Tag Archives: Recall of sentence or resentencing

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000376

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the 2024 resentencing hearing under section 1172.5 pertaining to the defendant’s 2007 conviction, the court imposed a $5000 restitution fine, reducing the $10,000 restitution fine imposed in 2007. Since 10 years had lapsed since the original imposition of a restitution fine, it must be vacated.

First Holding:

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:

Section 1465.9(d), applies retroactively to the defendant’s reopened sentence. The restitution fine was first imposed nearly 20 years ago and is now unenforceable and uncollectible under section 1465.9(d).

Authority:

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]

People v. Jennings (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 664, 681 [SB 136’s changes to section 667.5, former subdivision (b), applied retroactively to sentences that were not final at the time the law became effective]

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

Case: 000374

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was not the actual killer in the 1995 crime, but the trial court denied his 1172.6 petition based on finding that he was a substantial participant in the underlying felony and thus could be convicted of felony murder even under current law. We do not find substantial evidence to support a finding that the defendant subjectively appreciated (knew) that his actions would likely result in the victim’s death death (i.e., reckless indifference to human life). Thus, we reverse the order of the trial court denying the defendant’s section 1172.6 petition. On remand, the trial court is directed to grant the petition, vacate the murder conviction, and resentence the defendant.

First Holding:

A person who did not kill or act with the intent to kill cannot be liable under a first degree felony-murder theory unless there is substantial evidence that the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and that they subjectively appreciated that their acts were likely to result in the taking of innocent life.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 893

Second Holding:

We accept the trial court’s findings to the extent they are supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means that evidence which, when viewed in light of the entire record, is of solid probative value, maintains its credibility and inspires confidence that the ultimate fact it addresses has been justly determined.

Authority:

People v. Breslin (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1415–1416

People v. Lehman (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 795, 804

 

Third Holding:

Except for strict liability offenses, every crime has two components: (1) an act or omission, sometimes called the actus reus; and (2) a necessary mental state, sometimes called the mens rea. As to murder, the actus reus is the perpetrator’s act causing death, and the mens rea is malice aforethought. Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature passed SB 1437, which amended sections 188 and 189. The legislation effectively eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder, and narrowed the scope of the felony-murder rule. The legislation also created a procedure by which a defendant previously convicted of murder under either of those former theories could file a petition for resentencing.

The Legislature’s current version of the felony-murder rule now provides that a participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony listed in subdivision (a) in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven: (1) The person was the actual killer; (2) the person was not the actual killer, but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree; (3) the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

PEN 189

PEN 1172.6.

People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1117

Fourth Holding:

For felony-murder, the required act is being a major participant in the underlying felony, and the required mental state is a reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

PEN 189

Fifth Holding:

Ordinarily, the United States Supreme Court has held that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments requires a defendant to have either an express or implied intent to kill in order for the death penalty to apply. But as an exception, the Court held that major participation in the felony committed, combined with reckless indifference to human life, is sufficient to satisfy the Enmund culpability requirement.

Authority:

Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782, 797 [wheelman who did not participate in killing during armed robbery could not receive the death penalty]

Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137, 158

Sixth Holding:

In Banks, the California Supreme Court later identified a nonexclusive list of factors that are relevant in deciding whether a person was a major participant under the felony-murder special circumstance. The major participant factors identified in Banks are these: What role did the defendant have in planning the criminal enterprise that led to one or more deaths? What role did the defendant have in supplying or using lethal weapons? What awareness did the defendant have of particular dangers posed by the nature of the crime, weapons used, or past experience or conduct of the other participants? Was the defendant present at the scene of the killing, in a position to facilitate or prevent the actual murder, and did his or her own actions or inaction play a particular role in the death? What did the defendant do after lethal force was used?

No one of these considerations is necessary, nor is any one of them necessarily sufficient. All may be weighed in determining the ultimate question, whether the defendant’s participation in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death was sufficiently significant to be considered major.

Authority:

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 803

Seventh Holding:

In Clark, the Court identified a nonexclusive list of factors that are relevant in deciding whether a person acted with reckless indifference to human life: the defendant’s knowledge, and the use and number of weapons; the defendant’s proximity to the crime and opportunity to stop the killing or aid the victim; the duration of the conduct, that is, whether a murder came at the end of a prolonged period of restraint of the victims by defendant; the defendant’s awareness his or her confederate was likely to kill; and the defendant’s efforts to minimize the possibility of violence during the crime.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 618-623

Eighth Holding:

Reckless indifference encompasses both subjective and objective elements. As to the subjective element, the defendant must be aware of and willingly involved in the violent manner in which the particular offense is committed, and he or she must consciously disregard the significant risk of death his or her actions create. As to the objective element,the risk of death must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him or her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 884

Ninth Holding:

The degree of risk to human life is crucial to the analysis. The possibility of bloodshed is inherent in the commission of any violent felony, such that one who perpetrates or attempts to perpetrate such a crime may well anticipate the use of lethal force as a possibility. Were that degree of culpability sufficient, however, it would amount to little more than a restatement of the former felony-murder rule that the Legislature retired. Awareness of no more than the foreseeable risk of death inherent in any violent felony is insufficient to establish reckless indifference to human life; only knowingly creating a grave risk of death satisfies the statutory requirement.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 884

Tenth Holding:

Participation in a “garden-variety armed robbery,” i.e., one in which the only factor supporting a reckless indifference finding is that a participant was armed with a gun, is insufficient without more to establish reckless indifference. Although any person who plans or participates in an armed robbery can be said to anticipate that lethal force might be used, only about 1 in 200 armed robberies result in death.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 884

Eleventh Holding:

Courts must conduct a fact-intensive, individualized inquiry into where a defendant’s conduct falls on the spectrum of culpability between Enmund (the wheelman who merely participated in the underlying felony) and Tison (the defendants who armed escaped convicts and whose actions over a prolonged period demonstrated that they knew that the escapees were likely to kill).

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 882-883

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000373

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred when it imposed the upper term based on aggravating facts that did not conform with the jury trial requirements under section 1170(b).

First Holding:

The Sixth Amendment provides that those accused of a crime have the right to a trial by an impartial jury. This right, in conjunction with the due process clause, requires that each element of a crime be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 742

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281

Second Holding:

In 2022, section 1170(b) was amended to prohibit imposition of an upper term sentence unless aggravating circumstances justify that term and the facts underlying any such circumstance, other than a prior conviction, have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial. Section 1170(b)(3) states that the court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 742

Third Holding:

In considering a prior conviction, a judge may do no more than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of. Any fact, beyond the bare fact of a prior conviction, that exposes a defendant to harsher punishment, must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, unless the defendant stipulates to its truth or waives a jury trial. Only when aggravating facts have been proven as the Constitution requires may the court then rely on them to conclude, in its discretion, that those facts justify an upper term.

Absent an admission or a jury trial waiver, a trial court cannot determine whether a defendant’s prior convictions were of increasing seriousness or that his probation or parole performance was poor. The 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:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1083-1086

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 82

Fourth Holding:

When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review. A sentence imposed under section 1170(b)] must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

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

Fifth Holding:

Although the minute order indicates defendant entered into a valid waiver to a jury trial, the reporter’s transcript does not reflect that the trial court advised defendant of his right to a jury trial and did not obtain a valid and informed waiver of that right. The People concede the court erred by not obtaining defendant’s waiver to a jury trial or stipulation to the aggravating facts. We agree that the court erred when it found both aggravating facts true without obtaining defendant’s stipulation or waiver of his right to a jury trial.

Authority:

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 169 [defendant’s waiver of the right to jury trial must be expressed in words and will not be implied from a defendant’s conduct]

People v. Washington (1949) 95 Cal.App.2d 454, 458–459 [a defendant’s waiver of the right to jury trial must be personally expressed in open court; an entry in the clerk’s minutes is not enough]

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000372

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to conclude that the defendant was not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75.. The court, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney all based their arguments and decisions on the understanding that the now-invalid prior prison term had been stricken by the appellate court in a prior appeal for reasons other than those eligible for striking under PEN 1172.75. The parties misunderstood the facts. While it is true that one prior prison term was stricken by the appellate court, there were two prior prison terms, only one of which had been stricken. Thus, when the defendant filed his PEN 1172.75 petition, he was eligible for resentencing, because he was a person described in PEN 1172.75.

First Holding:

(GARY NOTE: I decided to include this victory not so much because of its legal authorities so much as just a reminder of the importance of counsel to actually investigate the case. The parties all seemed to assume that there was one prior prison term, and that it had been stricken as a result of a prior appeal. As it happens, it was stricken because it had been used to enhance the sentence as both a prior serious felony under PC 667 and as a prior prison term under PC 667.5, whereas the law permits it to be used only once, per Jones. But the parties and the trial court missed the fact that the defendant had two prior prison terms, only one of which had been dismissed in the prior appeal.

(In my opinion, that should have been discovered far earlier than on the appeal from the denial of the PC 1172.75 petition because of a misunderstanding of the facts, particularly once the number of prior convictions became an issue when the prosecutor asserted that the defendant was not eligible. I do concede I do not know what occurred in and out of the lower court. But the Court of Appeal, which does not engage in investigation of matters outside the record on appeal, was able to determine the existence of the qualifying prior prison term just by reading the prior opinion from 2016, which states (in part and paraphrased), “The information also alleged that defendant suffered a conviction in case No. xxxxxxx, a serious felony conviction in case No. xxxxxx, and two prison convictions, one in case No. xxxxxxx, and one in case No. xxxxxx (Pen. Code, sec. 667.5(b).”)

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Jones (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1142, 1150

Second Holding:

It is unclear from the record as originally filed how the section 1172.75 proceedings had been initiated. Section 1172.75 does not authorize a defendant to seek resentencing on his or her own motion or petition. Rather the process is triggered by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR] identifying a defendant as a person serving a sentence that includes a prior prison term enhancement. On our own motion, we took judicial notice of a CDCR list, which identifies individuals potentially eligible for section 1172.75 relief; defendant’s name appears on that list.

Authority:

People v. Cota (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 318, 332

People v. Newell (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 265, 268

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 382 [Lower and appellate courts lack jurisdiction over a request for section 1172.75 relief brought solely by a defendant]

Third Holding:

Any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid. 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:

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

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000370

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the trial court to deny the defendant’s second petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 as successive, because there were changes in the statutory law between the first and the second. Remanded for the court’s consideration of the second petition.

Holding:

The defendant maintains that changes in statutory and decisional law after the denial of his first resentencing petition dictate that it not be accorded preclusive effect. On the merits, he argues that the jury’s verdict does not conclusively establish he is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. Asserting that his conviction for first degree murder may have been based on the felony murder rule, he contends he has made a prima facie case for relief and is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The Attorney General appropriately concedes error.

Because there were several applicable changes to the law since the denial of appellant’s first petition, the second petition was not barred under principles of collateral estoppel. These include amendments to the statute limiting reliance on a prior appellate opinion to the procedural history of the case and providing that substantial evidence to support a murder conviction is insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is ineligible for resentencing. Further, caselaw has clarified that at the prima facie stage, a trial court must not engage in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.

Authority:

PC 1172.6(d)(3)

People v. Jimenez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 994, 1005

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000369

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred in failing to conduct a full resentencing. The court erred in its calculation of custody credits, both as to postsentence conduct credits and credits for days in actual custody. The abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment as to the restitution fines and the victim restitution order.

First Holding:

When a defendant is convicted of an offense, a sentencing court has a duty to render judgment and impose the penalty authorized by law. Judgment is rendered when the trial court orally pronounces sentence. In rendering the judgment, the court must pronounce sentence on each count for which the defendant sustained a conviction. The failure to pronounce a sentence for each conviction results in an unauthorized sentence that can be corrected at any time.

Authority:

PEN 12

People v. Martinez (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1012

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

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 994

People v. Price (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1405, 1411, fn. 6

Second Holding:

At the resentencing hearing following our remand in the earlier appeal, the trial court addressed only the errors we identified in our opinion. Our remand order was not so limited. It was for a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Smith (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1003, 1008, abrogated on another ground by People v. Bullock (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 985

Third Holding:

The trial court’s statements suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the effect of our order vacating the defendant’s sentence and remanding for a full sentencing, which was the nullification of the previous sentence. Because the prior sentence no longer existed, the court had to construct an entirely new sentence. By failing to orally pronounce a sentence on the nine counts for which it stayed the sentences at the original sentencing, the court failed to render judgment on all of the defendant’s convictions, resulting in an unauthorized sentence. When the trial court stated it was excluding counts it had previously stayed under section 654, the trial court used the term concurrent in connection with section 654. But where section 654 applies, it precludes any multiple punishment, consecutive or concurrent.

Authority:

People v. Rouse (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 292, 297

People v. Price (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1405, 1411, fn. 6

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 994

People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 594

Fourth Holding:

Generally, when an unauthorized sentence is discovered on appeal, a reviewing court affirms the defendant’s conviction and remands the case for the trial court to pronounce a sentence consistent with the verdict.

Authority:

People v. Taylor (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 349, 353

Fifth Holding:

Our order for a full resentencing necessarily encompasses calculating the defendant’s custody credits and the appropriate assessments, fines, and restitution awards. When it resentenced the defendant, the trial court was required to credit her with all actual days she had spent in custody up to that time, including time in custody after the original sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424-425

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

Sixth Holding:

A trial court is required to include all aspects of a judgment in its oral pronouncement. That includes fines and direct victim restitution. The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order and the abstract of judgment. Upon a defendant’s request, the trial court must hold a hearing on the defendant’s ability to pay before imposing ancillary costs, like the court operations assessment (sec. 1465.8(a)(1)) and the court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373).

Authority:

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

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387-388

People v. Rowland (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1745, 1751

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

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000368

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was sentenced to LWOP in the 1980s for his murder and robbery conviction. In a 2022 resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the superior court declined to resentence the defendant because of prior convictions for sexually violent offenses that made him ineligible. The court erred, as the prior prison term enhancement subjection to review under section 1172.75 was based on escape, not on his prior sexually violent offenses. His prior sexually violent offenses were not a basis to render him ineligible for resentencing.

First Holding:

Defendant’s prior prison term enhancement was imposed based on a conviction for escape, which is not a sexually violent offense as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600(b) Thus, the enhancement was not imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense under section 1172.75(a).

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(a)

WIC 6600(b)

People v. Green (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 365, 370-373

Second Holding:

Under section 1172.75(f), commencing on January 1, 2025, an individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600(b) and sentenced to death or a life term without the possibility of parole, who, as of January 1, 2025, has not had their judgment reviewed and verified by the sentencing court as provided in subdivision (c), is not eligible for recall and resentencing under this section. This subdivision does not apply retroactively. But the defendant’s sentence was reviewed in 2022, and by its terms the section 1172.75(f) restriction is not retroactive. The disqualification does not apply to the defendant.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(f)

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000366

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by: (1) refusing to strike a prior serious felony enhancement attached to the defendant’s conviction for one count of possession of a firearm after an associated gang enhancement was dismissed; and (2) maintaining an indeterminate sentence on that same count. Accordingly, we will vacate the sentence for that count, strike one of the associated serious felony enhancements, and remand for resentencing consistent with Penal Code section 667(e)(1).

First Holding:

The defendant was sentenced to a Three Strikes indeterminate sentence and the sentence was enhanced for a prior serious felony conviction. During the appeal from that conviction, AB 333 was enacted to change the elements of section 186.22 regarding the crime and enhancements for gang criminal activity. As a result of the opinion in Valencia we reversed the conviction for violation of section 186.22 in count 5, and the jury’s finding that defendant committed the attempted shooting at an occupied vehicle (count 1) and possessed a firearm (count 7) for the benefit of a criminal street gang.

We remanded to give the prosecution an opportunity to retry count 5 and the gang enhancement allegations on counts 1 and 7 under amended section 186.22. The trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss count 5 and the gang enhancement allegations as to counts 1 and 7. The court denied the defendant’s request to sentence the defendant to a determinate term and rejected his argument that the basis of the count 7’s status as serious felony had been undermined by AB 333, and it was no longer a serious felony to support either the five-year enhancement for his prior serious felony or as a third strike. The court erred. Count 7 was only considered a serious felony by reason of the jury’s true finding on the gang enhancement. With the gang enhancement out of the picture, count 7 could no longer be considered a serious felony.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

PEN 667

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818

Second Holding:

Count 7 was only a serious felony by reason of the gang enhancement, which had been stricken. Therefore, he was not convicted in the current case of a third strike, and was subject to only a doubling of his sentence, not a life term.

Authority:

PEN 667

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000362

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The record of conviction does not show as a matter of law that defendant is ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6 on his murder and attempted murder convictions. The jury was instructed on the natural and probable consequence doctrine, and the record does not show the jury necessarily found all elements of murder and attempted murder under current law. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition.

First Holding:

SB 1437, effective in 2019, the Legislature amended sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code to eliminate natural and probable consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting, and to limit the scope of the felony-murder rule. Amended section 188 provides that except as stated in the amended section 189 governing felony murder, in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought. Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime. The bill also added what is now section 1172.6, which creates a procedure for convicted murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief. Relief is potentially available for a person convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime, attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or manslaughter .

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 1172.6

People v. Lee (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1164, 1173

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957

Second Holding:

The section 1172.6 petitioning process begins with the filing of a petition containing a declaration that all requirements for eligibility are met, including that the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to section 188 or 189 . If the petition and record in the case establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief, the trial court may dismiss the petition. A defendant who petitions for resentencing under section 1172.6 is ineligible for resentencing only if the record conclusively establishes every element of the offense. In making that determination a court may give effect to a jury’s factual finding. If the petition survives the prima facie stage, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing at which the People bear the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder or attempted murder under California law as amended by SB 1437.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6.

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 724

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 463, 465

Third Holding:

Under the jury instructions given at defendant’s trial, the defendant could have been found guilty even if not the slayer, because there was a second person who was the slayer. Additionally, the finding defendant personally discharged a firearm and proximately caused great bodily injury and death does not establish the defendant intended to kill or was aware of the danger to life that his act posed. In sum, the jury verdict does not show as a matter of law defendant harbored malice aforethought. Under the trial court’s instructions, the jury could instead have concluded defendant aided and abetted an assault with a firearm the natural and probable consequences of which was murder. Thus, the entire record of conviction does not foreclose that defendant was convicted based on a now invalid theory of murder.

Authority:

People v. Offley (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 588, 598

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 463, 465

Fourth Holding:

Under current law, attempted murder requires intent to kill. We cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that the record of conviction shows defendant harbored intent to kill. The jury finding that the attempted murder was committed willfully and with premeditation and deliberation shows only that the slayer harbored this mental state. The jury does not further identify the slayer. Additionally, the fact defendant intended to discharge a firearm does not show the defendant harbored a particular mental state.

Authority:

People v. Morales (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1120, 1132

People v. Offley (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 588, 598 [explaining that section 12022.53(d) provides that the defendant must have intended to discharge a firearm, but does not refer to an intent to achieve any additional consequence.]

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing

Case: 000361

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After the trial court denied the defendant’s request at the section 1172.75 resentencing hearing to resentence him on one of his nonserious felony counts under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (thus reducing his Three Strikes sentence of 25 years to life on that count to a doubled determinate term), the Supreme Court concluded that the Reform Act does apply, subject to the finding of unreasonable risk to public safety. The matter is remanded for resentencing consideration accordingly.

First Holding:

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. The case must be remanded for the superior court to determine whether sentencing the defendant under the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. If it is so determined, the superior court must reimpose the indeterminate term. If the superior court does not determine that resentencing the defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, and the defendant is otherwise eligible under the Reform Act, the court shall resentence the defendant pursuant to the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 878

Second Holding:

The superior court did not have the benefit of Guevara, meaning that it was not fully aware of the scope of its discretionary powers when it resentenced the defendant. We remand for resentencing because the record does not clearly indicate 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

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000360

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After the trial court denied the defendant’s request at the section 1172.75 resentencing hearing to resentence him under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (thus reducing his Three Strikes sentence of 25 years to life to a doubled determinate term), the Supreme Court concluded that the Reform Act does apply, subject to the finding of unreasonable risk to public safety. The matter is remanded for resentencing consideration accordingly.

First Holding:

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. Because section 1172.75 and section 1170.126, thus interpreted, operate harmoniously, the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act may constitutionally apply at a resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 850

Second Holding:

It is unclear from the record as originally filed how the section 1172.75 proceedings had been initiated. Section 1172.75 does not authorize a defendant to seek resentencing on his or her own motion or petition. Rather the process is triggered by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR] identifying a defendant as a person serving a sentence that includes a prior prison term enhancement. On our own motion, we took judicial notice of a CDCR list, which identifies individuals potentially eligible for section 1172.75 relief; defendant’s name appears on that list.

Authority:

People v. Cota (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 318, 332

People v. Newell (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 265, 268

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 382 [Lower and appellate courts lack jurisdiction over a request for section 1172.75 relief brought solely by a defendant)

Third Holding:

Construing the discretionary public safety determination of section 1170.126 as applicable at a section 1172.75 resentencing maintains the integrity of both statutes, such that the two may stand together. The legislative history suggests the voters understood that where a court conducting a resentencing inquiry for Third Strike defendants serving an indeterminate term found relief would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, the defendant would not be entitled to resentencing. Interpreting section 1172.75 as incorporating the discretionary public safety determination of section 1170.126 would honor this concern and thus eliminate constitutional doubt.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 865-866

Fourth Holding:

In exercising this discretion, the voters established that the resentencing court may consider: (1) The petitioner’s criminal conviction history, including the type of crimes committed, the extent of injury to victims, the length of prior prison commitments, and the remoteness of the crimes; (2) The petitioner’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated; and (3) Any other evidence the court, within its discretion, determines to be relevant in deciding whether a new sentence would result in an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 866, fn. 9

Fifth Holding:

The resentencing court is not bound by the prior dangerousness determination associated with the defendant’s section 1170.126 petition. Rather, section 1172.75 requires that the resentencing court makes a new determination as to whether a defendant’s resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety’ as of the present day. A prior finding that a particular defendant poses a risk to public safety under section 1170.126(f) is unquestionably relevant, and will no doubt be given consideration by a court subsequently resolving a resentencing under section 1172.75 involving an indeterminate Three Strikes sentence.

However, given significant passage of time, it is possible that a defendant who once presented a threat to public safety may no longer do so. For instance, not only may defendants present evidence that they have significantly rehabilitated since a prior section 1170.126 proceeding, but serious illness or advanced age may have substantially reduced the danger to public safety they once posed. Realistically assessing such changed circumstances is appropriately left to the trial court on remand.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 878, fn. 17

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

Case: 000358

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is remanded for the trial court to properly consider its discretion on whether to strike the prior serious felony conviction in light of the presence of one or more mitigating circumstances enumerated in section 1385(e), in the absence of a finding of danger to public safety.

First Holding:

Senate Bill No. 81, effective January 1, 2022, added subdivision (c) to section 1385. Section 1385(c) provides, “(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute. (2) In exercising its discretion under [subdivision (c)], the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in [the subparagraphs to subdivision (c)(2)] are present.

Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. Endanger public safety means there is a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others.

The mitigating circumstances identified in the subparagraphs include, among others, that multiple enhancements are alleged in a single case. In this instance, all enhancements beyond a single enhancement shall be dismissed. And they include that the application of an enhancement could result in a sentence of over 20 years. In this instance, the enhancement shall be dismissed.

Authority:

PEN 1385

Second Holding:

Absent a danger to public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice. This furtherance of justice inquiry requires a trial court’s ongoing exercise of discretion. Thus, notwithstanding the presence of a mitigating circumstance, trial courts retain their discretion to impose an enhancement based on circumstances long deemed essential to the furtherance of justice inquiry

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1033–1036

Third Holding:

In determining whether dismissing an enhancement would endanger public safety, the plain words of the statute do not support a trial court’s singular focus on whether the defendant currently poses a danger. Although the current dangerousness of the defendant is an appropriate factor to consider, as it will have some bearing on whether dismissing the enhancement would endanger the public, a crucial part of the inquiry is how the dismissal will impact the length of the defendant’s sentence. Thus, a currently dangerous defendant who will be released from prison within a short timeframe might be found by the trial court to pose a greater danger to the public than a defendant who is currently dangerous but who has no prospect of release from prison until he is elderly.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 225, 228

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision not to strike a sentence enhancement under section 1385 for abuse of discretion. The abuse of discretion standard is highly deferential. When a discretionary power is statutorily vested in the trial court, its exercise of that discretion must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.

We presume that the trial court acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives. The burden is on the party challenging the sentencing decision to show that the court abused its discretion. We may not presume error from a silent record. Unless the record affirmatively demonstrates otherwise, the trial court is deemed to have considered all the relevant sentencing factors set forth in the rules. In addition as a general rule a trial court is presumed to have been aware of and followed the applicable law. Thus, where a statement of reasons is not required and the record is silent, a reviewing court will presume the trial court had a proper basis for a particular finding or order. A trial court abuses its discretion by rendering a sentencing decision based on impermissible factors or on an incorrect legal standard. Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion.

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 371

People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 298

People v. Knowles (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 757, 765

People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 156

People v. Nakano (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 623, 635 [an abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court applies the wrong legal standard]

People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371, 431

Fifth Holding:

When the trial court does not conclude that dismissal would result in a danger to public safety, the court must assign great weight to any mitigating factors, if present, and exercise its discretion in determining whether dismissal would be in the furtherance of justice. The term “great weight” did not create a presumption in favor of dismissal, but should be interpreted to mean that absent a danger to public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.

Without credible evidence to support findings on aggravating circumstances, judges could disregard mitigating factors without a proper basis for doing so. This would be incompatible with the great weight the Legislature has attached to the enumerated mitigating circumstances. Section 1385(c)(2)’s mandate to give great weight to enumerated mitigating circumstances requires a sentencing court to engage in a holistic balancing with special emphasis on the enumerated mitigating factors.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1033–1036

People v. Ortiz (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1087, 1094

Sixth Holding:

On appeal, we presume that a judgment or order of the trial court is correct, all intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.

Authority:

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 644, 666

Seventh Holding:

The court did not explicitly conclude that dismissal of the enhancements would result in a danger to public safety. Indeed, the trial court did not discuss public safety in its findings, nor did it make any statements related to the possibility of the defendant committing further crimes if his sentence were to be reduced, and he were to be released early, following dismissal of the enhancements. when the trial court does not conclude that dismissal would result in a danger to public safety, the court must assign “great weight” to any mitigating factors, if present, and exercise its discretion in determining whether dismissal would be in the furtherance of justice.

Walker and Gonzalez had not been decided at the time of the trial court’s ruling, and that in making its findings, the trial court did not use the word “mitigating factors,” or specifically discuss the mitigating factors listed under section 1385(c). While we acknowledge that a silent record does not, on its own, reflect an abuse of discretion , we find it is not evident from the instant record and findings that the trial court would have still exercised its discretion not to dismiss the enhancement if it had the guidance provided in those cases. The trial court did not make any indication that the defendant would pose a danger to public safety if he were to be released early as a result of a reduced sentence.

Further, while the trial court’s final order cited the serious nature of the defendant’s offenses, as well as his criminal history. it is unclear if such findings reflected the trial court engaging in a holistic balancing with special emphasis on the enumerated mitigating factors as required under Walker. Under these circumstances, we conclude that remand for resentencing is required. In reaching our decision, we do not express any position on how the court should exercise its discretion under section 1385 regarding dismissal of the section 667(a) enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424 [noting that if the trial court is unaware of the scope of its informed discretion at the time of sentencing and fails to exercise it in making a sentencing decision, the appellate court must 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]

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 228

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1036