Tag Archives: Pleading and notice

Appellate Principles, Pleading, Sentencing

Case 001167

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in enhancing the defendant’s sentence by five years under section 667(a) when that section was not alleged in the information.

First Holding:

As a rule, all sentence enhancements 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. No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal.

A criminal defendant must be given fair notice of the charges against him in order that he may have a reasonable opportunity properly to prepare a defense and avoid unfair surprise at trial. This goes for sentence enhancements as well as substantive offenses: A defendant has the right to fair notice of the specific sentence enhancement allegations that will be invoked to increase punishment for his crimes. Accordingly, section 1170.1(e) requires more than simply alleging the facts supporting an enhancement somewhere in the information. The pleading must provide the defendant with fair notice of the potential sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1(e)

People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 953, 956

Second Holding:

The information alleged that the defendant had been convicted of a serious and/or violent felony as defined in section 667(d) and section 1170.12(b), and was thus subject to sentencing pursuant to the provisions of Penal Code section 667(b)-(j) and Penal Code section 1170.12 (the Three Strikes Law statutes), and alleged the prior serious felony conviction the statutes pertained to.

Alleging the fact of the prior conviction for purposes of the strike allegation was insufficient to provide notice that the defendant also faced an additional five-year sentence under section 667, subdivision (a)(1).

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 260

Third Holding:

In Nguyen, the information similarly did not allege a section 667(a)(1) enhancement, but alleged the fact of the conviction underlying that enhancement for purposes of the Three Strikes law.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in imposing the prior serious felony enhancement because under section 1170.1(e), an enhancement must be alleged in the accusatory pleading and the information did not do so. The court reasoned the defendant lacked notice of the potential longer sentence because the factual predicate for the enhancement was alleged specifically for the Three Strikes allegations.

Significantly, every prior serious felony conviction is necessarily also a strike prior. Charging language that expressly states that a fact is alleged to invoke one particular statute does not adequately inform the accused that the People will use it to invoke a different statute. Accordingly, when, as here, the People allege a prior serious felony conviction, and when they cite the three strikes law but do not cite the prior serious felony conviction statute, we can only conclude that they have made a discretionary charging decision.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 260, 263, 266-267

Fourth Holding:

Nguyen was favorably cited by the Supreme Court. In Anderson, in the context of uncharged section 12022.53 enhancements, the Supreme Court explained that fair notice requires that every sentence enhancement be pleaded in connection with every count as to which it is imposed, and cited Nguyen. In Anderson, the information alleged the enhancement as to some counts but not others. The court concluded that by alleging the enhancement as to some counts but not others, the prosecution indicated it was exercising its discretion not to impose the enhancement as to the uncharged counts.

Authority:

People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 956-967

Fifth Holding:

The cases relied on by the prosecution did not involve instances where the 667(a) enhancement was not alleged in the information. Cases are not authority for propositions not considered.

Authority:

Geiser v. Kuhns (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1238, 1252

People v. Ault (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1250, 1268, fn. 10

Sixth Holding:

As a general rule, a criminal defendant who fails to object at trial to a purportedly erroneous ruling forfeits the right to challenge that ruling on appeal. It is well established that a lack of notice can be forfeited by failure to object, even when it is claimed that it violated due process.

Anderson subsequently clarified that while we may consider a forfeited claim of error regarding an unpled enhancement, the unauthorized sentence doctrine does not provide the basis for our review. The court explained that to impose unpleaded sentence enhancements is an error of a different variety.

It held that despite the defendant having forfeited the argument as to the unpled enhancement, the court could address it on appeal because the error was clear and obvious and affected the defendant’s substantial rights by depriving him of timely notice of the potential sentence he faced. The court observed that there was no notice of the enhancement midtrial, and the prosecution did not indicate an intent to impose the enhancements until the day of sentencing, such that the error was one that goes to the overall fairness of the proceeding.

We similarly conclude that we may review the defendant’s claim for the first time on appeal. The error was clear and obvious under Nguyen, Anderson, and section 1170.1(e). The trial court imposed a five-year enhancement that was never alleged in the charging document, as required by statute.

Authority:

People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 961-963

People v. Nguyen (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 260, 263, 272

People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1227

Seventh Holding:

The error was not harmless. Anderson pointed out that the purpose of a statutory pleading requirement is not simply to ensure the defendant has notice of the potential sentence on the day of sentencing. It is meant to give sufficient notice to permit the defense to make informed decisions about the case, including whether to plead guilty, how to allocate investigatory resources, and what strategy to deploy at trial.

The prosecution did not clarify its intent to seek sentencing based on the unalleged enhancements until the sentencing hearing. At that point, the damage was done—it was by then too late to consider the prosecution’s pretrial plea deal or reshape his trial strategy.

We conclude the imposition of the five-year prior serious felony enhancement was not harmless. We remand for a full resentencing so the trial court may exercise its discretion considering these changed circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 964

In re Vaquera (2024) 15 Cal.5th 706, 726 [following Anderson and finding lack of notice of sentence not harmless because it was too late for defendant to make informed decisions as to plea and trial strategy]

Elements of crime, Pleading, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 001159

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There was insufficient evidence to support a conviction under section 290.10, which requires lifetime registrants to register the address of each of their residences, regardless of the number of days or nights spent at each residence.

First Holding:

Section 290.010 requires a person subject to lifetime registration under section 290 who regularly resides at more than one residence to register in each jurisdiction where those residences are located, regardless of the number of days or nights spent at each address.

Authority:

PEN 290.010

Second Holding:

The defendant identified one residence for several years, then registered as a transient. He was seen at the original residence and mail was found addressed to him at that address.

The Sex Offender Registration Act defines a “transient” as a person who has no residence. A “residence,” in turn, means one or more addresses at which a person regularly resides, regardless of the number of days or nights spent there. These definitions are dispositive. The defendant’s transient registration did not constitute one residence in addition to the Lakeside address.

Rather, once he regularly resided at the Lakeside address, he no longer qualified as a transient because he had a residence. Thus, his failure to register that address as a residence did not establish he had multiple residences or failed to register multiple residences as alleged in count 1.

Authority:

PEN 290.11(g)

Third Holding:

The evidence instead suggests the defendant violated section 290.011, which requires a transient who moves to a residence register that address within five working days. The People concede, and we agree, that charging the offense under section 290.010 was not harmless error. The defendant lacked notice that he was charged with violating section 290.011 and therefore had no opportunity to prepare or present a defense to that offense.

Accordingly, the conviction on count 1 must be reversed

Authority:

PEN 290.011(b)

People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 317

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.]

Duty of the court, Jurisdiction, Pleading, Sentencing

Case 001120

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a Franklin hearing.

First Holding:

Franklin held that youth offenders must have an opportunity to put on the record information relevant to any eventual Penal Code section 3051 youth offender parole hearing.

Authority:

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Second Holding:

The defendant committed his crime several decades earlier, when he was 21. After the defendant was sentenced, section 3051 became effective in 2014. Section 3051(b) requires the Board of Parole Hearings to conduct a youth offender parole hearing during the 15th, 20th, or 25th year of a youth offender’s incarceration.

The date of the hearing depends on the youth offender’s controlling offense, defined as the offense or enhancement for which any sentencing court imposed the longest term of imprisonment. The section applies to offenders like the defendant who committed their controlling offense when they were 25 years old or younger.

Authority:

PEN 3051

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 277

Third Holding:

After section 3051’s passage, Franklin held that the section contemplated that information regarding the juvenile offender’s characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense will be available at a youth offender parole hearing to facilitate consideration by the board. Under section 3051(f)(2), persons with information about youth offender may submit statements for review by board. Assembling such mitigating information will typically be more easily done at or near the time of the juvenile’s offense.

Authority:

PEN 3051(f)(2)

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 283

Fourth Holding:

Cook held that youth offenders whose convictions are final may move in the trial court for a Franklin hearing under section 1203.01. Section 1203.01 provides that postjudgment, a trial court may generate, collect, and transmit information about the defendant and the crime to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Authority:

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Fifth Holding:

The trial court erred in concluding it did not have jurisdiction to act because the filing of a notice of appeal on an earlier motion for discovery deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed.

Generally, the filing of a valid notice of appeal vests jurisdiction of the cause in the appellate court until it determines the appeal and issues the remittitur, thereby divesting the trial court of jurisdiction over anything affecting the judgment.

However, appellate jurisdiction does not divest the trial court of all power to act. Perfection of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court only of matters embraced in the matter being appealed. The trial court otherwise may act on any matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order on appeal.

Authority:

CCP 916

People v. Flores (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1059, 1064

Townsel v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1084, 1089

Sixth Holding:

The Franklin motion was unaffected by and unrelated to the order on appeal. That is, the appeal pending when the defendant filed his Franklin motion concerned a motion for postconviction discovery. In contrast, proceedings under Franklin constitute a remedy of evidence preservation.

Also, Franklin proceedings are unrelated to the validity of the defendant’s sentence. Neither the entitlement to a youth offender parole hearing, nor the evidence preservation process disturbs the finality of state convictions. Thus, the Franklin hearing the defendant requested was not embraced in the order on appeal and therefore the trial court had jurisdiction to hear his motion.

Authority:

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 446-447, 451

People v. Lizarraga (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 201, 207 [Franklin hearing does not expose a defendant to increase or decrease in sentence]

Seventh Holding:

The court erred in denying the motion as not being in compliance with Cook. The defendant’s motion was sufficient to initiate Franklin proceedings. The requirements for a Franklin motion are minimal, and the motion need not describe in detail the evidence the youth offender seeks to preserve. Instead, where a motion includes relevant criminal case information and legal authority and establishes eligibility for a youth offender parole hearing, the motion should be granted.

Here, the defendant’s motion cited section 1203.01 and 3051 and Cook in his motion. He stated his qualifying age, the original case number. He identified the controlling offense of murder, requested counsel, said he had never had a Frankling hearing, and asked for an opportunity to make a record of his characteristics as a youth offender. Based on this information, the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to initiate Franklin proceedings.

We express no opinion on whether the trial court must hold a formal Franklin hearing.

Authority:

People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141, 150, 152 [legally sufficient Franklin motion only requires defendant be given opportunity to place additional evidence in record]

People v. Lipptrapp (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 886, 893–894 [trial court erred by denying Franklin motion that identified original case, relevant law, defendant’s age, sentence, and relief requested]

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 446-447, 459 [court has discretion to determine how to conduct process efficiently]

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Evidence, Racial Justice Act, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 001094

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the defendant’s oral motion for relief under the Racial Justice Act (RJA).

First Holding:

It is a violation of the RJA for the judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or a juror to exhibit bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin or, during the defendant’s trial, in court and during the proceedings, to use racially discriminatory language about the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, or otherwise exhibit bias or animus toward the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful.

A defendant may file a motion alleging a violation of subdivision (a). If a motion is filed in the trial court and the defendant makes a prima facie showing of a violation of subdivision (a), the trial court shall hold a hearing, at which the defendant bears the burden of proving an RJA violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Subject to exceptions inapplicable in this case, if the court finds an RJA violation by a preponderance of evidence, the court shall impose an enumerated remedy specific to the violation. If judgment has yet to be entered, one remedy is to reduce one or more charges. After judgment has been entered, the court shall vacate the conviction and sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and order new proceedings consistent with subdivision (a).

Authority:

PEN 745

Second Holding:

The defendant argues that the trial court erred to the extent it denied his RJA motion because it was brought orally rather than by written, noticed motion. Addressing this issue of statutory interpretation de novo, we conclude the RJA does not preclude the possibility of making an oral motion. Accordingly, the court erred to the extent it denied the motion for being brought orally.

Authority:

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 41

Third Holding:

In interpreting a statute, our goal is to ascertain the Legislature’s intent to effectuate the statute’s purpose. We begin by examining the statute’s words, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning. If the language is unambiguous, the plain meaning controls. The words, however, must be construed in context, so we look to the entire section as well as the statutory framework as a whole in deciding what a word or provision means, and we attempt to harmonize terms where possible. We may reject a literal construction that is contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the statute or that would lead to absurd results.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961

People v. Murphy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 136, 142

Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 499, 519

Moyer v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230

Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore (2010) 49 Cal.4th 12, 27

Fourth Holding:

The statutory language here is ambiguous. Section 745 does not say a defendant “must file” a motion; instead, it is permissive. But nor does the statute say that a defendant “may make” an oral motion. We therefore look to legislative findings made in support of the RJA to discern the Legislature’s intent.

When statutory language is ambiguous, we look to a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, and contemporaneous administrative construction. Because uncodified findings of legislative intent are voted upon by the entire legislative body, enrolled and signed by the Governor, they may be entitled to somewhat greater weight than traditional legislative history materials.

(Gary note: Regarding the reference to “uncodified findings” in the last sentence above, Assembly Bill 2542 (2019-2020 legislative session), which enacted the Racial Justice Act, contains a few sections in the bill that were not codified, meaning they do not appear in any of California’s codes, such as the Penal Code.

(Depending on the wording, the uncodified language may or may not have the force of law. For example, section 7 of the bill directs that certain portions of the bill are effective only if a different specified bill is enacted and becomes effective by a specified date. Section 7 thus carries the force of law.

(But section 2 of the bill contains 10 findings made by the Legislature that led to its passage of the RJA. In roughly 1,329 words. Some of the findings relate the existence and effects of racism–intentional or otherwise–and others state something like “It is the intent of the Legislature that ….” Those findings and statements of intent probably do not technically carry the force of law, but may be considered by the courts in interpreting the statutes that were enacted.

(The trial court then discussed the various aspects of the findings that led it to conclude that “Given the expansiveness of the Legislature’s purpose in enacting the RJA, it is appropriate to construe the legislation liberally in favor of affording defendants an opportunity to raise potential RJA violations through an oral motion.” It cautioned, however, that it may not be the best practice to raise the motion orally, as it may create confusion over what, exactly, is being asserted.)

Authority:

People v. Woodhead (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1002, 1008

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 157

Fifth Holding:

In the course of the hearing, counsel appeared to concur that the proper standard was proof by preponderance of the evidence, rather than the much lower standard at the prima facie stage. Though it is not clear what standard the court applied, it erred in excluding hearsay evidence. Hearsay is not per se excludable under the RJA. The court should have considered whether the proffered hearsay “trustworthy and reliable” before excluding it.

By concluding the evidence before it was double hearsay, the court failed to consider the totality of the proffered facts in assessing whether the defendant made a prima facie showing. On this record, we conclude the defendant made such a sufficient showing at the prima facie stage. We thus reverse and remand with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing under the RJA.

Authority:

PEN 745(c)(1)

Hernandez v. Superior Court (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1120, 1130

Sixth Holding:

The people argue that application of the higher standard was invited error, as counsel concurred. The doctrine of invited error is designed to prevent an accused from gaining a reversal on appeal because of an error made by the trial court at defense counsel’s behest. If defense counsel intentionally caused the trial court to err, the appellant cannot be heard to complain on appeal.

But for the doctrine to apply, it also must be clear that counsel acted for tactical reasons and not out of ignorance or mistake. In cases involving an action affirmatively taken by defense counsel, courts have found a clearly implied tactical purpose to be sufficient to invoke the doctrine.

It is not sufficiently clear on this record that counsel had a tactical purpose. It supports the conclusion that counsel simply misunderstood certain details of the RJA when he brought the oral motion. For example, he characterized the motion as a post-judgment motion. But it was prejudgment, though it was presented after the jury verdict. In a criminal case, judgment is rendered when the trial court orally pronounces sentence. Here, the sentencing had not yet happened when the RJA motion was made, so no judgment had been entered.

In light of counsel’s apparent misunderstandings, we conclude that the invited error doctrine is inapplicable. In any event, its application is discretionary, not automatic.

Authority:

People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 49

People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344, fn. 9

Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2025) para. 8:248.13

Seventh Holding:

We review de novo a determination that an RJA movant has failed to make a prima facie showing. A defendant makes a prima facie showing if the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that an RJA violation] occurred.

A substantial likelihood requires more than a mere possibility, but less than a standard of more likely than not. The court should should not make credibility determinations at the prima facie stage. It should accept the truth of the defendant’s allegations unless they are conclusory, unsupported by the evidence presented in support of the claim, or demonstrably contradicted by the court’s own records.

On this record—with these principles in mind and considering the totality of the proffered facts—we conclude that there is more than a mere possibility that an RJA violation occurred. The defendant has therefore made a prima facie showing of one or more RJA violations and is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

PEN 745(h)(2)

PEN 745(c)

People v. Howard (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 625, 650

Finley v. Superior Court (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 12, 23

Hernandez v. Superior Court (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1120, 1130