 12022.53(e)(1) extends liability for the firearm use of another to a principal who did not personally use or discharge the weapon, but who violated subdivision (b) of section 186.22.

Section 12022.53(e)(1) creates an exception to the personal use requirement of section 12022.53(b) through (d) in a prosecution where findings have been made pursuant to section 186.22. In a case where section 186.22 has been found to be applicable, in order for section 12022.53 to apply, it is necessary only for a principal, not the accused, in the commission of the underlying felony to personally use the firearm; personal firearm use by the accused is not required under these specific circumstances.

However, as a consequence of this expanded liability under section 12022.53(e), the Legislature has expressly determined in section 12022.53(e)(2) to preclude the imposition of an additional enhancement under section 186.22 in a gang case unless the accused personally used the firearm.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(d)

PEN 12022.53(e)(2)

People v. Salas (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1281–1282

People v. Brookfield (2009) 47 Cal.4th 583, 593, 595-596 [In choosing which of those two provisions to apply, the trial court must, consistent with section 12022.53(j), choose the provision that will result in a greater sentence.]

Ninth Holding:

The availability of increased punishment is a matter of pleading and proof. The information alleged only that a principal personally discharged and used a firearm. Moreover, the prosecution did not request that the jury be instructed regarding personal firearm use or discharge or the firearm enhancement, and the verdict did not call for a jury finding on this point. There was therefore no finding that the defendant personally used or discharged a firearm in the commission of the crime. As a matter of law, the special circumstance finding in a different count applies only to that count and does not provide a finding sufficient to overcome the bar against dual use of the gang finding set forth in section 12022.53(e)(2).

Authority:

PEN 12022.53(j) [For the penalties in this section to apply, the existence of any fact required under subdivision (b), (c), or (d) shall be alleged in the accusatory pleading and either admitted by the defendant in open court or found to be true by the trier of fact ….]

People v. Masbruch (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1001, 1007 [Whether a defendant used a firearm in the commission of an enumerated sex offense is for the trier of fact to decide.]

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001116

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court erred in failing to consider whether the criminal gang activity enhancements were still valid with the passage of AB 333 after the initial conviction and sentencing.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, B333 amended section 186.22 to impose new substantive and procedural requirements for gang allegations and the substantive offense of gang participation.

First, it narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons.

Second, whereas section 186.22, former subdivision (f) required only that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang, AB 333 requires that any such pattern have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, AB 333 also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Fourth, AB 333 narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational.

Authority:

People v. E.H. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 467, 477

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

Second Holding:

Under Estrada, in the absence of a contrary indication of legislative intent, legislation that ameliorates punishment applies to all cases that are not yet final as of the legislation’s effective date. When a substantive change occurs in the elements of an offense and the jury is not instructed as to the proper elements, the omission implicates the defendant’s right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment, and reversal is required unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same in the absence of the error.

AB 333 applies retroactively in this case. AB 333 added new elements to the substantive offense and enhancements in section 186.22.

Authority:

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

Third Holding:

When the defendant’s sentence was recalled, his judgments became nonfinal and “the trial court regained the jurisdiction and duty to consider what punishment was appropriate for him, and [Guzman] regained the right to appeal whatever new sentence was imposed. His judgments thus became nonfinal, and it remains nonfinal in its present posture. His judgments became nonfinal for Estrada purposes and the trial court erred by failing to address the amendments that AB 333 made to the gang enhancement statute.

Authority:

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 161-162

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 400

People v. Salgado (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 376, 380-381 [the defendant was entitled to benefit of AB 333 because his judgment was no longer final following recall and resentencing under section 1170(d)]

Fourth Holding:

The proper remedy in this case is to remand for the trial court to determine whether the People can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.

Authority:

People v. Copper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 738, 742-744, 746 [applying Chapman to conclude that lack of jury instruction on AB 333’s new elements was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt]

People v. E.H. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 467, 480 [The proper remedy for this type of failure of proof—where newly required elements were never tried to the jury—is to remand and give the People an opportunity to retry the affected charges]

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

Fifth Holding:

The defendant concedes that retrial is not automatic and requests that we assess the trial court’s error instead of remanding to the trial court. Although some appellate courts have engaged in harmless error analysis in similar situations (e.g., Sek), we conclude that in this case, the trial court is well-situated to make the prejudice determination.

Authority:

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 668-669

Sixth Holding:

Regardless of the outcome on the question of AB 333, the defendant is entitled to full resentencing on remand.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 392-393 [a criminal case in which the sentence is not yet final, including one in which an appellate court has affirmed the conviction and remanded for reconsideration of sentencing-related issues, is not final for purposes of Estrada, and the benefits of supervening ameliorative legislation apply retroactively]

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

Amelioration, Discretion, Duty of the court, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001115

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court erred in failing to consider whether the criminal gang activity enhancements were still valid with the passage of AB 333 after the initial conviction and sentencing.

First Holding:

Any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b) (with one exception) is legally invalid. The sentencing court, upon being notified that a person in custody is currently serving a prison term that includes a now-invalid section 667.5(b) enhancement, becomes vested with jurisdiction to review the judgment, verify the existence of an invalid enhancement, recall the sentence, and resentence the defendant.

Section 1172.75(d)(2) directs the court to conduct a full resentencing, regardless of whether the enhancement was executed or stayed, and apply any other changes in the law.

Authority:

1172.5

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1054, 1061–1062

Second Holding:

Once a court has determined that a defendant is entitled to resentencing, the result is vacatur of the original sentence, whereupon the trial court may impose any appropriate sentence. A full resentencing requires the court to consider all sentencing options available under the law at the time of the resentencing hearing.

This includes any ameliorative amendments to criminal statutes (unless otherwise expressed by the Legislature). The amendments to section 186.22 brought about by ABB 333 are ameliorative and apply retroactively.

Authority:

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 163

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

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 392

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744–745

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206‒1207

Third Holding:

A trial court’s resentencing decision under section 1172.75 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court.

A court that is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no more exercise that informed discretion than one whose sentence is or may have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant’s record.

In such circumstances, we have held that 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. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 856

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391

Fourth Holding:

When the defendant was resentenced under section 1172.75, the court had the jurisdiction and duty to consider the ameliorative effects of AB 333 on the gang enhancements found true by the jury in the pre-AB 333 era. A review of the record from the resentnecing hearing indicates the court did not consider defendant’s section 186.22 arguments. The court’s failure to consider this issue when resentencing defendant requires remand.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 393 [Because the judgment in this case was not final for Estrada purposes, the appellant was entitled to the retroactive application of AB 333]

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 001098

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing under section 1172.6, the court may have erred in reimposing criminal gang activity enhancement without examining whether it meets the requirements of section 186.22 as amended by AB 333.

The briefing submitted in conjunction with the ruling on the section 1172.6 proceedings does not adequately address whether the application of AB 333 is retroactive where section 1170.6 is invoked. The matter is remanded for resentencing and the parties may address the question of retroactivity of AB 333 in the superior court proceedings.

First Holding:

When the middle term is applied, appellate courts have held that the plain language and statutory context of section 1170(b) are clear the Legislature did not intend to impose evidentiary or proof requirements or restrictions on the imposition of a middle term sentence.

Authority:

People v. Sarmiento-Zuniga (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1216, 1223

Second Holding:

AB 333 applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments. Application of AB 333 here essentially increases the probability defendant’s gang enhancement, imposed prior to the effective date of AB 333, is not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 392

People v. Rojas (2023) 15 Cal.5th 561, 566–567 [Assembly Bill 333 narrowed the definitions of criminal street gang, pattern of criminal activity, and common benefit to a street gang]

Third Holding:

While section 1172.6 clearly provides the unusual remedy of challenging certain final convictions of murder, attempted murder, and manslaughter convictions, and clearly provides that the sentence on all counts (including those other than the murder, attempted murder, and manslaughter convictions) must be based on present law, it is not immediately clear where in the statute the Legislature provided the unusual remedy of challenging all of the petitioner’s other convictions.

The defendant does cite toTrent for the proposition that a defendant is entitled to retroactive application of ameliorative laws after a successful petition under section 1172.6. But the fact that AB 333 applies to nonfinal judgments is clear and undisputed. The question is whether these particular proceedings (i.e., sec. 1172.6) allow for challenges to the convictions (rather than challenges to the prior sentence made at resentencing) on counts or enhancements other than murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(d)(3)

People v. Trent (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 251

Fourth Holding:

On remand, the trial court must award defendant 55 days of presentence conduct credits. The Attorney General concedes this issue and we accept the concession.

(Gary note: The court cited no authority for its directive to award presentence conduct credits, undoubtedly because the law is well settled. For your convenience, I have listed authority below that the court could have relied on.)

Authority:

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

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

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