Tag Archives: Prior convictions

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000278

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Error and/or relief:
The trial court concluded that the defendant was ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 because his prior prison term enhancements were not executed. This was error.

Holding:

Section 1172.75 entitles a defendant to resentencing if the underlying judgment includes a prior-prison-term enhancement that was imposed before January 1, 2020, regardless of whether the enhancement was then executed or instead stayed.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Jurisdiction, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000276

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The sentence on count 1 is unauthorized because no findings were ever made, either by the jury or the court, as to whether the defendant was previously convicted of a qualifying prior vehicle theft offense within the meaning of Penal Code section 666.5(a). On remand, the court shall also address whether one count should be stayed under section 654.  It should be noted that the minute order incorrectly states that the defendant admitted the prior conviction.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 666.5(a) provides that a person convicted of a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 who has been previously convicted of any of several enumerated sections of the Vehicle Code shall be punished by increased by a higher triad than the usual for section 10851. Though the defendant admitted three prior strike convictions, they were not the prior convictions relied on for the PC 666.5 allegation. In the absence of any findings on the allegation, the sentence is unauthorized and exceeded the court’s jurisdiction.

Authority:

PEN 666.5

People v. Neal (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1120

Second Holding:

The record does not reflect that the defendant personally admitted the one strike prior, as required by the law. Every plea shall be entered or withdrawn by the defendant himself or herself in open court.

Authority:

PEN 1018

People v. Hofferber (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 265, 268

Third Holding:

The minute order indicates the defendant admitted the prior strike, but we generally resolve conflicts between the reporter’s and clerk’s transcript in favor of the reporter’s transcript.

Authority:

In re Merrick V. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 235, 249

Fourth Holding:

A defendant may be charged with—and in some cases convicted of—multiple crimes arising out of the same conduct but cannot receive multiple punishments for the same act or omission. Concurrent sentences based on one act or an indivisible course of conduct violate the rules against double punishment. The defendant asserts the chains and stabilizing bars referenced in count 4 were used to tow the motorhome, that any taking or receiving of them was part of one continuous act, and that the court therefore should have stayed the sentence on count 4. The People concede, and we agree, that the matter can be addressed on remand.

Authority:

PEN 654

PEN 954

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

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 353

Amelioration, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000273

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the trial court to impose the upper term based on its own conclusion that the defendant’s prior convictions were numerous and of increasing seriousness, where there was no waiver of a jury or stipulation by the defendant. Defendant was not advised of his right to a jury trial on the aggravating facts, nor did he explicitly waive his right to jury trial on those aggravating facts. The trial court erred in imposing an upper term sentence in the absence of such a waiver.

First Holding:

The trial court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when circumstances in aggravation of the crime justify imposition of an upper term sentence, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury or court trial. This jury trial right is constitutionally required for all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction, relied upon to justify an upper term sentence. A defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821

Second Holding:

A sentencing judge may only use the information in the record of conviction for the limited function of determining the fact of a prior conviction and the then-existing elements of that offense. A determination that defendant’s prior convictions are of increasing seriousness requires a comparison and evaluation of the relationship among a defendant’s prior convictions, and a determination as to their relative seriousness. As a result, it involves something more than a narrow factual finding that the convictions were sustained and what elements were required to prove them. Thus, defendant was entitled to a jury determination on this aggravating factor.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1081-1083

Third Holding:

Defendant must personally waive the right to a jury trial in open court. The waiver must be explicit and will not be implied from a defendant’s conduct. Therefore, a defendant’s failure to object also would not preclude his asserting on appeal that he was denied his constitutional right to a jury trial.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 16

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166

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

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000266

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing on the defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.75, the trial court struck some of the enhancements, but resentenced him to a life term on the balance under the Three Strikes Law as before. Under subsequently decided case law, the trial court should have considered imposing a sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. The matter must be remanded for resentencing. In addition, the abstract of judgment must be corrected to including the correct custody credits.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 provides that once the trial court has confirmed that a defendant’s current judgment includes a prior prison term enhancement that is now legally invalid, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. In so doing, the trial court is directed to follow specific instructions while resentencing. For example, it provides that resentencing pursuant to this section shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety. Resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75 shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed. In addition, when resentencing, the court shall apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

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

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Third Holding:

In 2012, the electorate passed the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36), which amended the law to reduce the punishment prescribed for certain third strike defendants. The electorate additionally authorized persons presently serving an indeterminate term of life imprisonment imposed under the prior version of the Three Strikes law to seek resentencing under the amended penalty scheme by filing a petition for recall of sentence. If the petitioner would have qualified for a shorter sentence under the Reform Act version of the law, taking into consideration the disqualifying factors, section 1170.126 provides that he or she shall be resentenced pursuant to the Reform Act unless the court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The Act, therefore, enacted two kinds of reforms: prospective, by exempting some newly-charged defendants from an indeterminate term, and retrospective, by permitting resentencing for some already convicted

Authority:

PEN 1170.126

People v. Frierson (2017) 4 Cal.5th 225, 231

Fourth Holding:

In Guevara, the California Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a full resentencing under section 1172.75 also permitted the trial court to consider resentencing in accordance with the Reform Act. It held that, as a matter of constitutional avoidance, section 1172.75 must be construed as incorporating the public safety determination under section 1172.126 as a condition for nonserious, nonviolent felony offenders to obtain the benefit of the Reform Act during resentencing.

The court noted that the voters’ intention in passing the Reform Act, particularly by including the requirement of whether resentencing poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, was to strike a balance between reform and safety, and such an intention would be honored by interpreting section 1172.75 as incorporating section 1170.126’s public safety override. Therefore, if a defendant demonstrates eligibility under the Reform Act at a section 1172.75 resentencing, the trial court must first determine whether resentencing the defendant under the revised provisions of the Reform Act would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. If no such risk is demonstrated, the court shall resentence the defendant pursuant to the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act.

[GARY NOTE: Proposition 47 in 2014 included a definition of “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” that was much more specific and more restrictive on what qualified as such than the undefined same language contained in the Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. Because Proposition 36 was an initiative, it cannot be amended by the Legislature except as state in Proposition 36. Section 1172.75’s enactment does not qualify to amend Proposition 36. Therefore, the more restrictive definition in PC 1170.18, enacted by Proposition 47, is not the measure for determining whether relief would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Instead, the standard arising from Proposition 36 applies. Although not in conjunction with section 1172.75, the Supreme Court has previously determined that the more restrictive definition enacted in Proposition 47 did not change the broader standard enacted by Proposition 36 two years earlier. See People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347]

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838

People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347

Fifth Holding:

At the conclusion of the resentencing proceedings, the trial court indicated that it did not need credits; as a result, the number of credits on the abstract of judgment was left blank with a note indicating that “CDCR to recalculate credits.” When a trial court resentences a defendant who is currently in custody, it must calculate and credit him with all actual days spent in custody up to that time, including time in custody after the original sentencing, as well as the conduct credits ordered at the original sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37

People v. Dean (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 391, 397

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000255

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court erred in not applying the ameliorative provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012.

First Holding:

PEN 1172.75

Authority:

Under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, a defendant with two or more strikes will be sentenced to a doubled term rather than to a life term (that carried a minimum of 25 years or longer, depending on the offense) that was required for a third strike (regardless of the nature of the new felony) under the original Three Strikes law, unless the new offense is a serious felony, as defined. [There are some exceptions to the Reform Act not applicable here, essentially related to large quantities of drugs, sex offenses, use of or armed with firearms or other deadly weapons, or the intent to cause great bodily injury, or if the prior convictions were of the sort enumerated as disqualifying.]

Second Holding:

PEN 1170.12

PEN 667(e)

PEN 1170.126

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Third Holding:

In Guevara, the Supreme Court held that, as a matter of constitutional avoidance, section 1172.75 incorporates section 1170.126’s discretionary public safety override as a condition for nonserious, nonviolent third strike offenders to obtain resentencing under the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act. It remanded to the Court of Appeal with instructions to remand the case to the superior court to determine whether sentencing that defendant (Guevara) under the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. If it so determined, the superior court was to reimpose the indeterminate term. If the superior court did not determine that resentencing Guevara would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, and Guevara was otherwise eligible under the Reform Act, the court shall resentence him pursuant to the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act.

[GARY NOTE: The Guevara court did not limit the determination of public safety risk to the definition subsequently enacted in conjunction with Proposition 47, which did define it in section 1170.18. The standard to be applied was the pre-Proposition 47 definition that had traditionally been applied under the Three Strikes Reform Act. That was necessary for the two sets of provisions to be constitutionally reconciled. This aspect was not mentioned in the unpublished opinion summarized here.]

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) 18 Cal.5th 838, 878