Tag Archives: Recall of sentence or resentencing

Equal protection, Sentencing

Case 000597

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

First Holding:

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

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000596

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

First Holding:

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

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Second Holding:

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

Authority:

Repeal of PEN 1463.23

Third Holding:

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

Authority:

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

Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case 000594

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

Holding:

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

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

Authority:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 000590

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

First Holding:

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

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

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

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

Second Holding:

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

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

Authority:

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

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

Third Holding:

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

Authority:

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

Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 000587

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

First Holding:

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

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Second Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

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

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

Third Holding:

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

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

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

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

Fourth Holding:

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

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

Authority:

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

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

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

Fifth Holding:

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

Authority:

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