Tag Archives: Recall of sentence or resentencing

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000634

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erroneously denied Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing relief at the prima facie stage. We reverse the trial court’s order denying resentencing relief and direct the trial court to issue an order to show cause.

First Holding:

SB 1437, effective as of January 1, 2019, made ameliorative changes to our state’s homicide law. As part of these ameliorative changes, malice, a key element the People must prove in a murder prosecution, may no longer be imputed to a defendant solely because the defendant participated in another crime. This means, for instance, that a defendant is no longer guilty of murder as an aider and abettor solely because the natural and probable consequences of that other crime included a confederate’s commission of murder.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

These ameliorative changes apply retroactively through the resentencing process set forth in section 1172.6. Those convicted of murder or attempted murder under certain imputed malice theories may seek resentencing. So may a person convicted of manslaughter who was charged with murder when three conditions apply. First, the charging document allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of murder in which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime. Second, the petitioner accepted a manslaughter plea offer in lieu of a trial on such a murder charge. And third, the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder because of the changes to homicide law that took effect in 2019.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

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

Third Holding:

Upon receipt of a facially sufficient petition — along with briefing in opposition or support — the trial court holds a hearing to determine whether a petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief. If so, the court issues an order to show cause and then holds an evidentiary hearing to determine entitlement to relief. If not, the court denies the petition.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 559, 562

Fourth Holding:

We independently review a trial court’s conclusion that a petitioner failed to make a prima facie case for relief. The record of conviction informs the prima facie determination. And that record includes a preliminary hearing transcript preceding a guilty plea. A court, however, may not engage in factfinding, weigh the evidence, or make credibility determinations at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

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

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971, 972

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 559, 568

Fifth Holding:

A review of the preliminary hearing transcript in this case reveals that it possible the defendant could have been convicted at trial under a now-invalid theory. There was witness testimony that two unidentified men initiated the attack, which raises at least a triable issue as to whether the defendant was the actual killer, and if he was not, whether he knew of and intended to aid in the criminal purpose of the actual killer as required for direct aiding and abetting. Given this state of the record of conviction, the defendant’s guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter does not prove that he could still be convicted of murder under current law.

Authority:

People v. Gaillard (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1206, 1213

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 567 [A dispute regarding the basis of a conviction might arise if, for instance, a petitioner points to specific facts that identify someone else as the direct perpetrator.]

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000629

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the superior court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine under section 1202.4(b), that is no longer enforceable or collectible, and it imposed additional fines and fees that were not originally imposed and which came into effect after the defendant’s original sentencing. We modify the judgment by vacating the challenged fines and fees.

First Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature enacted SB (Stats. 2021 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), retroactively invalidating prison prior enhancements imposed pursuant to section 667.5(b), except those that were based on a conviction for a sexually violent offense. Once the court verifies that the current judgment includes such a sentencing enhancement, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. Resentencing under section 1172.75 is not limited to striking the section 667.5(b), enhancement. Rather, the court must conduct a full resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Green (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 365, 368, 373

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 348, fn. 5

People v. Gray (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 148, 163

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 381

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 855

Second Holding:

Our review of the imposition of fines and fees is de novo.

Authority:

People v. Arroyo (2016) 62 Cal.4th 589, 593 [de novo review in cases of statutory interpretation]

People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 975, 983 [authority of trial court to impose fine or fees turns on relevant statutory provisions and presents essentially an issue of law]

Third Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9 was amended to add subdivision (d), which provides that, on 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 defendant was resentenced in November 2024, weeks before the effective date of the amendment. But the amendment applies retroactively to his sentence. The section 1202.4 restitution fine, which was imposed over 10 years ago in 2003, must therefore be vacated.

Authority:

PC 1465.9

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 748 [absent evidence to the contrary, we presume ameliorative criminal statutes apply retroactively to all nonfinal judgments]

Fourth Holding:

The statute authorizing the remaining fines and fees did not become effective until after the defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, the superior court was not authorized to impose these fines and fees on resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4th 749, 754

People v. Castillo (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1414

People v. Hayes (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1260, 1274 [A new statute is generally presumed to operate prospectively absent an express declaration of retroactivity or a clear and compelling implication that the Legislature intended otherwise]

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case 000625

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In the prior appeal, we reversed on the basis that the sentence was the functional equivalent of a term of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), and remanded for the trial court, as we specified in the remittitur, to consider the defendant’s application for resentencing under section 1170(d) as a person serving the functional equivalent of LWOP.

On remand, the trial court declined to find the defendant was serving the functional equivalent of LWOP, based on an opinion from another district subsequent to the case we relied on in our first opinion. The court had no jurisdiction to go outside the limits of our remittitur, and we remand the case to the lower court to carry out the directions in our remittitur. The matter is remanded to the trial court with the direction to find the defendant eligible for relief and to consider the merits of his petition.

First Holding:

This court has held that offenders sentenced to functionally equivalent LWOP terms are entitled to section 1170(d) relief under the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, in agreement with Heard. Another district has held otherwise.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Isayev (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1117, 1123, review granted November 12, 2025, S292860 [Holding that the availability of a youth offender parole hearing under section 3051, which requires such a hearing to be held no later than 25 years into the juvenile’s sentence, precludes finding that the juvenile has a sentence functionally equivalent to life without parole, and is thus ineligible for recall and resentencing under section 1170(d)]

Second Holding:

The remittitur both terminates the reviewing court’s jurisdiction of the case and proscribes the remaining jurisdiction of the receiving court. After the remittitur, the appellate court has no further jurisdiction of the appeal and all orders necessary to carry the judgment into effect shall be made by the court to which the certificate is remitted.

Authority:

PEN 1265

Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 701 [The order of the reviewing court is contained in its remittitur, which defines the scope of the jurisdiction of the court to which the matter is returned]

Snukal v. Flightways Manufacturing, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 754, 774, fn. 5 [The terms of the remittitur define the trial court’s jurisdiction to act]

Third Holding:

The trial court is bound by the directions given and has no authority to retry any other issue or to make any other findings. Its authority is limited wholly and solely to following the directions of the reviewing court. The order of the appellate court as stated in the remittitur, is decisive of the character of the judgment to which the appellant is entitled.

A trial court may not exceed the specific directions of a court of review in remanding a cause after a reversal. Action that does not conform to the appellate court’s directions is void. The trial court was not free to depart from the instructions in the remittitur, as the trial court must follow a remittitur even if it believes the decision was wrong or has been impaired by subsequent decisions.

Authority:

Rice v. Schmid (1944) 25 Cal.2d 259, 263

Hampton v. Superior Court (1952) 38 Cal.2d 652, 655-656

People v. Dutra (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1367

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000623

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in concluding that the defendant was not eligible for recall of sentence under section 1172.75 because he is serving a term of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). The prohibition applies only to those who are service an LWOP sentence as a result of conviction of specified sex offenses. It does not apply to those serving an LWOP sentence for other offenses. The language of the exclusion is conjunctive, not disjunctive. [Gary note: REVIEW HAS BEEN GRANTED IN THIS CASE AND HELD PENDING DIXON.]

First Holding:

As of January 1, 2025, 1172.75(f) provides that an individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code and sentenced to death or a life term without the possibility of parole, who, as of January 1, 2025, has not had their judgment reviewed and verified by the sentencing court as provided in subdivision (c), is not eligible for recall and resentencing under this section.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(f)

Second Holding:

This is a question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo.

Authority:

Brown v. City of Inglewood (2025) 18 Cal.5th 33, 40

Third Holding:

When interpreting any statute, our goal is to determine the Legislature’s intent and give effect to the statute’s purpose. We begin by examining the statute’s words, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning. We do not, however, consider the statutory language in isolation. We construe the words in question in context, keeping in mind the nature and obvious purpose of the statute. We also construe every statute with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part, so that all may be harmonized and anomalies avoided. The statute’s plain meaning controls the court’s interpretation unless its words are ambiguous. If the statutory language is unclear, we may look to legislative history and public policy as aids in determining how best to give effect to Legislative intent.

Authority:

Iloff v. LaPaille (2025) 18 Cal.5th 551, 560-561

Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310, 330

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1057

Fourth Holding:

Subsequent to defendant’s original sentencing, SB 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) amended section 667.5(b) to allow for the imposition of one-year prior prison term enhancements only for specified sexually violent offenses. Thereafter, the Legislature added section 1172.75, which provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense, is legally invalid. It also provided a process for recall of sentences rendered invalid and resentencing of affected defendants.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Fifth Holding:

Resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75 entitles a defendant to a full resentencing, including application of the rules of the Judicial Council and application of 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. Resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75 must “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. In no circumstance can resentencing result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067, fn. 3 [where section 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing, not simply striking the now-invalidated priors]

Sixth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, SB 285 amended section 1172.75 to add subdivision (f). Subdivision (f) provides: “Commencing on January 1, 2025, an individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and sentenced to death or a life term without the possibility of parole, who, as of January 1, 2025, has not had their judgment reviewed and verified by the sentencing court as provided in subdivision (c) [of section 1172.75], is not eligible for recall and resentencing under this section. This subdivision does not apply retroactively.”

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(f)

Seventh Holding:

The ordinary and usual usage of “and” is as a conjunctive, meaning “an additional thing, “also” or “plus.” By contrast, use of the word “or” in a statute indicates an intention to use it disjunctively so as to designate alternative or separate categories. But the word “and” is not always to be taken conjunctively. It is sometimes, in a fair and rational construction of a statute, to be read as if it were “or,” and taken disjunctively.

Thus, courts will sometimes substitute “or” for “and,” and vice versa, when necessary to accomplish the evident intent of the statute, but doing so is an exceptional rule of construction. Thus, for example, a court may substitute “or” for “and” to correct a drafting error where it appears clear that a word has been erroneously used, and a judicial correction will best carry out the intent of the adopting body. Additionally, a court may substitute “or” for “and” to avoid a construction of the statute that would make some words surplusage.

Authority:

People v. Reynoza (2024) 15 Cal.5th 982, 990–991

In re C.H. (2011) 53 Cal.4th 94, 102–103, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in In re Edward C. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 813, 824

(GARY NOTE: AS CAN BE READ IN THE SIMILAR CASE THAT WAS PUBLISHED THIS DATE, the court engaged in examining how the Legislature used “or” in other parts of the section where “or” was clearly intended, and “and” similarly. It was clear to this court that the Legislature was aware of the difference and that it intended to mean exactly what it said–the exclusion applies to a person who was sentenced to LWOP because of specified sexual offenses. The legislative history revealed that the amendment was in response to the impact of section 1172.75 on the sentence of a notorious defendant convicted of murder and sexual offenses for which he received death sentence several decades earlier. It also noted Dixon (in which review has been granted), which concluded that nothing in section 1172.75 excluded individuals under a judgment of death.

(People v. Dixon (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 236, 247, review granted Oct. 22, 2025, S292223 The issues on review in the Supreme Court in Dixon are described as: (1) May a superior court modify a death judgment under the recall and resentencing procedure in Penal Code section 1172.75? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the exclusivity provision of Penal Code section 1509 precludes modification of a death judgment under Penal Code section 1172.75? (3) Did the superior court have jurisdiction to resentence defendant pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75 when his appeal was pending before this court?

(People v. Robinson (2026) 120 Cal.App. 5th 516 (F089332, filed 5/8/2026) but review was granted in the published decision on 7/16/26, granted and held pending Dixon S292223)

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000620

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At a full resentencing conducted while vacating the defendant’s one-year prior prison sentence enhancements pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75, the trial court declined to consider whether two of defendant’s prior “strike” convictions were still valid under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, denied his request to dismiss those strikes under section 1385, imposed a new 10-year criminal protective order, and re-imposed a $5,000 restitution fine.

The matter is reversed for the court to hold a full resentencing hearing and exercise its discretion on whether or not to strike the prior convictions. Further, the court had no jurisdiction to reimpose a restitution fine because it had been ordered more than 10 years earlier and was rendered expired.

First Holding:

Under section 1172.75, a defendant who is eligible to have a prior prison sentence enhancement stricken is entitled to a full resentencing, at which time the trial court is to 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

People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 193, 195, review granted* Oct. 23, 2024, S286987

[*Gary note: The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Espino on July 2, 2026, and affirmed the result in the Court of Appeal Espino decision–that a person is entitled to relief under section 1172.75 even if the punishment for the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement was stricken–resolving a question that was left unanswered in People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050)]

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

Second Holding:

In Guevara, our Supreme Court held that a trial court engaged in a full resentencing under section 1172.75 of a person serving a life sentence under the Three Strikes Law must apply the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, including its provision according trial courts a discretionary override—as to defendants who would otherwise be eligible for relief—not to grant relief if the court determines that resentencing the defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 849-850

Third Holding:

Reversal and remand are necessary so that the trial court may consider whether the Reform Act would apply to the third-strike sentences imposed in this case and, if so, whether exercise of the court’s discretionary override is warranted. On remand, the court may also entertain any further requests to dismiss the prior strike convictions under section 1385(a)—but not under section 1385(c).

Authority:

People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 243-244

Fourth Holding:

However, the court may not impose a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4(b) because the 2025 amendment to section 1465.9 provides that a restitution fine expires 10 years after the date of imposition. Because the restitution fine in this case was imposed over 25 years ago, it expired and may not be reimposed.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

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

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000615

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals an order partially denying her request for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75. We reverse the order because she was entitled to have the court consider her eligibility for ameliorative relief under changes to the former version of section 186.22 (under which she had been convicted) made by AB 333.

First Holding:

The defendant’s judgment became nonfinal when she returned to the trial court under section 1172.75 for recall and resentencing. Section 1172.75 provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense, is legally invalid.

Once the trial court verifies the current judgment includes the enhancement, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. When resentencing the defendant, the court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and 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.

By the plain language of the statute, the defendant was entitled to be considered for any legislative enactments that might provide for a reduction of sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Saldana (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1270, 1276

Second Holding:

In the criminal law context, when ameliorative legislation goes into effect, we generally presume the Legislature intends the benefits of the new enactment to apply as broadly as constitutionally permissible to all nonfinal cases. For purposes of Estrada, the test for finality is whether the criminal prosecution or proceeding as a whole is complete.

The meaning of finality in the Estrada context is distinct from the issue of whether a judgment is final for purposes of appealability. In the context of recall and resentencing, a granting of a petition for resentencing renders a conviction nonfinal for purposes of retroactive application of ameliorative legislation.

Authority:

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745

People v. Esquivel (2021) 11 Cal.5th 671, 679

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 392-393

People v. Trent (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 251 [defendant entitled to retroactive application of Assembly Bill No. 333 upon resentencing under section 1172.6 based on changes to felony murder rule]

People v. Keel (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 546, 551 [defendant entitled to retroactive application for Proposition 57 and Senate Bill No. 1391 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) upon resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6]

Third Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature passed AB 333, enacting the STEP Forward Act of 2021. AB 333 made several changes to the law on gang enhancements.

First, it substantively narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang.

Second, it also changed former subdivision (f)’s requirement that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang to now require that any such pattern be collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, it also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (l) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as oppose to just persons; (3) the offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Fourth, it narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational. The defendant was entitled to the benefit of AB 333 because her judgment was not final when the court engaged in resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75

Authority:

PEN 186.22

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

Amelioration, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000612

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the trial court to resentence the defendant under section 1172.75 in his absence where there was no waiver of his presence.

First Holding:

Reversal is required for a new hearing at which defendant may be present or validly waive his presence. Nothing in the record at the resentencing hearing reflected a valid waiver, nor similarly was there evidence that the defendant or his attorney previously entered a valid waiver on the record. We cannot say the error was harmless given that section 1172.75(d)(3) calls for consideration of the postconviction factors defendant enumerated in his brief, but the defendant was deprived of his right to address these factors personally if he chose to do so or to aid his attorney in doing so. The error thus was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Velasco (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 663, 674

People v. Quan (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 524, 535

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

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000610

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erroneously believed that the defendant was categorically ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 because he was serving an indeterminate sentence under the “Three Strikes” law. Because the record does not clearly indicate that the court would have made the same decision had it been aware of the full scope of its resentencing power and discretion, we reverse and remand the matter with directions for the court to conduct a full resentencing under section 1172.75.

First Holding:

Once the trial court confirms that the underlying judgment includes an invalid prior prison term enhancement, the court must recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. A defendant who is eligible for relief under section 1172.75 is entitled to a full resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 667.5

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067, fn. 3

Second Holding:

Section 1172.75(d) establishes several parameters for resentencing.

First, the resentencing 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.

Second, the court must apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and 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.

Third, the court may consider postconviction factors that speak to whether continued incarceration remains in the interest of justice, such as the defendant’s physical condition and records of discipline and rehabilitation while incarcerated.

Finally, unless the court originally imposed the upper term, the court may not impose a sentence exceeding the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and those facts 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.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Third Holding:

A trial court has the authority to exercise its discretion under section 1385(a) and Romero to strike any or all of a defendant’s strike priors after recalling his sentence and for the purposes of resentencing him under section 1172.75. As the court in Rogers explained, because a trial court’s power under section 1385(a) to dismiss or strike a strike prior is independent of either the Three Strikes law or the subsequent Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, any exercise of that power at a resentencing proceeding under section 1172.75 does not offend either.

Authority:

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

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 362, 364

Fourth Holding:

Where, as here, a trial court sentences a defendant without being aware of the full scope of its sentencing discretion, remand is required to allow the court to fully exercise that discretion unless the record clearly indicates that the court would have reached the same decision had it been aware of the scope of its discretion.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case 000608

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The denial of the defendant’s motion for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 is reversed, and the court is directed to grant the petition. After examination of all the evidence, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support any theory today under which the defendant coould be convicted of murder.

First Holding:

The defendant was the assigned getaway driver who was not present in the building where the robbery took place. A bystander was killed by the police during the confrontation between the other defendants and the police. The defendant entered a plea bargain in which he pleaded guilty to one count of felony murder. First degree implied malice murder is not a valid theory of conviction for an accomplice under the provocative act theory of murder; the accomplice must harbor express malice–the specific intent to kill–in order to be properly convicted of first degree murder under this theory.

Authority:

People v. Concha (2009) 47 Cal.4th 653, 662

Second Holding:

The felony murder rule is not applicable where the killing was committed by a third party (e.g., police officer) who was not involved in the perpetration of the underlying felony. Because the felony murder rule is not applicable to these facts, the Banks/Clark inquiry as to the degree of defendant’s participation in the robbery and whether he displayed reckless indifference to human life during the course of the robbery is also inapplicable.

The provocative act murder doctrine arose as an alternative to felony-murder liability in circumstances where the killing was committed by a third party who was not involved in the perpetration of the underlying felony. A provocative act murder case necessarily involves at least three people—the perpetrator of the underlying offense, an accomplice, and a victim of their crime.

Authority:

People v. Taylor (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 849, 861, 866

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522

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

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 727

Third Holding:

SB 1437, which took effect on January 1, 2019, limited accomplice liability under the felony-murder rule and eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder, to ensure that a person’s sentence is commensurate with his or her individual criminal culpability.

Authority:

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-844

Fourth Holding:

This court will ignore the findings purportedly made by the trial court following the remand from the court in the earlier appeal, as they were outside the scope of the remittitur. The remittitur defines the scope of the trial court’s jurisdiction to act, and action which does not conform to the reviewing court’s directions is unauthorized and void. Trial courts are bound by the directions given by a reviewing court and have no authority to retry any other issue or to make any other findings; the court’s authority is limited wholly and solely to following the directions of the reviewing court.

Authority:

In re J.M. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 745, 755

People v. Dutra (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1367

Fifth Holding:

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The requisite malice may be express or implied. 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.

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. The defendant’s life-endangering act must proximately cause the victim’s death and to suffice for implied malice murder, the defendant’s act must involve a high degree of probability that it will result in death.

A relevant life-endangering act is one that proximately causes the victim’s death. It is an act or omission that sets in motion a chain of events that produces as a direct, natural and probable consequence of the act or omission the death of the victim and without which the death would not occur.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 988-989

People v. Cervantes (2016) 26 Cal.4th 860, 866

Sixth Holding:

Notwithstanding SB 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. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990

Seventh 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.

The direct aider and abettor must, therefore, act with intent to aid the life-endangering act of the direct perpetrator that proximately causes the death. Implied malice murder requires attention to the aider and abettor’s mental state concerning the life endangering act committed by the direct perpetrator, such as shooting at the victim.

The aider and abettor must know the direct perpetrator intends to commit the murder or life-endangering act and intend to aid the direct perpetrator in its commission. It is this mental relationship to the perpetrator’s acts that confers liability on the aider and abettor.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990-992

People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 311

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

Eighth Holding:

We remand the case with directions to grant the petition and resentence defendant on the underlying offense of robbery.

Authority:

People v. Dixon (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 116, 137, fn. 3 [Granting the petition for resentencing, as opposed to ordering a new evidentiary hearing, may be the appropriate remedy where a petitioner successfully demonstrates no substantial evidence supports the denial of a section 1172.6 petition even considering erroneously admitted evidence at an evidentiary hearing]

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000607

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the prior strikes were incurred before the AB 333 amendments to criminal gang activity laws, and were dependent on gang activity findings made under the old law, the sentence is reversed and the matter is remanded for the court to determine whether those prior convictions would still be considered strikes under the current law on gang activity crimes.

Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) significantly modified the elements of gang-related offenses and enhancements. After appellant was sentenced, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Fletcher. In Fletcher, the high court held that when a defendant has a conviction under the prior version of section 186.22, whether that conviction still qualifies as a prior serious felony for purposes of the “Three Strikes” law and prior serious felony enhancements must be viewed under the current version of section 186.22. Because the sentence is vacated, the court shall conduct a full resentencing consistent with current law.

Authority:

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

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

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000604

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court denied the defendant’s motion under section 1172.6 to recall his sentence on his 1999 murder convictions (he had hired someone to kill his father, and that person also killed the defendant’s mother in the process, all while the defendant was away from the home in which they were killed). We conclude the defendant’s acquittal on first degree murder of his mother precluded a finding that he had intended to kill her. We remand for the court to consider whether he remains guilty of his mother’s murder under a theory of implied malice. In doing so, the court should consider his youth at the time of the offense.

First Holding:

The defendant hired a person to kill the defendant’s father. The hiree did so, but also killed the defendant’s mother. The jury convicted the defendant of first degree murder of the father, but of only second degree murder of his mother. In our view, the defendant’s acquittal of first degree murder as to the mother precluded a finding that he intended to kill her. First degree murder generally requires a premeditated and deliberate intent to kill. Second degree murder requires either an intent to kill without premeditation and deliberation or implied malice—conscious disregard for human life.

Authority:

People v. Whisenhunt (2008) 44 Cal.4th 174, 201

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 151–152

Second Holding:

After the defendant’s trial, the Legislature amended the law of murder to eliminate liability based on imputed malice, including the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Section 1172.6 provides retroactive relief to defendants convicted under those now-invalid theories. Under principles of collateral estoppel, a jury’s finding at trial precludes a contrary finding in a section 1172.6 hearing.

Authority:

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

People v. Arnold (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 376, 385-386 [discussing collateral estoppel]

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s factual findings in denying a section 1172.6 petition for substantial evidence. But the preclusive effect of a defendant’s partial acquittal is a legal issue we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Arnold (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 376, 383

Fourth Holding:

We presume the jury meticulously followed the trial court’s instructions. We thus conclude the jury found that that the defendant lacked an intent to kill the mother, precluding the trial court’s contrary finding.

Authority:

People v. Cruz (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 69, 73

Fifth Holding:

The erroneous finding was not harmless. Although the record could have supported liability under a theory of implied malice, the trial court did not evaluate that theory and we cannot conclude it would have reached the same result if it had. The defendant was 19 years old at the time of the crimes—still on the lower end of the young adult age range. Recent decisions have emphasized that youths may be less able to appreciate risks and consequences and thus that courts must consider defendants’ youth in deciding if they acted with implied malice or reckless indifference.

Authority:

People v. Jimenez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 994, 1001-1004, 1007

People v. Pittman (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 400, 416–418

Jurisdiction, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000602

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Although the trial court had the jurisdiction to correct clerical errors, it had no jurisdiction after the judgment was final to correct judicial errors. Thus, it had no jurisdiction to set aside the credit for time served that it had awarded years earlier. The order eliminating the credits must be vacated.

(Because the new offenses were committed in prison while serving an earlier commitment, the new sentence was required to run consecutively, and he was not entitled to credit for time while serving his term on the original offense to be applied against the new consecutive sentence. Nonetheless, the court originally awarded him nearly two years credit for time served.)

First Holding:

The question whether the trial court had jurisdiction to eliminate custody credits after a final judgment is a pure question of law we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Camp (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 461, 467

Second Holding:

Under the general common law rule, a trial court loses jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has begun. While there are some exceptions to that rule, none justifies the court’s elimination of the defendant’s custody credits.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

A court has inherent power to correct a clerical error at any time. Clerical error, however, is to be distinguished from judicial error which cannot be corrected by amendment. The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered. Here, the trial court’s orders imposing the custodial credits in 2010, 2021, and again in 2024 were plainly judicial—not clerical—errors.

Authority:

In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 63

In re Rojas (1979) 23 Cal.3d 152, 154

Fourth Holding:

Section 1172.1(a)(1) does not apply here, because (1) it was not the Caliofrnia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation secretary who sent the letter pointing out the errors, but a records analyst who sent the letter; (2) the sentencing was not within 120 days of the date of commitment; and (3) the request did not relate to a change of sentencing laws since the original sentencing. Moreover, the sentence was in fact greater than the original sentence.

Authority:

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 987 [letter came from a case records manager, not the secretary and did not reference section 1172.1 or use the terms recall or resentencing]

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 791–792

Fifth Holding:

Regarding jurisdiction to correct an unauthorized sentence, we find King to be a better reasoned case than Codinha. King reasoned that the “venerable notion” that an unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time had been rejected by the Supreme Court in In re G.C.. The unauthorized sentence doctrine is an exception to the waiver doctrine, in that a party does not forfeit the right to argue that a sentence is unlawful by failing to object in the trial court. It is not, however, an exception to the requirement of jurisdiction. Rather, in order to invoke the unauthorized sentence doctrine to remedy a judgment of conviction, the trial court must still have jurisdiction over the judgment.

Authority:

People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 635

In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1129

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 66

People v. Garcia (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 139, 145–146

People v. Hernandez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1123

Sixth Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE