Tag Archives: Recall of sentence or resentencing

Amelioration, Evidence, Fifth Amendment, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000601

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6. We conclude there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding the defendant is guilty of murder, beyond a reasonable doubt, under a still-valid theory, and reversal for resentencing is unwarranted. As for the defendant’s evidentiary challenges, however, we hold the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting and relying on the grand jury transcript and police reports. As a result, we vacate the trial court’s order, and remand the matter for a new evidentiary hearing.

First Holding:

SB 1437 was enacted to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. It amended section 188, which defines malice, and section 189, which defines the degrees of murder to address felony-murder liability. Through section 1172.6, it provided a means of relief for those whose convictions would no longer be considered murder under the revised law.

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 1172.6

Second Holding:

In the context of an appeal from a criminal conviction where substantial evidence does not support a conviction, the remedy is generally not a new trial. The sufficiency of the evidence is considered by examining the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment and deciding whether it discloses substantial evidence such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence erroneously admitted is properly considered in weighing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, notwithstanding its erroneous admission.

Authority:

People v. Hatch (2000) 22 Cal.4th 260, 271–272 [the federal and California Constitutions preclude retrial if a court determines the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a conviction as a matter of law]

People v. Jasso (2025) 17 Cal.5th 646, 684,

People v. Navarro (2021) 12 Cal.5th 285, 311

Third Holding:

The reason for this is that a reversal based solely on evidentiary insufficiency has fundamentally different implications, for double jeopardy purposes, than a reversal based on such ordinary trial errors as the incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence. While the former is in effect a finding that the government has failed to prove its case against the defendant, the latter implies nothing with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but is simply a determination that he has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect.

Thus, as a general rule, it is well established that if the defendant secures on appeal a reversal of his conviction based on trial errors other than insufficiency of evidence, he is subject to retrial.

Authority:

People v. Jasso (2025) 17 Cal.5th 646, 684,

People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1, 6

Fourth Holding:

Although principles of double jeopardy are not implicated in the voluntary section 1172.6 petition process, an insufficient evidence claim, coupled with additional challenges to the admission of evidence, may give rise to an issue of remedy.

If, considering the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment, there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s denial of the section 1172.6 petition after an evidentiary hearing, it signals a substantive failure of proof by the government much like it does in the context of a direct appeal from a criminal conviction, suggesting reversal for resentencing is the appropriate remedy. Under 1172.6(d)(3) if the prosecution fails to sustain its burden of proof, the petitioner shall be resentenced.

Authority:

People v. Hill (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1068

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 875, 896 [directing resentencing be granted on remand where insufficient evidence supported denial of sec. 1172.6 petition after an evidentiary hearing]

Fifth Holding:

On the other hand, a prejudicial procedural error (such as an evidentiary error), on its own, typically signals nothing about whether the petitioner is or is not guilty of murder under the law as amended by SB 1437, but points only to a flawed judicial process. In cases involving only this latter situation, remand for a new evidentiary hearing is ordinarily the appropriate remedy. This remedy is especially apt in the context of section 1172.6, which was created by the Legislature as an act of lenity.

Authority:

People v. Dixon (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 116, 137 & fn. 3 [in the absence of a substantial evidence challenge, prejudicial evidentiary errors warrant remand for a new evidentiary hearing rather than remand for resentencing]

People v. Lopez-Barraza (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1227, 1255 [remanding for a new evidentiary hearing where trial court impermissibly relied on evidence admitted at the petitioner’s trial that contradicted jury findings]

People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1062–1063 [conditionally reversing denial of sec. 1172.6 petition after evidentiary hearing to permit the trial court to reconsider discovery motion, and to order a new evidentiary hearing if additional evidence disclosure was warranted]

People v. Hill (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1067–1068 [sentence modification procedure under sec. 1172.6 is an entirely voluntary process and constitutes an act of legislative lenity, not a new criminal prosecution]

Sixth Holding:

The grand jury transcript is not admissible under section 1172.6(d)(3)’s exception for evidence previously admitted at a prior hearing or trial.

Authority:

People v. Dixon (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 116

Seventh Holding:

Since Davenport and Cody, appellate courts have considered whether section 1172.6(d)(3)’s hearsay exception extends to transcripts from grand jury proceedings. In Ocobachi, the court held it did not. The court explained the existing hearsay exception for former testimony found in Evidence Code section 1291 requires a showing of witness unavailability) and that the party against whom the former testimony was offered had been given the right and opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

Unlike former testimony given during a petitioner’s preliminary hearing or original trial, Ocobachi pointed out the person investigated at a grand jury proceeding is not a party but a target who has no right to appear or offer evidence at grand jury proceedings. Thus, unlike in Davenport and Cody, admitting a transcript of grand jury testimony under section 1172.6(d)(3) would require ignoring both provisions of Evidence Code section 1291, creating an overbroad hearsay exception. In contrast, Robinson [review granted] concluded that the grand jury transcript may be considered at the section 1172.6 hearing.

Authority:

People v. Davenport (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1158–1159

People v. Cody (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 87, 103

People v. Ocobachi (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1174, 1183

People v. Robinson (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 854, 872, review granted Feb. 26, 2025, S288606

Eighth Holding:

The proper interpretation of a statute is a question of law we review de novo. We consider portions of a statute in the context of the entire statute and the statutory scheme of which it is a part, giving significance to every word, phrase, sentence, and part of an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose

Authority:

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

People v. Reynoza (2024) 15 Cal.5th 982, 989–990

Ninth Holding:

Grand jury proceedings are not adjudicative, unlike hearings and trials in a criminal proceeding, nor are they adversarial. Rather, they are investigatory proceedings: a judicial officer does not typically preside over grand jury proceedings; a defendant does not receive notice of grand jury proceedings; and a defendant has no right to appear, offer evidence, or cross-examine witnesses. Despite similarities in their function, unlike preliminary hearings, grand jury proceedings are one-sided investigatory proceedings.

Authority:

Cummiskey v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1018, 1026

People v. Petrilli (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 814, 824

People v. Arroyo (2016) 62 Cal.4th 589, 595

Tenth Holding:

It would be anomalous for the Legislature to have amended the statute under SB 775 to tighten the evidentiary rules by excluding preliminary hearing testimony under section 872(b) [which allows a magistrate to find probable cause at a preliminary hearing based on the testimony of a qualified law enforcement officer that would otherwise be excluded as inadmissible hearsay], which is subject to cross-examination, but not exclude similar section 939.6(c), testimony received at a grand jury proceeding, which is untested by cross-examination.

Authority:

People v. Ledesma (1997) 16 Cal.4th 90, 101 [in construing statutes, courts should strive to avoid anomalous results]

Eleventh Holding:

We agree with the parties that the police reports and related witness statements collected by the police are hearsay because they were created out of court and were offered (and considered) for the truth of the matter asserted. These documents also contain out-of-court statements of witnesses that constitute another layer of hearsay when offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

While there may be an applicable exception for some of the information contained in the police reports, there must also be a hearsay exception for out-of-court witness statements recorded in the documents that were considered for the truth of the matter asserted. Many of the findings taken from the police reports involved nonparty witness statements recorded by the police that were considered for the truth of the matter asserted, but no hearsay exception was identified

Authority:

EVID 1200(a)[hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove that its assertion is true]

People v. Hall (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 831, 844–845 [arrest report admissible under official records exception to hearsay rule to the extent it reported an act, condition, or event observed by law enforcement pursuant to Evid. Code sec. 1280]

Walker v. Superior Court (2021) 12 Cal.5th 177, 192 [observing the general rule that each level of out-of-court statements in documents such as probation and police reports must fall under a hearsay exception to be admitted into evidence]

Twelfth Holding:

Judicial notice extends only to notice of the document’s existence, not necessarily to the truth of the facts contained within a document. Judicial notice of a document is not a vehicle for the admission of hearsay contained within the document.

Authority:

People v. Moore (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 168, 178

People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448, 458–459 [the fact that a document may be judicially noticed under Evid. Code sec. 452 does not mean all the hearsay statements within the document are admissible or noticeable]

Thirteenth Holding:

Prejudice is shown where it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.

Authority:

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

Fourteenth Holding:

On other questions the defendant has asked us to address, we decline to do so in light of the remand and reversal. As a general rule, we do not issue advisory opinions indicating what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.

Authority:

People v. Slayton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1076, 1084

Equal protection, Sentencing

Case 000597

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

For a crime committed when he was under age 18 and for which he was tried as an adult and sentenced to 46 years to life, the defendant filed a petition under section 1170(d) to recall his sentence and be resentenced, claiming he was sentenced to the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). The trial court denied the petition, concluding that the sentence was not the functional equivalent of LWOP. Reversed.

First Holding:

The issue regarding what sentences constitute the functional equivalent of LWOP is one the Supreme Court is set to resolve in Munoz.

Authority:

People v. Munoz (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 499, review granted June 25, 2025, S290828

Second Holding:

Defendant maintained he was eligible for resentencing even though he was not given an LWOP sentence because he was serving a sentence that was the functional equivalent of LWOP and treating him as if he were ineligible for resentencing would accordingly violate equal protection principles. We agree with Heard and other precedent that holds defendants who are serving the functional equivalent of LWOP, not just those serving an actual LWOP sentence, must be eligible for section 1170(d) relief pursuant to equal protection guarantees—and the availability of a youthful offender parole hearing does not undercut this conclusion.

Authority:

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 628-629

People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 440

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000596

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court ordered that the original fines and fees imposed nearly 30 years earlier would remain the same. They are ordered stricken.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9 was amended to provide that, upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated. Accordingly, the portion of the judgment imposing the restitution fine is vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Second Holding:

The $70 fee imposed for AIDS education must be vacated. The original sentencing court imposed this fee pursuant to section 264(b), which states in relevant part: The judge may assess a fine not to exceed $70 against a person who violates Section 261 or former Section 262 with the proceeds of this fine to be used in accordance with section 1463.23. Section 1463.23, however, was repealed effective January 1, 2018. The provision authorizing the AIDS education fee (sec. 264, subd. (b)) was impliedly repealed in 2018, when the referenced statute (sec. 1463.23) was actually repealed, since it is no longer possible for the proceeds of this fine to be used in accordance with section 1463.23. Accordingly, the AIDS education fee is vacated.

Authority:

Repeal of PEN 1463.23

Third Holding:

The abstract of judgment filed in 2024 does not reflect the restitution fine or the AIDS education fee. We further note that the sentencing minute order similarly does not refer to any fines and fees imposed. Nevertheless, it is well established that where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Accordingly, the clerk of the superior court is ordered to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and an amended sentencing minute order reflecting that the previously imposed restitution fine and AIDS education fee are vacated.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 260–261

Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case 000594

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

[Gary note: This was NOT a win for the defense, but I include it because it contains a valuable point.] If an inmate is NOT CURRENTLY serving a sentence that has been enhanced by a now-invalid prior prison term conviction, that inmate is NOT ELIGIBLE for resentencing under section 1172.75. Thus, the appellate court reversed the resentencing order of the trial court that dismissed the now-invalid prior, because the defendant was no longer serving a sentence enhanced by it at the time of resentencing.

Holding:

By 2006 at the latest, the defendant had completed his original sentence that was enhanced by a single prior prison term in 1996. However, the defendant committed several new felonies while incarcerated, and was still serving those sentences when he filed his petition for recall of his original sentence in 2023. The superior court struck the original prior prison term enhancement in 2025.

But the defendant was no longer serving a sentence on that judgment. New crimes committed while in prison are treated as separate offenses and begin a new aggregate term. Section 1172.75 requires two things in addition to the judgment including an invalid section 667.5(b) enhancement: (1) that the defendant be in custody and (2) be currently serving a term on the judgment containing the invalid enhancement. Where a defendant remains in prison, the current judgment is the operative judgment pursuant to which they are incarcerated. Because the defendant was no longer in custody on the offense bearing the now-invalid enhancement, the court had no jurisdiction to dismiss it. We therefore reverse the judgment entered following the 2025 resentencing. The 1996 judgment is reinstated.

Authority:

People v. Langston (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1237, 1242

People v. Washington (2026) 117 Cal.App.5th 1057, 1065-1066

People v. Escobedo (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 440, 447

People v. Amaya (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 379, 386–387 [the trial court’s resentencing was void on the face of the record because the court granted relief that it had no power to grant]

Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 35, 53 [when, as here, there is an appeal from a void judgment, the reviewing court’s jurisdiction is limited to reversing the trial court’s void acts]

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case 000590

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in summarily denying the defendant’s Penal Code section 1172.6 petition for resentencing at the prima facie stage.

First Holding:

Effective January 2019, the Legislature amended the law to eliminate liability for murder based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine or theories of imputed malice predicated solely on one’s participation in a crime. As relevant here, section 1172.6 applies to those who pled guilty to manslaughter after being charged with murder and who would have been subject to prosecution for murder under a felony-murder theory, the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or any other theory of imputed malice.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959

People v. Gaillard (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1206, 121

Second Holding:

A trial court considering a section 1172.6 petition must first determine whether the petitioner made a prima facie showing he or she could not presently be convicted under the amended laws. In doing so, the court accepts the petitioner’s factual allegations as true. The court may deny the petition at the prima facie stage only if the record of conviction—which includes facts admitted in a guilty plea—conclusively establishes that the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

Here, as the People concede, the record did not foreclose the possibility that the defendant was convicted under the invalid natural and probable consequences theory. His admissions and factual basis for the guilty plea were generic and did not establish the specific theory of aiding and abetting under which the defendant admitted guilt. Accordingly, they do not establish that he is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law. He pled that he aided and abetted a murder, but the natural and probable consequences doctrine is one theory of aiding and abetting.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971

People v. Gaillard (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1206, 1211. 1212

Third Holding:

We review de novo the trial court’s resentencing denial at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

People v. Gaillard (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1206, 1211

Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 000587

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal from a hearing under section 1172.75, the appellate court struck the balance of the restitution fine as it was ordered more than 10 years prior to the resentencing.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9 was amended and now provides that, upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Second Holding:

Respondent asserts the trial court did not impose the restitution fine nor parole revocation fine at the time of resentencing and therefore it must be stricken for that reason. Generally, respondent is correct.

Authority:

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

People v. Frederickson (2020) 8 Cal.5th 963, 1027 [striking a restitution fine from the record and the abstract of judgment where the court failed to orally impose the fine during the sentencing hearing]

People v. Nilsson (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1, 34 [resentencing necessarily requires a court to impose a new sentence, including any fines, fees, and assessments]

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [the oral pronouncement of judgment controls]

Third Holding:

In this instance, however, the trial court merely reaffirmed the original judgment with the exception of striking the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement. The judgment following the resentencing is not yet final, we conclude appellant is entitled to have the restitution fine stricken. As appellant’s restitution fine was first imposed more than 10 years ago, it is now unenforceable and uncollectible under section 1465.9(d).

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 601, review granted on another issue Mar. 11, 2026, S295038

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744–745 [absent evidence to the contrary, we presume ameliorative criminal statutes apply retroactively to all nonfinal judgments]

Fourth Holding:

Section 1465.9(d) does not apply to the parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45. In Kopp, the court vacated any unpaid portion of the defendant’s restitution fine under section 1465.9(d), but nonetheless remanded the matter because a parole revocation fine is still required and was to be set in the same amount as the restitution fine would have been had the court properly considered the defendant’s ability to pay and stayed.

Further, section 1465.9 makes no mention of the parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45. We are not to insert a term that was not included in a statute or omit a term that has been included. Although a parole revocation fine is closely related to a restitution fine in that they must be imposed at the same time and in the same amounts, a parole revocation fine serves a different purpose, i.e., to deter a prisoner from violating parole, to incentivize a prisoner’s rehabilitation while on parole, and to recoup costs if parole is violated. That purpose is still relevant where, as here, an inmate might one day be paroled. No principle or authority supports vacating the parole revocation fine.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 12, 24, 30

People v. Massicot (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 920, 925

People v. Preston (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 415, 427, 429

Fifth Holding:

It was unnecessary for the trial court to recalculate the defendant’s credit for time served. The sentence from which this appeal was taken has not yet begun to be served, because it was ordered to run consecutive to the one he is currently serving from another county. Under other circumstances, a court may be required to calculate custody credits on a sentence imposed by another county. The present case presents does not present such a circumstance.

Authority:

People v. Phoenix (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1126 [in a determinate sentence case, sentencing court’s imposition of a consecutive sentence replaced another county’s sentence; the second county became the sentencing court]

Amelioration, Discretion, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000585

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the trial court declined to consider dismissing a firearm enhancement, citing its desire not to get involved in changing the sentence of the original sentencing court and not to usurp the role of the parole board in assessing when defendant was ready for release. Because these rationales reflect an abdication of the court’s duty to exercise its sentencing discretion, we must reverse and remand for the court to exercise that discretion at a new, full resentencing.

First Holding:

The failure to exercise discretion is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 744

Dickson Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 449

Second Holding:

Where, as here, a defendant was originally sentenced for a prior prison term enhancement that arose from a conviction that was not a sexually violent offense, that defendant is entitled to a full resentencing where that enhancement is to be stricken and where the trial court is to 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:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 875

Third Holding:

The law regarding the 25 years-to-life firearm enhancement has changed since defendant’s original sentencing hearing in 2004: At that time, a trial court did not have discretion to dismiss that enhancement; since January 1, 2018, trial courts have had the power to dismiss firearm enhancements under section 12022.53 entirely or to substitute a lesser firearm enhancement in their place.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 695-696

Fourth Holding:

Although we review a trial court’s discretionary sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion a trial court abuses its discretion when it refuses to exercise that discretion. That is what happened here: What was supposed to be a full resentencing was merely a reaffirmation of a prior sentence and an abdication of discretionary decision-making to others whom the trial court believed were (or had been) better suited to the task. Section 1172.75 requires trial courts to get involved where, as here, the governing law has changed in a way that makes a lower sentence a possibility. What is more, section 1172.75 also enables a trial court to consider postconviction factors, which would be given no weight were a trial court to defer to the original sentence entered before any postconviction conduct comes to pass.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 374

People v. Bigelow (1984) 37 Cal.3d 731, 744

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 361

Fifth Holding:

The presumption of regularity is rebutted when a trial court affirmatively indicates that it is not following the law.

Authority:

People v. Carter (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 322, 324

People v. Panozo (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 825, 839 [where the record is not silent, but rather is ‘at the very least ambiguous as to whether the court understood its statutory obligation, remand is appropriate]

Sixth Holding:

Upon remand, the court is to conduct the full resentencing mandated by section 1172.75. At that time, the court should calculate defendant’s actual custody credits from the date of arrest through the date of resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

PEN 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29 [defendant entitled to all actual custody days since arrest, including date of resentencing]

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000584

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the restitution fine should not have been reimposed. The abstract of judgment reflects a parole revocation restitution fine that was not imposed. We will modify the judgment to vacate the restitution fine and direct that the trial court prepare an amended abstract of judgment removing the restitution fine and parole revocation restitution fine.

First Holding:

On resentencing, the court reimposed the original $5000 restitution fine, over the defendant’s objection that he had already paid it. Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9(d) provides that upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to Section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated. Here, the trial court reimposed defendant’s original fines, including a $5,000 restitution fine, 30 years after they were originally imposed. Therefore, any unpaid portion remaining on the $5,000 restitution fine must be vacated. The defendant advised the trial court that he had paid it in full, but regardless, any order regarding any remaining unpaid balance shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600-601, review granted Mar. 11, 2026, S295038 on another point

Second Holding:

The abstract of judgment lists a parole revocation fine of $5,000, but it was not ordered by the court. The abstract must be corrected accordingly.

[GARY note: The court cited no authority for its directive that the abstract of judgment be corrected. Likely because the error and cure seem so obvious. But there is plenty of authority for the court’s order, and I have set out some below.]

Authority:

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

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

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

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Amelioration, Discretion, Eighth Amendment, Juveniles, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000574

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant filed a petition under section 1170(d) for recall of his sentence. The trial court did not appoint counsel and summarily denied appellant’s petition to recall because it found he had not been incarcerated in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for at least 15 years as required by section 1170(d)(1)(A). We find the trial court’s ruling on the calculation of appellant’s period of incarceration was erroneous as a matter of law, and appellant’s preconviction custody must be included to calculate he had been incarcerated for 15 years when he filed his section 1170(d) petition.

The matter is remanded for the superior court to appoint counsel and conduct the hearing as provided in section 1170(d).

First Holding:

When a defendant who was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense for which the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole has been incarcerated for at least 15 years, the defendant may submit to the sentencing court a petition for recall and resentencing, if the defendant meets additional statutory requirements.

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)

Second Holding:

When a trial court is not aware of the full scope of its sentencing discretion, a defendant is entitled to a 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. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 425

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 771-772

Third Holding:

The empanelment of separate juries at the defendant’s original trial in 2010 was likely based on Aranda and Bruton. Broadly stated, the Aranda/Bruton rule declares that a defendant is deprived of his or her Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses when a facially incriminating statement of a nontestifying codefendant is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider the statement only against the declarant. The problem addressed in Bruton and Aranda may be solved by the use of separate juries for codefendants, with each jury to be excused at appropriate times to avoid exposure to inadmissible evidence.

Authority:

People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518

Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123

People v. Gallardo (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 51, 68

People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1208

People v. Washington (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 19, 27

Fourth Holding:

Appellant filed his petition based on the recall and resentencing provisions of section 1170(d), effective January 1, 2013. Under Graham, the Eighth Amendment prohibits LWOP sentences for juvenile offenders who committed non-homicide offenses. In response to Graham, the Legislature enacted section 1170(d), creating a recall and resentencing procedure for certain juvenile offenders sentenced to LWOP terms.

Authority:

In re Kirchner (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1040, 1049

People v. Gibson (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 315, 322–323

Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 442

Fifth Holding:

On appeal, we review statutory interpretations de novo. We review the trial court’s factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence, and do not reweigh or reinterpret the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1032

People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26

Sixth Holding:

Absent a specific statutory definition of “has been incarcerated for at least 15 years” we may look to its plain meaning as understood by the ordinary person, which would typically be a dictionary definition. The Legislature did not use the word sentenced in section 1170(d)(1)(A). Instead, it used the word “incarcerated.”

Based on the plain meaning of “incarcerated,” the defendant’s period of incarceration for purposes of a section 1170,(d)(1)(A) began to run on the date the defendant was placed in jail, i.e., incarcerated, for the relevant charges.

Authority:

People v. Ruiz (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1027, 1031, 1032

Seventh Holding:

Section 1171 expressly addresses the trial court’s procedures in postconviction proceedings to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute. It defines a postconviction proceeding to mean a proceeding to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute. Ameliorative statutes include, but are not limited to, Sections 1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75. Section 1171(c)(1) states that upon receiving a request to begin a postconviction proceeding that is authorized in law, the court shall consider whether to appoint counsel to represent the defendant. This section does not prevent the court from assigning counsel at a later time.

Authority:

PEN 1171

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000564

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This is another case where no relief was granted, but it contains important information on how an otherwise nonappealable order might become appealable.

The defendant filed a motion for resentencing under section 1172.1. While a defendant may invite the court under that section to resentence him, he has no right to make a motion under that section. (It can be triggered by the custodial officials or the prosecutors or on the court’s own motion, however.)

Had the court simply declined to respond to the defendant’s “motion,” or simply denied it outright, the defendant would have no right to appeal. The court, however, considered the motion and denied it on its merits. This created a substantial right for the defendant and permitted appellate review. We conclude the trial court evaluated and denied defendant’s petition on the merits, thus affecting defendant’s substantial rights, and thus the denial is an appealable order.

First Holding:

The right to appeal is statutory only, and a party may not appeal a trial court’s judgment, order or ruling unless such is expressly made appealable by statute.

Authority:

People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155, 1159

Second Holding:

Section 1172.1(a)(1), effective January 1, 2024, provides that the trial court may, on its own motion, within 120 days of the date of commitment or at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law, recall the sentence and commitment previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced, whether or not the defendant is still in custody, and provided the new sentence, if any, is no greater than the initial sentence.

Section 1172.1(c) expressly states, however, that a defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under this section. If a defendant requests consideration for relief under this section, the court is not required to respond. Thus, a defendant who chooses to file an unauthorized request for resentencing has no right to a ruling.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1

People v. Roy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 991, 998,

Third Holding:

The second sentence in section 1172.1(c) means that a defendant does not have a substantial right at stake when they request recall and resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1045

People v. Roy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 991, 998-999

People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687, 696

Fourth Holding:

Where the trial court undertakes to make a resentencing decision on the merits after a defendant has filed a petition pursuant to section 1172.1, the defendant is entitled to an appeal. Here, the trial court effectively evaluated and denied defendant’s petition on the merits. After defendant filed his petition, the trial court set a status conference and a briefing schedule.

When the People asked the trial court whether it would consider recalling defendant’s sentence, the trial court directed the People to address the merits. Additionally, the trial court invited the victims to be heard at a hearing, it considered the parties’ arguments, and it considered whether resentencing defendant would be in the interest of justice. In short, the trial court evaluated and denied defendant’s petition on the merits, thus affecting his substantial rights.

Authority:

People v. Craig (2026) 117 Cal.App.5th 1165, 1172-1173

People v. Olea (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 889, 902

Fifth Holding:

Defendant claims the enactment of Evidence Code section 352.2 constitutes such a change in sentencing laws. However, he offers no authority or reasoned argument to support his claim. As a result, we may deem the claim forfeited.

Authority:

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)

People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793

Sixth Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Amelioration, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000562

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court denied a petition by defendant for resentencing under what is now Penal Code section 1172.75 because, by the time the trial court conducted a resentencing hearing, the defendant had been released on parole. This was error, and the matter is remanded for resentencing.

First Holding:

Under section 1172.75, unless imposed for certain specified sexually violent offenses, any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b) is invalid. Section 1172.75 also provides for resentencing of individuals upon whom now-invalid prison prior enhancements under section 667.5 were imposed. This resentencing proceeds in three stages.

The first stage, which involves correctional officials, is identification: Section 1172.75 requires state and county correctional officials to identify those persons in their custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes [a now-invalid prison prior] enhancement and inform the sentencing court.

The second stage, which is conducted by the courts, is verification: The sentencing court must review the judgment and verify that the current judgment includes a sentencing enhancement that is now invalid.

The third stage, which is also conducted by the courts, is actual resentencing: If a defendant has been identified as eligible, and a court has verified eligibility, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

Section 1172.75 does not require a defendant who is incarcerated and eligible at the beginning of the resentencing process under the statute to remain incarcerated until actual resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Washington (2026) 117 Cal.App.5th 1057

Third Holding:

Because section 1172.75 requires correctional officials to identify persons in custody serving a term, and a term is ordinarily understood to be time served in prison, only defendants who are incarcerated at the time of identification are eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75.

However, at the verification stage section 1172.75 requires courts to determine not that the identified persons are in custody serving a term, but rather that the current judgment includes a sentencing enhancement described in section 1172.75(a).

Moreover, because section 1172.75 expressly recognizes that there may be a substantial time lag between the identification and resentencing stages, it can be concluded that the Legislature intended the court-related criterion for resentencing eligibility to operate independently from earlier conditions applicable at the correctional official identification stage and did not include continued incarceration as a requirement at the verification stage.

Resentencing an individual who is on parole at the time of resentencing is not an idle act, because resentencing may reduce or terminate the period of parole.

Authority:

People v. Jefferson (1999) 21 Cal.4th 86, 95

People v. Washington (2026) 117 Cal.App.5th 1057, 1065-1067

Fourth Holding:

We also do not reach, and express no view on, whether a parolee serving an indeterminate sentence is entitled to termination, or reduction in the period, of parole if upon resentencing the sentence is reduced.

Authority:

In re Lira (2014) 58 Cal.4th 573, 578-582

In re Bush (2008) 161 Ca1.App.4th 133, 140-143

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000559

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to deny the defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage, because the record did not conclusively demonstrate ineligibility as a matter of law, even though he admitted the personal use of firearm enhancements as part of his plea bargain. Specifically, in his plea colloquy, the defendant did not admit facts or a specific theory of attempted murder liability that would make him ineligible for relief.

First Holding:

Effective 2019, SB 1437 amended sections 188 and 189 to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. Under the amended law, malice cannot be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.

In addition to amending sections 188 and 189, SB 1437 created a procedural mechanism, now codified in section 1172.6 for individuals convicted of murder under the former versions of sections 188 and 189 to petition the trial court for resentencing. Two years later, SB 775 expanded section 1172.6 relief to individuals convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and manslaughter. Section 1172.6 applies to individuals who pleaded guilty to attempted murder and would have been subject to prosecution for attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Authority:

People v. Rivera (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 217, 227

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558

People v. Estrada (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 328, 335, 336

Second Holding:

To be eligible for relief under section 1172.6, a defendant must make a prima facie showing that (1) the complaint or information allowed the People to prosecute the defendant for attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine; (2) the defendant was convicted of attempted murder or entered a plea to attempted murder, and (3) the defendant could not presently be convicted of attempted murder under the current versions of sections 188 or 189.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558

Third Holding:

The trial court’s prima facie inquiry is limited. The court must accept the defendant’s allegations as true and assess whether the defendant would be entitled to relief if the allegations were true. If the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing where the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant could be convicted of attempted murder under the current versions of section 188 or 189.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 559

Fourth Holding:

A trial court may deny a resentencing petition at the prima facie stage only if the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. In making its determination, the court may examine the record of conviction. At this stage, the court should not reject the factual allegations in the defendant’s petition on credibility grounds or engage in factfinding by weighing the evidence or exercising its discretion.

Authority:

People v. Ervin (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 90, 101

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 972