Tag Archives: Recall of sentence or resentencing

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000309

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Denial of petition to vacate judgment of murder and for resentencing under section 1172.6 is reversed. The appellant’s participation in the planning and commission of the robbery and failure to render aid to the co-defendant do not demonstrate that he acted with the requisite reckless indifference to human life to be culpable of murder.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted SB 1437 to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. As amended by SB 1437, section 189 now limits liability under a felony-murder theory to actual killers and those who, with the intent to kill, aid or abet the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree. Individuals who do not fall into those categories can be held liable for murder only if they were major participants in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in section 190.2(d)—the statute defining the felony-murder special circumstance. Section 1172.6 permits individuals who were convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory, but who could not be convicted of murder following SB 1437’s changes to sections 188 and 189, to petition the sentencing court to vacate the conviction and resentence on any remaining counts.

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 189

PEN 1172.6

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

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

Second Holding:

On appeal from an order denying a section 1172.6 petition after an evidentiary hearing, we review the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence. We examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value that would support a rational trier of fact in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Our job on review is different from the trial judge’s job in deciding the petition. While the trial judge must review all the relevant evidence, evaluate and resolve contradictions, and make determinations as to credibility, all under the reasonable doubt standard, our job is to determine whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support a rational fact finder’s findings beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not reweigh evidence or revisit the trial court’s credibility determinations.

Authority:

People v. Richardson (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1085, 1090

People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 298

People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 657-658

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 885

People v. Cody (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 87, 112-113

Third Holding:

In Banks, the Supreme Court set out a nonexhaustive list of considerations relevant to whether a defendant’s participation in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death is sufficiently significant to render him or her a major participant in the crime. Those considerations are: 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?

Authority:

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 794, 803

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 705

Fourth Holding:

Clark similarly set forth a list of considerations relevant to determining whether a defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life. The first factor relates to weapons: was the defendant aware that weapons would be used in the felony? Did the defendant use a weapon? How many weapons were used in the crime? The court cautioned that the mere fact of a defendant’s awareness that a gun will be used in the felony is not sufficient to establish reckless indifference to human life. A robbery in which the only factor supporting reckless indifference to human life is the fact of the use of a gun is what the Banks court meant by a garden-variety armed robbery.

The second factor is the defendant’s physical proximity to the murder and the events leading up to it, and the opportunities that proximity afforded to restrain the crime or aid the victim.

The third factor is the duration of the felony, particularly the duration of the interaction between victims and perpetrators; more prolonged incidents provide “‘a greater window of opportunity for violence.

The fourth factor is the defendant’s awareness of his or her codefendants’ propensity for violence or likelihood of killing a victim.

The final factor is the defendant’s efforts to minimize the risk of violence during the felony, though the court cautioned that some effort to minimize the risk of violence does not, in itself, necessarily foreclose a finding that defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life. In cases where a defendant was a youth at the time of the crime, his or her age may also be relevant to determining whether he or she acted with reckless indifference.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 617-623

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 794, 802

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 885 fn 6

In re Moore (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 434, 453-454

People v. Ramirez (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 970, 987

Fifth Holding:

No single Banks or Clark factor is determinative. Lower courts should take care to consider the presence or absence relating to each relevant factor on its own merits before considering the evidence in its totality.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 618, 621-623

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 888

Sixth Holding:

There is significant overlap between being a major participant and acting with reckless indifference to human life, and the greater the defendant’s participation in the felony murder, the more likely that he acted with reckless indifference to human life. However, that does not necessarily mean that every major participant in a crime acts with reckless indifference to human life. Participation in a gardenvariety armed robbery is insufficient without more to establish reckless indifference. The defendant must not merely be aware of the foreseeable risk of death inherent in any violent felony; he or she must knowingly create a grave risk of death to demonstrate reckless indifference to human life. The defendant’s actions before and during the crime are important but not determinative; the key inquiry is what his actions reveal about his mental state.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 618, 614-615

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

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000305

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The order denying the petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is reversed.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. It accomplished this by amending sections 188 and 189. Section 188(a)(3) now prohibits imputing malice based solely on an individual’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a principal of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule in section 189(e). Section 189 requires the prosecution to prove the defendant was the actual killer; an aider and abettor to murder who acted with the intent to kill; or a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

PEN 189

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

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 868–869

Second Holding:

The Legislature, to provide relief to those with existing murder convictions dependent on theories of the crime it had rejected, devised a path to resentencing. It has since expanded this path to allow relief for those with attempted murder convictions based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

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

Third Holding:

If the record of conviction establishes ineligibility for resentencing as a matter of law, the petition is properly denied at the prima facie stage. However, the petition and record of conviction must establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 970-972

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

Fourth Holding:

We independently review a trial court’s determination whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief.

Authority:

We independently review a trial court’s determination whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief.

Fifth Holding:

We conclude the defendant has made a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief. The record of conviction does demonstrate a possibility that he was convicted of second degree murder under an imputed malice theory, that is, that he was guilty of murder based solely on his participation in the robbery. In assessing section 1172.6 petitions, the jury instructions will be critical. Indeed we look at the jury’s verdicts, viewed in light of the court’s jury instructions, to assess whether a defendant has made a prima facie showing for relief under section 1172.6.

Authority:

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

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 441

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000303

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the trial court to determine that one of the prior serious felony convictions qualified as a strike under the Three Strikes law and for enhancement as a prior serious felony, because AB 333 amended the elements of the crime under section 186.22, and the acts constituting the crime were tried under the former version. The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions that the People be allowed to elect whether to retry appellant, under current law, on the strike and the prior serious felony enhancement. We also remand the matter for a full resentencing.

First Holding:

Current law governs whether defendants prior convictions would also constitute a felony violation of section 186.22 for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements. The current law includes Assembly Bill 333’s redefinition of the elements of gang offenses and enhancements under section 186.22. Thus, Assembly Bill 333 applies to the determination of whether a prior conviction qualifies as a serious or violent felony under section 192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements. There is no indication that defendants’ prior convictions were obtained under Assembly Bill 333’s more stringent requirements. The appropriate remedy is reversal of the findings on these enhancements for retrial under the correct law.

Authority:

AB 333

PEN 186.22

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

PEN 667

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 607-608

Second 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

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000301

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though affirming the trial court’s reimposition of the original sentence (minus the now-invalid enhancements for prior prison terms), it remanded the matter to the trial court to expressly state which fines and fees it was imposing, as it was not clear from the record.

First Holding:

The abstract of judgment lists several fines and fees, some of which are mandatory. The trial court, however, imposed only direct restitution (which is also listed in the abstract). A superior court’s failure to orally impose mandatory fines or assessments results in an unauthorized sentence that the appellate court may correct on appeal. But we do not believe the superior court sufficiently addressed ability to pay. It mentioned ability to pay only in the context of the direct restitution. It sidestepped the issue of ability to pay, treating it as irrelevant to the issue of direct victim restitution. As the court did not orally impose any additional fines or fees, the defendant had no meaningful opportunity to raise his ability to pay with respect to them.

Authority:

People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1153–1157

People v. Pack-Ramirez (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 851, 859 [ability-to-pay principles have not been extended to a victim restitution payment under section 1202.4(f)]

People v. Abrahamian (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 314, 338

People v. Evans (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 771, 777

Second Holding:

By statute, restitution fines and probation restitution fines under section 1202.4(b) and section 1202.45 that exceed the $300 minimum shall account for ability to pay. And because of equal protection principles, a court must consider ability to pay before imposing ancillary assessments under section 1465.8(a)(1) and Government Code section 70373. As to the remaining fine in the defendant’s case, under section 1202.5, the parties do not dispute the fine must be set with ability to pay in mind, but is mandatory if affordable. Given this, we will order a limited remand for the superior court to consider the mandatory fines and assessments omitted from its oral sentencing pronouncements in connection with defendant’s ability to pay.

Authority:

PEN 1202.5

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

Third Holding:

Regarding restitution fines, section 1465.9 has recently been 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. At least one Court of Appeal has held a court conducting a section 1172.75 resentencing cannot reimpose a restitution fine that is more than 10 years old and has held, instead, the fine should be stricken. As no restitution fine has been properly imposed, we are in no position to consider striking it, and the superior court can consider these developments on remand.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

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

Fourth Holding:

Walker approved Court of Appeal decisions that viewed section 1385 as calling for holistic balancing with special emphasis on the enumerated mitigating factors. Gonzalez did not create a new rule of law, but rather corrected a superior court’s misunderstanding regarding the term endangerment to public safety in section 1385(c)(2). The statute defines the term as a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others, which does not contemplate a laser-like focus on dangerousness at the time of sentencing. The superior court in Gonzalez had expressly limited its consideration to the defendant’s current dangerousness despite the call of the statute, a mistake not present here.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)(2)

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

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

Fifth Holding:

We need not, and typically do not, address arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.

Authority:

People v. Dunn (2025) 18 Cal.5th 129, 183, fn. 13

People v. Adir Internat., LLC (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 275, 298

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000297

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is entitled to a full resentencing because Penal Code section 1172.75 applies to enhancements imposed as part of the defendant’s original judgment, regardless of whether the enhancement was stayed or executed. We reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct a full resentencing. the trial court erred when it failed to recalculate his presentence custody credit

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2020, the Legislature eliminated these one-year prior-prison-term enhancements except in cases involving prior terms for sexually violent offenses. Two years later, the Legislature made the change retroactive. In Penal Code section 1172.75, the Legislature declared that, aside from enhancements imposed for sexually violent offenses, any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5(b) is legally invalid. In the same provision, the Legislature established a mechanism for resentencing individuals currently serving a term for a judgment that includes’ such an enhancement.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

PEN 667.5

Second Holding:

Penal Code 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

Third Holding:

Defendant’s actual presentence custody credits must be recalculated at this resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 673

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29, 37