Tag Archives: Recall of sentence or resentencing

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000266

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

First Holding:

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to this section shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.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

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

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

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Third Holding:

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

Authority:

PEN 1170.126

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

Fourth Holding:

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

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

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

Authority:

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

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

Fifth Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

Amelioration, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case: 000264

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On remand from a grant of habeas corpus reversing the conviction of attempt murder, it was error for the court to simply strike the punishment attached to that reversed count and fail to conduct a full resentencing. The trial court did not explicitly state it was recalling the defendant’s sentence under section 1172.1. However, the court’s actions at the 2023 hearing make clear that it did.

First Holding:

Courts generally lack jurisdiction to modify a defendant’s sentence once execution of the sentence has begun. Section 1172.1 provides an exception to that general rule. It states a trial court may, at any time upon the recommendation of the secretary of the CDCR or the district attorney, recall a defendant’s sentence and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced. When resentencing a defendant under section 1172.1, the trial court must consider postconviction factors and apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any 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:

PC 1172.1

People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344 [Under the general common law rule, a trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has commenced]

People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 636–637

Second Holding:

After announcing the People were conceding the defendant’s motion for recall and resentencing, the court granted the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss the gang allegation under section 1385. Assuming the defendant’s judgment of conviction was final at the start of the hearing—as the trial court believed it to be—the court had authority to grant the People’s motion only if it first recalled the defendant’s sentence. In other words, the fact that the trial court granted the People’s motion to dismiss shows it first recalled the defendant’s sentence under section 1172.1

Authority:

PEN 1170.1

PEN 1385

People v. Barraza (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 114, 121, fn. 8

People v. Kim (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 117, 123

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 666–667 [Assembly Bill 333 applies retroactively only to cases that are not yet final]

Third Holding:

By recalling the defendant’s sentence, the trial court effectively vacated the entire judgment, not just the portion related to the gang allegation. Therefore, the court was required to resentence the defendant on each count and enhancement in the same manner as if he had not previously been sentenced. The court also was required to apply changes in the law since the original sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1

People v. Arias (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 213, 219 [the recall of appellant’s sentence effectively vacated his original sentence and commitment]

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 360 [recall of a defendant’s sentence nullifies the original sentence]

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 163 [once a court has determined that a defendant is entitled to resentencing, the result is vacatur of the original sentence]

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [the “full sentencing rule” applies when a court recalls a sentence under former section 1170(d), a predecessor to section 1172.1]

Fourth Holding:

The court dismissed the gang allegation, but it did not orally pronounce a sentence on the murder conviction or the firearm enhancement, even by reference to the original sentence. Nor is there any indication that the court applied the changes to the law since the original sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 [rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement]

People v. Wilshire Ins. Co. (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 521, 532 [at sentencing, the court must orally pronounce the term of imprisonment]

People v. Crabtree (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1327 [trial court erred by failing to pronounce sentence on a count before staying its execution]

Fifth Holding:

The defendant did not forfeit his right to a full resentencing by failing to raise the issue in the trial court. Generally, a defendant must raise an issue in the trial court to preserve it on appeal. However, that general rule does not apply to an unauthorized sentence, which a defendant may challenge on appeal despite not objecting below. Here, the trial court recalled the defendant’s sentence, which effectively vacated his entire sentence. However, it never pronounced a new sentence on the murder conviction and firearm enhancement. The court’s failure to do so resulted in an unauthorized sentence.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354

People v. Arias (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 213, 219

People v. Crabtree (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1327 [court committed unauthorized sentencing error by failing to pronounce a sentence on a count before ordering it stayed]

Sixth Holding:

Even if the forfeiture rule applied, we would exercise our discretion to consider the issue on the merits in order to forestall an inevitable ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [appellate courts have discretion to consider issues not preserved for review]

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 399–400 [declining to apply forfeiture rule where defendant failed to object to the lack of full resentencing under section 1172.75]

Seventh Holding:

Where, as here, the defendant did not receive a full resentencing to which he was entitled, the proper disposition is to remand for a full resentencing. Accordingly, we remand the case for the trial court to resentence the defendant in accordance with section 1172.1. In doing so, the court must consider postconviction factors and apply any changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing. When resentencing the defendant on remand, the court may not reinstate the gang allegation it dismissed under section 1385.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402 [remanding case for resentencing where the defendant was entitled to, but did not receive, a full resentencing under section 1172.75]

People v. Saldana (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1270, 1278–1279 [same]

People v. Brown (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1228 [when the record shows that the trial court proceeded with sentencing on the erroneous assumption it lacked discretion, remand is necessary so that the trial court may have the opportunity to exercise its sentencing discretion at a new sentencing hearing]

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000261

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the defendant’s hearing under section 1172.75, the court abused its discretion when it declined to dismiss the prior serious felony conviction enhancements as to each count. Pursuant to section 1465.9, we vacate the balance of the restitution fine.

First Holding:

Section 1385 provides that, notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so. It requires that a sentencing court give great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the nine mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present. One or more mitigating circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement. The statute provides an exception when 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.

Authority:

PEN 1385

Second Holding:

When a trial court finds that dismissal of an enhancement would endanger public safety, it must not exclusively consider whether the defendant currently poses a danger to the public. Although the current dangerousness of the petitioner 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 of the enhancement will impact the length of the defendant’s sentence. A currently dangerous defendant who will be released from prison within a short timeframe not necessarily the same as a currently dangerous defendant who has no prospect of release from prison until he is elderly. A trial court would find the former to pose a greater danger than the latter.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

Absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a court retains the discretion to impose or dismiss enhancements provided that it assigns significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances when they are present. Stated simply, if the court does not conclude that dismissal would endanger public safety, then mitigating circumstances strongly favor dismissing the enhancement. But ultimately, the court must determine whether dismissal is in the furtherance of justice.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1029, 1036

Fourth Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision not to strike sentencing enhancements under section 1385 for abuse of discretion. We must not disturb an exercise of discretion 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. A court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on impermissible factors or on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

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

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

Fifth Holding:

During the resentencing hearing, the prosecutor argued that the superior court should not reduce the sentence beyond striking the prior prison term enhancement because the defendant posed a threat to public safety based on the underlying facts of the case. In response, defense counsel urged the court not to focus on his current risk to public safety. She reasoned that the defendant would still have to serve three consecutive life sentences even if the court struck the prior serious felony conviction enhancements.

The court’s discussion of the underlying offenses and the defendant’s prior convictions does not suggest a forward-looking inquiry. Instead, the court relied on past conduct to determine the defendant’s present dangerousness. The court applied a legal standard that was not consistent with Gonzalez. The record does not demonstrate that the superior court considered whether the defendant would endanger public safety if the enhancements were stricken and he was still subject to the indeterminate term. We conclude that the superior court abused its discretion by failing to consider his future dangerousness if the enhancements were stricken within the context of his indeterminate sentence.

Authority:

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

Sixth Holding:

The Attorney General argues that we should presume that the superior court correctly applied the law and conducted a forward-thinking inquiry as to the defendant’s dangerousness. But the superior court did not have the benefit of Gonzalez on the date of resentencing. We cannot presume the trial court knew a standard that did not yet exist.

Authority:

People v. Brugman (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 608, 637

People v. Chambers (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 444, 457 [presumption does not apply when the sentencing law is not yet established]

People v. Jones (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1076, 1092

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Vicarious liability

Case: 000260

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the defendant’s hearing on his petition filed under section 1172.6 for recall of sentence in light of the changes in homicide law, the trial court denied the defendant’s resentencing petition on the ground the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt he aided and abetted an implied malice murder. The trial court did not conclude that the defendant was the direct perpetrator or an aider and abettor in an express malice murder. The trial court misidentified the relevant life-endangering act and thereby used an incorrect legal standard for determining the defendant’s mens rea for aiding and abetting implied malice murder.

We therefore reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to conduct a new evidentiary hearing using the correct life-endangering act and consistent with this opinion. The trial court did not address the defendant’s convictions on counts 2 through 4 for attempted murder. Sentencing relief under section 1172.6 extends to attempted murder. In conducting a new evidentiary hearing following remand, the court shall make findings and rule on the defendant’s resentencing petition on the attempted murder convictions. The amended abstract of judgment indicates that the defendant pleaded guilty to second degree murder. That is incorrect: He was convicted by a jury, not pursuant to a plea agreement. The abstract of judgment must be corrected accordingly.

First Holding:

The trial court denied the defendant’s resentencing petition on the ground the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt he aided and abetted an implied malice murder. The trial court did not conclude that the defendant was the direct perpetrator or an aider and abettor in an express malice murder.

Murder is committed with implied malice when the killing is proximately caused by an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life. A defendant may directly aid and abet an implied malice murder. Notwithstanding Senate Bill 1437’s elimination of natural and probable consequences liability for second degree murder, an aider and abettor who does not expressly intend to aid a killing can still be convicted of second degree murder if the person knows that his or her conduct endangers the life of another and acts with conscious disregard for life.

Authority:

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 143

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990

Second Holding:

Direct aiding and abetting is based on the combined actus reus of the participants and the aider and abettor’s own mens rea. In the context of implied malice, the actus reus required of the perpetrator is the commission of a life-endangering act. For the direct aider and abettor, the actus reus includes whatever acts constitute aiding the commission of the life-endangering act. Thus, to be liable for an implied malice murder, the direct aider and abettor must, by words or conduct, aid the commission of the life-endangering act, not the result of that act. The mens rea, which must be personally harbored by the direct aider and abettor, is knowledge that the perpetrator intended to commit the act, intent to aid the perpetrator in the commission of the act, knowledge that the act is dangerous to human life, and acting in conscious disregard for human life.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990-991

Third Holding:

A life-endangering act is the act that proximately causes death. To be considered the proximate cause of the victim’s death, the defendant’s act must have been a substantial factor contributing to the result, rather than insignificant or merely theoretical. Here, the life-endangering act was the shooting by the co-defendant at the vehicle carrying the victim.

Authority:

People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 713, fn. 27

People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 643

Fourth Holding:

Although a homicide might have more than one proximate cause, to suffice for implied malice murder, the perpetrator’s act must not merely be dangerous to life in some vague or speculative sense; it must involve a high degree of probability that it will result in death.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 956, 963

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 989

Fifth Holding:

The co-defendant perpetrator’s act of bringing the gun to the anticipated confrontation with the other gang did not in itself give rise to a high probability that death would result. Rather, that act merely created a dangerous situation in which death was possible depending on how circumstances unfolded. Deeming a life-endangering act to be the act of the co-defendant perpetrator bringing the gun to the fight comes precariously close to a natural and probable consequences theory of liability: Bringing the gun to a gang fight becomes life endangering only because a natural and probable consequence of doing so is the gun is fired and someone is killed. [GARY NOTE: Implicit in that example is that the change in the homicide law eliminated the natural and probable consequences rationale as supporting a murder conviction of the non-killer.]

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 989

Sixth Holding:

By misidentifying the life-endangering act committed by the perpetrator, the trial court used the incorrect legal standard for determining mens rea for aiding and abetting implied malice murder.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990–991 [using incorrect life-endangering act constitutes legal error]

Seventh Holding:

We have the ability to order the correction of clerical errors in an abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–187

Pleading, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000259

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is remanded for a full resentencing hearing because the trial court unconstitutionally relied upon its own factfinding to impose the upper term on defendant’s conviction, and the error is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

On January 1, 2022, the Legislature amended section 1170 to provide that the trial court shall, in its discretion impose a sentence not to exceed the middle term except in the following circumstance: The court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of’ an upper term sentence, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial. Notwithstanding these provisions, 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:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 748

Second Holding:

The trial court’s factfinding role as to a defendant’s prior convictions is specifically exempted from the Sixth Amendment jury trial right. However, 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. For example, a defendant is entitled to have a jury determine whether his prior convictions were of increasing seriousness and whether he had performed unsatisfactorily on probation, before the court could rely on those aggravating facts to find justification for an upper term sentence.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 767

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1084-1085

Third Holding:

A court’s determination that a defendant has suffered prior criminal convictions on separate occasions, that the offenses were close in time, and that they were similar or intertwined in purpose and character runs afoul of constitutional proscriptions and must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082-1083 [Error for court to impose additional time based on its qualitative assessment of the offenses time, location, character, and purpose]

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

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. Under that standard, 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. Lack of a jury trial is not harmless under Chapman if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1086 [error not harmless where a rational jury could have concluded that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s convictions were of increasing seriousness]

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730,742-743, 760-761, 768, 775 [We may find the omission harmless if we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt ‘that the omitted fact was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence]

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

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000255

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

First Holding:

PEN 1172.75

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

PEN 1170.12

PEN 667(e)

PEN 1170.126

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Third Holding:

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

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

Authority:

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

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000252

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court violated the defendant’s right to a jury trial by imposing the upper term without an express waiver of his right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors. The trial court’s finding that the defendant had consistently violated the law is a decision that goes beyond the bare fact of the prior conviction and its elements and therefore exceeds the scope of the statutory exception to the jury trial right for prior conviction that appears in section 1170(b)(3). Absent a waiver the defendant was entitled to a jury trial on the aggravating factors. The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

We review questions about whether a defendant’s constitutional rights were violated de novo. If we determine that a defendant’s right to a jury trial has been violated, we apply the harmless error standard in Chapman. Under the Chapman standard, we must reverse and remand a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) unless we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts relied upon by the court to justify an upper term sentence, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Authority:

People v. Palmer (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 268, 280

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768

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

Second Holding:

In 2022, the Legislature amended section 1170, subdivision (b) to limit a trial court’s discretion to impose the upper term of a sentencing triad. Under the current version of the statute, trial courts may impose a sentence that exceeds the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances 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. However, 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, 773

Third Holding:

In Erlinger, the United States Supreme Court clarified that the court in Almendarez-Torres v. United States permitted a judge to undertake the job of finding the fact of a prior conviction—and that job alone. The question before the Erlinger court was whether a judge may decide that a defendant’s past offenses were committed on separate occasions or whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments required a jury to make that determination beyond a reasonable doubt. In holding that Erlinger was entitled to a jury determination on the issue, the court stated that deciding whether those past offenses occurred on three or more different occasions is a fact-laden task, and judges may not assume the jury’s factfinding function for themselves.

Authority:

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 825, 834, 837

Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998) 523 U.S. 224

Fourth Holding:

The California Supreme Court confirmed that virtually any fact that increases a defendant’s exposure to punishment must be submitted to a jury and found unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless the defendant waives the right to a jury trial or stipulates that the aggravating factors are true, the People must prove to a jury the facts relied on to justify an upper term sentence beyond a reasonable doubt. This jury trial guarantee retains its vitality even if the inquiry is straightforward.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 761-762

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

Fifth Holding:

The Wiley court held that an inquiry of whether a defendant’s prior convictions are of increasing seriousness requires a comparison and evaluation of the relationship among a defendant’s prior convictions, and a determination as to their relative seriousness. As a result, it involves something more than a narrow factual finding that the convictions were sustained and what elements were required to prove them. A defendant is entitled to a jury determination 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. The was entitled to have a jury determine whether his prior convictions were of increasing seriousness and whether he had performed unsatisfactorily on probation before the court could rely on those aggravating facts to find justification for an upper term sentence.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069,1082, 1085

Sixth Holding:

Based on our review of the defendant’s prior record—including his CLETS certified rap sheet, certified records of his convictions, and the probation officer’s report—the sentences imposed for his conviction, the age of his felony convictions, and the nature of his recent offenses could lead a jury to conclude that the defendant’s convictions were not of increasing seriousness. On this record, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a properly instructed jury would have found these aggravating factors true. Because it is possible a jury could reach the opposite conclusion on one of the aggravating factors the court may have relied on to impose the upper term, the omission of the defendant’s right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We, therefore, reverse his sentence and remand for a trial on the aggravating factors.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090

 

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000251

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though the trial court did not err in concluding that the defendant’s bare assertions of eligibility for relief in his petition to recall his sentence under section 1172.6 were belied by the record of conviction, the matter was remanded to the trial court to give the defendant the opportunity to file an amended petition.

First Holding:

Senate Bill No. 1437 amended the statutes defining malice (section 188) and felony murder (section 189, subd. (e)) to eliminate natural and probable consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting, and limit the scope of the felony-murder rule. It also added former section 1170.95, which creates a procedure for convicted murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief. Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 775 amended section 1170.95 to extend the resentencing procedures to a person convicted under any other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime. Former section 1170.95 has since been renumbered as section 1172.6, with no substantive changes.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

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

Second Holding:

If a section 1172.6 petition contains all required information (e.g., declaration of eligibility, case information, any request for appointed counsel), the trial court must review the petition and determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the petitioner falls within the provisions of section 1172.6. If the petitioner has made this initial prima facie showing, he or she is entitled to appointed counsel, if requested, and the prosecutor must file a response, and the petitioner may file a reply. The court then reviews the petition a second time. If it concludes in light of this briefing that the petitioner has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, it must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to vacate the murder conviction and recall the sentence and resentence the petitioner on any remaining counts.

Authority:

People v. Roldan (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 997, 1003

Third Holding:

When conducting the prima facie review, the trial court must assume the truth of the petition’s allegations unless they are refuted by the record of conviction. If a petition is supported only by conclusory, checkbox allegations and the preliminary hearing transcript contains unchallenged, relief-foreclosing facts, then the trial court may deny the petition at the prima facie stage. This is because a section 1172.6 petitioner who, despite having access to counsel upon submission of a facially sufficient petition, offers only conclusory allegations of entitlement to relief, in response to a record of conviction that demonstrates the petitioner’s conviction was under a still-valid theory, has not, thereby, made a prima facie showing.

Authority:

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

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 564-566

Fourth Holding:

However, petitioners need not, at the prima facie stage, meet an evidentiary burden of proof to establish entitlement to relief, such as the burden of proof applicable to the People if trying to defeat relief at the later section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3) evidentiary hearing. Rather, petitioners confronting a record of conviction that demonstrates relief is unavailable have the burden of coming forward with nonconclusory allegations to alert the prosecution and the court to what issues an evidentiary hearing would entail.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 566-567

Fifth Holding:

We review de novo whether the record of conviction establishes that the petitioner is ineligible for resentencing relief.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, 14

Sixth Holding:

The court properly considered the preliminary hearing transcript to make a prima facie determination that defendant was the actual killer and thus ineligible for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 563

Seventh Holding:

Defendant requests that, if we affirm, we should remand with directions to afford him 30 days to amend his petition to plead additional facts. Because defendant did not have the benefit of Patton’s guidance during the prima facie stage before the trial court, we grant his request.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 569-570

People v. Glass (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 922, 930

Due process, Sentencing

Case: 000248

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Error and/or relief:
At the resentencing hearing ordered as result of a the prior appeal, the trial court erred by resentencing the defendant without his personal presence, failing to conduct a full resentencing, and miscalculating his credits for time served.

[Gary note: the opinion indicates that the abstract following the remand was incorrect, that an amended abstract filed thereafter was incorrect in other respects, and a new amended abstract contained several errors–including in the minute order that the defendant had waived his presence, yet there was nothing in the reporter’s transcripts to indicate he had waived his presence. I reiterate a comment I made in an earlier post: Counsel really should examine the abstracts of judgment carefully, whether the defendant was the client at the trial level or at the appellate level.]

First Holding:

A defendant has a constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of the criminal prosecution, i.e., all stages of the trial where his absence might frustrate the fairness of the proceedings. The defendant’s right to be present includes at a resentencing hearing.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (1998) 17 Cal.4th 253, 260 [right to presence following remand to consider dismissing strike]

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 348

Second Holding:

Section 977 requires that a felony defendant shall be physically present at the time of the imposition of sentence. It allows a defendant to waive their physical presence only for other proceedings.

Authority:

PEN 977(b)(1)

Third Holding:

Notwithstanding section 977, waiver of personal appearance at felony sentencing is permitted by section 1193 if the defendant, in open court and on the record or in a notarized writing, requests that judgment be pronounced against the defendant in his or her absence. This provision applies to resentencing following an appellate court remand. But the defendant did not waive his right to be present at sentencing in open court or by a notarized writing. Accordingly, the trial court erred when it resentenced him without his personal presence.

Authority:

PEN 977(b)(1)

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 345-346

People v. Sanchez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1414

Fourth Holding:

At the resentencing, the trial court failed to update the defendant’s custody credits. The amended abstract must include credit for actual days in custody after the original sentencing until the date of resentencing. On remand, the trial court must calculate the actual time in prison; the determination of prison conduct credits is left to the prison administration

Authority:

People v. Sanchez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1418

People v. Honea (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 842, 845, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Johnson (2004) 32 Cal.4th 260, 268, fn. 3.

Fifth Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing ‘a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

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

Sixth Holding:

Although we concluded in the first appeal that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion to dismiss the strike pursuant to Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th 497, the trial court on resentencing had jurisdiction to reconsider that ruling.

Authority:

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 364

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497

People v. Rodriguez (1998) 17 Cal.4th 253, 260

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000247

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is not eligible to have a full resentencing under section 1172.75 because no now-invalid prior prison term enhancement had ever been imposed, a pre-condition for invocation of section 1172.75. The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it erroneously indicates that the enhancement for the prior prison term was stayed, when it is clear from the record that the court actually struck the enhancement rather than impose and stay it.

First Holding:

Appellate courts may exercise their authority to correct clerical errors, including correcting an abstract of judgment and may strike statements in the abstract to conform with the court’s oral pronouncement. Because the trial court explicitly stated, “The court is likewise going to strike the 667.5(b) prison prior,” the enhancement should not have been listed in the abstract of judgment, and we have the authority to order the abstract’s correction without requiring an accompanying resentencing. We order that correction accordingly.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts]

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

Second Holding:

The question in this case was left open by the Supreme Court in People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1066, footnote 2 and, as is discussed below, is factually distinguishable from the issue to be decided in People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 194 (Espino), review granted October 23, 2024, S286987, which hinges on the “imposition” of a stricken prison prior enhancement’s punishment. Pending briefing before the Supreme Court is limited to the following issue: “Is a defendant entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when the judgment in the defendant’s criminal case includes a prior-prison-term enhancement that was imposed but for which punishment was stricken?” (Espino, S286987, Supreme Ct. Mins., July 30, 2025.)

(Gary Note: Espino was decided by the Supreme Court on July 2, 2026. It did firmly hold that section 1172.75 applies when the punishment for a now-invalid prior prison term enhancement was stricken, not merely stayed as it was in Rhodius. Footnote 1 of the Supreme Court opinion in Espino seems to make it clear that it was not deciding the issue that arose in this Case 000247. Footnote 1: “Our decision in Rhodius also left open whether a prior prison term enhancement is “imposed” (sec. 1172.75(a)) “when an enhancement, not just its associated punishment, [is] stricken” (Rhodius, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1066, fn. 2). As that question is not at issue in this case, we do not address it.”

(I can tell you that a petition for review in this case (the one for which this is the summary, 000247) was denied a few months ago, before Espino was decided. It seems it will take a different case to convince the Supreme Court to decide whether a person is eligible for relief under section 1172.75 in cases where the court struck the enhancement itself (and thus had nothing on which to impose and either stay or strike punishment.)

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1066, footnote 2

People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 194 (review granted 10/23/24, S286987

People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987, decided July 2, 2026)

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000242

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the court failed to update the credits for time served, and awarded only the credits allowed at the original sentencing 12 years earlier. This was error, and the matter is remanded for the trial court to recalculate the proper credits as of the date of the resentencing hearing.

Holding:

When a trial court resentences a defendant on remand, it must credit him with all actual days he spent in custody up to that time, including his time in custody after the original sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Ca1.4th 20, 37 [the trial court, having modified defendant’s sentence on remand, was obliged, in its new abstract of judgment, to credit him with all actual days he had spent in custody]

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000239

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Here, where the petition was facially sufficient, it was error to deny the defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage without appointing counsel and without a hearing. The trial court in this case appointed no counsel, conducted no hearing, and did not consider briefing, arguments of either party, or any other portion of the trial record, which necessarily informs the prima facie inquiry. On this record, with multiple participants in the shooting incident, as well as the jury’s instruction on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, a theory of implied malice, we cannot say it would be a waste of judicial resources to send the case back to the trial court to conduct its obligations under section 1172.6.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature eliminated natural and probable consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting, and limited the scope of the felony-murder rule. It also added section 1170.95, now section 1172.6, to provide a procedure for convicted murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief. Thereafter, it expanded the path to resentencing under the law to allow relief for those with attempted murder convictions based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Authority:

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 723-724

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

Second Holding:

A petition under section 1172.6 that includes a declaration by petitioner that the petitioner is eligible for relief , based on all the requirements of section 1172.6, subdivision (a), the case number and year of the petitioner’s conviction, and whether the petitioner seeks counsel is facially sufficient and entitles the petitioner to counsel.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558-559

Third Holding:

The prima facie inquiry is limited A petitioner’s allegations should be accepted as true, and the court should not make credibility determinations or engage in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion. The record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry, allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless. Indeed, in assessing petitions from individuals convicted after a jury trial, the jury instructions will be critical. The record of conviction also includes documents such as verdict forms. If the record [of conviction, including the court’s own documents, contains facts refuting the allegations made in the petition, then ‘the court is justified in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner. The court may deny the petition at the prima facie stage only if the record of conviction conclusively establishes that the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971, 974

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 720 [factfinding is prohibited at the prima facie stage]

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 731

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 563

People v. Gallardo (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 296, 301

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

People v. Hickman (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1262, 1268