Tag Archives: Recall of sentence or resentencing

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000665

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On remand for resentencing in the earlier appeal, the court erred in refusing to conduct a full resentencing. It was also error for the court to impose the upper term on the gun use enhancement where the aggravating circumstances were not stipulated to or found true by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. And the abstract of judgment must be amended to show that he was convicted of false imprisonment, not of kidnapping.

First Holding:

We consider a trial court’s sentencing decisions under an abuse of discretion standard. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Moseley (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 870, 874

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 887

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. That the appellate court gave specific directions on remand does not preclude a full resentencing hearing as required by Buycks. Because the judgment is no longer final, new statutes imposing new lighter penalties are deemed to be sufficient to apply upon resentencing.

Authority:

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

People v. Walker (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 198, 204

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 160, 163 [once a court has determined that a defendant is entitled to resentencing, the result is vacatur of the original sentence whereupon the trial court may impose any appropriate sentence]

Third Holding:

Where, as here, a statute specifies three possible terms, the presumptive sentence is the middle term unless there are aggravating circumstances justifying imposition of the high term. The aggravating circumstance must be stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or, if jury is waived, by the court in a court trial.

The trial court acknowledged that a bifurcated trial would be necessary to find the aggravating circumstances true. Nevertheless it relied on our “very specific instructions” in declining to hold such a trial.

Where, as here, the record reflects no jury finding, no waiver thereof, and no admission by the defendant of the aggravating circumstances, the trial court’s reliance on unproven aggravating factors to impose an upper term sentence violates the Sixth Amendment.

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 767–769

Fourth Holding:

The error is harmless only if a reviewing court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all the aggravating facts relied upon by the sentencing court to justify the upper term. On this record we agree with the parties that we cannot draw such a conclusion.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 761, 775

Fifth Holding:

We direct the trial court to issue a corrected abstract of judgment. The defendant was convicted of the offense of false imprisonment, a violation of Penal Code section 237, not kidnapping, a violation of Penal Code section 207.

(GARY Note: The court listed no authority for correction of erroneous abstracts, likely because the error and remedy are so obvious. But I have listed several cases that the court could have relied on.)

Authority:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discretion, Sentencing, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000657

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the medically eligible defendant’s petition for compassionate release under section 1172.2, because there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that there was an unreasonable risk that the defendant would commit a super strike.

First Holding:

The Penal Code imposes a presumption favoring compassionate release for medically-eligible individuals and, as to the risk of re-offense, requires an assessment not of whether a new crime would be theoretically possible, but whether there would be an unreasonable risk of a super strike as defined by the law. On this record, we conclude there is insufficient evidence of an unreasonable risk that defendant would commit a super strike if granted compassionate release. Accordingly, we will reverse the trial court’s order denying the petition for compassionate release and direct the trial court to recall defendant’s sentence in accordance with section 1172.2.

Authority:

PEN 1172.2

Second Holding:

A superior court abuses its discretion when the factual findings essential to its decision lack evidentiary support. The superior court’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Cluff (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 998

In re White (2020) 9 Cal.5th 455, 470

Third Holding:

Section 1172.2 authorizes a trial court to recall the sentence of an incarcerated person who is permanently medically incapacitated with a medical condition or functional impairment that renders them permanently unable to complete basic activities of daily living. If the trial court finds that an incarcerated person satisfies this criterion, the statute establishes a presumption favoring recall and resentencing that may only be overcome if a court finds the defendant is an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in subdivision section 1170.18(c), based on the incarcerated person’s current physical and mental condition.

Authority:

PEN 1172.2(b)(2)

Fourth Holding:

Under section 1170.18(c), an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety is an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a “super strike,” which includes any homicide or attempted homicide offense, any serious or violent felony offense punishable by life imprisonment or death, and certain sexually violent offenses.

Authority:

PEN 1170.18(c)

Fifth Holding:

After reviewing the evidence of the physical and mental condition of the defendant, the court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he was capable of committing a super strike. The appellate court relied on Lewis, a case in which it was held to be an abuse of discretion to deny compassionate release on evidence that showed that the defendant perhaps had the capacity to commit a super strike, but that did not necessarily establish an unreasonable risk that he would commit such an offense.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 401, 407-409

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000656

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In this appeal following resentencing under section 1172.75, the restitution fine, now older than 10 years, must be vacated.

Holding:

Under section 1465.9(d), the restitution fine must be vacated, as it was imposed more than 10 years ago.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Sentencing

Case 000653

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On remand for full resentencing, it was error for the trial court to impose the upper term on the firearm enhancement where there was no jury determination beyond a reasonable doubt that the factors in aggravation relied on by the court were true.

First Holding:

If an enhancement (such as section 12022.5) is punishable by one of three terms, the court shall, in its sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, unless there are circumstances in aggravation that justify the imposition of the upper term and the facts underlying those cirucmstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury of by the judge in a court trial.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1

Second Holding:

Where the court imposes the upper term based on factors that have not been stipulated to or found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury, the defendant is entitled to a reversal and remand for resentencing unless, after examining the entire cause, including the evidence as to all relevant circumstances, the appellate court can conclude that the omission of a jury trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to every aggravating fact the trial court used to justify an upper term sentence.

In making this determination, we may examine what the jury necessarily did find and ask whether it would be impossible, on the evidence, for the jury to find that without also finding the missing fact as well. In other words, if no reasonable jury would have found in favor of the defendant on the missing fact, given the jury’s actual verdict and the state of the evidence, the error may be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We may also find the omission harmless if we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted fact was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 775

Third Holding:

Whether the defendant has engaged in violent conduct that indicates a serious danger to society or the crime involved athreat of great bodily harm are subjective factual determinations. To the extent a potential aggravating circumstance at issue in a particular case rests on a somewhat vague or subjective standard, it may be difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 775

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000649

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2025, the trial court resentenced defendant pursuant to section 1172.75—striking the two prior prison term enhancements—and otherwise reimposed the prior judgment from 1996, including a $10,000 restitution fine. The trial court erred by reimposing the restitution fine and it must be vacated.

First Holding:

Section 1465.9(d) provides: “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.” Resentencing does not reset the 10-year expiration of a section 1202.4 restitution fine.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

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

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000646

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court should have vacated the restitution fine, as it was more than 10 years old.

Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 (Stats. 2024, ch. 805, sec. 1) amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d). The statute now provides: “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.” The resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75 did not restart section 1465.9’s 10-year clock anew.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600, review granted and briefing deferred on a different issue, March 11, 2026, S295038

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case 000645

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

As to the section 1172.6 petition, the trial court denied the petition. This ruling was in error because the record of conviction does not establish as a matter of law that the defendant is ineligible for relief.

First Holding:

Under Penal Code section 1172.6, a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the record of conviction at the prima facie stage conclusively refutes—as a matter of law—defendant’s claim that he was convicted of a homicide offense under a now invalid legal theory.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

In reviewing any part of the record of conviction at this preliminary juncture, a trial court should not engage in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

On the plea form in 1994, the defendant stated that he was both an aider and abettor and the shooter. These statements are internally inconsistent. A defendant cannot be both an aider and abettor, and a direct perpetrator (the shooter). The defendant’s admission to the personal use of a firearm does not resolve the issue because a defendant can personally use a firearm without shooting it (e.g., brandishing a firearm).

Authority:

PEN 31

People v. Arzate (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 390, 400

Fourth Holding:

While we could reject his statement that he was an aider and abettor and accept his statement that he was the shooter, we cannot engage in judicial discretion at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1756, 1771 [an exercise of discretion means different courts may reasonably arrive at different decisions, even on the same facts]

Fifth Holding:

We review de novo a trial court’s denial of a section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage. Appellate courts also interpret statutes under a de novo standard.

Authority:

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

John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91, 95

Sixth Holding:

Generally, a person may be liable for a crime either as a direct perpetrator or as an aider and abettor. A person can be held liable for crimes that were intentionally aided and abetted (target offenses); a person can also be held liable for any crimes that were not intended but were reasonably foreseeable (nontarget offenses). Liability for an intentional, target offense is known as direct aider and abettor liability; liability for an unintentional, nontarget offense is known as the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Authority:

PEN 31

People v. Laster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1450, 1462–1463

People v. Montes (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1055

Seventh Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature narrowed accomplice liability theories for murder and attempted murder.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. The Legislature also created a special procedural mechanism for those convicted under the former law to seek retroactive relief under the law as amended.

Authority:

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

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

Eighth Holding:

Direct aider and liability is still a valid legal theory for homicide offenses after the Legislature amended sections 188 and 189. We have generally described the requisite mens rea for direct aiding and abetting as knowledge of the direct perpetrator’s unlawful intent and an intent to assist in achieving those unlawful ends.

Authority:

People v. Medrano (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 177, 183

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 468

Ninth Holding:

Under section 1172.6, if the petitioner makes a prima facie showing, the trial court must issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing. At the prima facie stage, the trial court examines the underlying record of conviction, but the court should not engage in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.

Authority:

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

Tenth Holding:

The trial court accepts the petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved. The court may consider jury instructions, jury verdicts, and other documents that are part of the record of conviction to determine whether the petitioner satisfies the conditions for relief.

If the record, 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 at the prima facie stage. For example, if the record of conviction irrefutably establishes as a matter of law that the jury determined that the petitioner was the actual killer, the trial court may properly deny the petition at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

People v. Flores (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1164, 1170

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

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 56, 60

Eleventh Holding:

When a petitioner’s conviction results from a guilty plea, the record of conviction includes facts “the defendant admitted as the factual basis for a guilty plea. And when a defendant pleads guilty, he or she admits every element of the charged offense. However, in a section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage, the court may ordinarily only consider the facts the defendant has stipulated to as part of the guilty plea to determine the theory under which the defendant was convicted.

Authority:

People v. Gallardo (2017) 4 Cal.5th 120, 136

People v. Rivera (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 217, 234

People v. Davenport (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 476, 484

Twelfth Holding:

The defendant’s ambiguous statement in his felony plea form that he was both an aider and abettor and the shooter does not refute as a matter of law his later averment in his section 1172.6 petition that he was convicted as an aider and abettor under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. In order to resolve the defendant’s factual claim there must be an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

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

 

 

Amelioration, Sentencing, Vicarious liability

Case 000644

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court denied the defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that the transcript of trhe preliminary examination showed that he was prosecuted as the direct perpetrator. Defendant contends the record of conviction does not conclusively foreclose relief. Alternatively, he requests a conditional reversal that would allow him to dispute hearsay statements testified to at the preliminary hearing. We will therefore remand the matter and direct the trial court to consider such an amended petition, should defendant elect to file one.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature enacted SB 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.), which amended sections 188 and 189 to eliminate several theories of liability based on imputed malice in homicide cases. The Legislature has also offered relief to those convicted under certain homicide theories, such as murder or attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, whose convictions are now tainted.

As relevant here, a defendant convicted of manslaughter may petition to have that conviction vacated if (a) the pleading allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder, 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, or attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine; (b) the petitioner accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which the petitioner could have been convicted of murder or attempted murder; and (c) the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.

An order to show cause must issue if a petitioner makes a prima facie case for relief. At an evidentiary hearing on the order to show cause, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty under current law.

Authority:

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

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 565, 568

Second Holding:

Some cases may be so straightforward as to prompt a concession of a prima facie showing and if the record contains any indication the petitioner had an accomplice who may have been the killer, a prima facie case ordinarily would be readily established, even by conclusory assertions in a form petition.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 560, fn. 4

Third Holding:

Section 1172.6(d)(3) expressly provides that hearsay evidence that was admitted in a preliminary hearing pursuant to section 872(b) shall be excluded from the resentencing evidentiary hearing as hearsay, unless the evidence is admissible pursuant to another exception to the hearsay rule. [Section 872(b), applicable to preliminary examinations, provides that the finding of probable cause to hold the defendant to answer in superior court on the felony may be based in whole or in part upon the sworn testimony of a qualified law enforcement officer relating the statements of declarants made out of court offered for the truth of the matter asserted.]

Thus, at an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6(d)(3), the officer’s statements would be excluded unless admissible under an Evidence Code exception to the hearsay rule. One appellate court has held that it was not error to deny a section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage based in part on hearsay testimony given by police officers at the preliminary hearing.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (2026) 117 Cal.App.5th 1179, 1185

Fourth Holding:

In light of Patton, the defendant should be provided an opportunity to argue the factual landscape of the preliminary hearing and be provided the opportunity to present testimony or other evidence to show he was not the actual killer. The trial court should also have the opportunity to consider any additional facts pled by defendant in support of a prima facie case for relief under section 1172.6.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 565, 569-570

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000643

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was resentenced under section 1172.75. The restitution fine must be vacated, as it is more than 10 years old. The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment accurately.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, the Legislature amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), which states: “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.” The fine in this case appears to have been imposed at the original sentencing in 1994, and must be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1469.5

Second Holding:

Though the abstract of judgment from 1994 does not reflect whether the trial court imposed the mandatory minimum restitution fine under section 1202.4(b), we presume, as the People argue, the court did. Thus, the superior court’s order imposing the restitution fine at the defendant’s resentencing in 2024 essentially reimposed the fine imposed in 1994, which section 1465.9 has now made unenforceable and uncollectible. We construe the superior court’s order as simply reimposing the original restitution fine, and the 10-year clock did not start anew.

Authority:

EVID 664 [It is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed]

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042 [we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it in imposing a restitution fine under section 1202.4]

People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114 [a trial court is presumed to have been aware of and followed the applicable law]

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

Third Holding:

After imposing the $300 restitution fine, the superior court stated: “$300 parole revocation fine, that is stayed pending successful—Well, I am going to strike that. There is no parole that’s going to be granted in this case.” As noted, the minute order and abstract of judgment indicate the court (1) imposed and stayed execution of a parole revocation fine under section 1202.45 and (2) imposed and struck “all financial obligations, excluding any actual victim restitution.” The reporter’s transcript of the resentencing hearing does not state the court made these rulings. The superior court must correct the minute order and abstract of judgment to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 244 [Ordinarily, where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls]

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2 [The record of the oral pronouncement of the court controls over the clerk’s minute order]

People v. Portillo (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 577, 603 [the oral pronouncement of sentence controls over a subsequently entered minute order]

Fourth Holding:

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.

Authority:

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

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 859

People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689 [we must correct the discrepancy by ordering the trial court to modify the minute order]

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000642

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the trial court erred by awarding fewer presentence conduct credits than ordered at the original sentencing, and the restitution fine must be vacated as it is now more than 10 years old.

First Holding:

Erroneous computation of presentence credits are subject to correction by the trial court or the appellate court when presented.

Authority:

People v. Guillen (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 756, 764

Second Holding:

The restitution fine was imposed at the time of the original sentencing in 1995. Section 1465.9(d) 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)

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000636

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter was remanded to the lower court following the defendant’s first appeal in this case so that it could exercise its discretion to strike the vicarious gun use enhancements. On resentencing following the defendant’s first appeal in this case, the trial court imposed enhancements for the personal use of a firearm (sec. 12022.53(b), in lieu of the vicarious liability enhancements found true by the jury under subdivisions (d) and (e)(1) of section 12022.53.

The personal use of a firearm enhancements must be vacated because there was no jury finding that the defendant had personally used a firearm during the offense. The vicarious enhancement must be reimposed, and the matter should be remanded back to the trial court so that it may exercise its discretion to strike those enhancements.

First Holding:

A trial court has discretion to strike a section 12022.53(d) firearm enhancement and impose a lesser uncharged enhancement under subdivisions (b) or (c). A trial court is not categorically prohibited from imposing an uncharged, lesser-included enhancement when the prosecution has alleged the greater enhancement and the facts supporting the lesser enhancement have been alleged and found true.

Authority:

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688

Second Holding:

In Arellano, our Supreme Court held that a trial court resentencing a petitioner under section 1172.6 lacked authority to impose a firearm enhancement that had never been admitted or found true by a trier of fact. The enhancement had been dismissed as part of a negotiated disposition, and the trial court relied on police reports and other hearsay summaries to conclude that the defendant was armed.

The court rejected this approach and explained that resentencing under section 1172.6 is limited to the target offense or underlying felony. A similar defect occurred here. The jury never found that the defendant personally used a firearm. Instead, the jury returned true findings only under section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1), which required proof that a principal discharged a firearm during a gang-related offense, causing great bodily injury or death.

As in Arellano, the trial court later relied on its own factual findings from a collateral proceeding (a separate hearing on the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6) to conclude that the defendant personally used a firearm during the offense. The trial court’s finding in a collateral proceeding was not sufficient to support imposition of the enhancement.

The matter is remanded for resentencing, during which the court shall exercise its discretion under section 1385 and Tirado to determine whether to strike or dismiss the lawfully adjudicated enhancements.

Authority:

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 464-465

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000635

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is remanded for the court to consider the recent decision in Kopp on the imposition of fines and fees, and also to conduct a full resentencing in light of this remand for resentencing.

First Holding:

Kopp clarified the standards applied when a defendant challenges the imposition of certain fines and fees on the grounds that they are unlawful because he cannot afford to pay them. We remand the matter to the trial court to apply those standards regarding its imposition of various fines and fees.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 31

Second Holding:

Because his conviction is not final on direct review, the defendant may be entitled to the benefit of various intervening changes in the law, including AB 333 (gang allegations) and the Racial Justice Act. AB 333, for example, limits what predicate offenses the People can now use to prove a group is a criminal street gang under Penal Code section 186.22.

On remand, the defendant can ask the trial court to provide relief under relevant intervening ameliorative sentencing laws, including but not limited to SB 81, 483, 567, and 1393; AB 333 and 518, as well as any appropriate challenges under the Racial Justice Act. But this court need not decide which intervening laws apply retroactively and whether their application requires any retrial or change in sentence.

Authority:

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 448

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 400

People v. Buza (2018) 4 Cal.5th 658, 693 [courts abide by a cardinal principle of judicial restraint—if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more]