Tag Archives: Sentencing

Sentencing

Case 000867

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Two of the three identical special circumstances of multiple murder on the three counts of murder must be vacated.

First Holding:

When a defendant kills multiple people, the prosecution should allege only one multiple-murder special circumstance. Here, the prosecution alleged three multiple-murder special circumstances, one as to each count of murder, and the jury accordingly returned three true findings on that allegation. The Supreme Court has consistently found that an error of this nature is harmless, however, and the remedy is to simply strike the superfluous findings. We do so here.

Authority:

People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1148-1149

Second Holding:

When a defendant has been convicted of more than one count of murder in the same proceeding, he may be sentenced to a consecutive term of LWOP as to each count.

Authority:

PEN 190.2(a)(3)

People v. Garnica (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1558, 1562–1564

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000865

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We order correction of the abstract of judgment, which incorrectly lists the fines and fees imposed in this case as stayed, not waived, contrary to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.

Holding:

We order correction of the abstract of judgment, which incorrectly lists the fines and fees imposed in this case as stayed, not waived, contrary to the trial court’s oral pronouncement.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [a reviewing court may correct a clerical error in an abstract of judgment at any time]

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000864Abstract of judgment or minute order, Fines and fees, Restitution fine, Sentencing,

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the restitution fine must be stricken because it is more than 10 years old.

Further, the abstract of judgment must be correct to reflect that the sentence was 68 years to life, not the 69 years to life shown in the abstract.

First Holding:

AB 1186 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), which 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.

By its plain terms, the subdivision applies retroactively to make any unpaid portion of the restitution fine unenforceable and uncollectible upon the expiration of the 10-year time period, and also mandates that any portion of a judgment imposing such a fine be vacated. We will modify the judgment to vacate the restitution fine.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

People v. Greeley (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 609, 626 [ameliorative changes of AB 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), which enacted section 1465.9, applied retroactively; the subdivisions enacted by that bill have materially identical language to subdivision (d)]

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600-601, review granted (on a different issues) Mar. 11, 2026, S295038 [vacating restitution fine older than 10 years where the fine was reimposed at resentencing]

Second Holding:

The abstract of judgment does not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment. The trial court imposed an indeterminate term of 68 years to life for count 1. But the abstract of judgment incorrectly shows an indeterminate term of 69 years to life.

Because we will direct the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the modified judgment, we will also direct that the amended abstract of judgment accurately reflect the term imposed for count 1.

Authority:

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385 [the oral pronouncement of judgment controls where there is a discrepancy between it and the abstract of judgment]

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Duty of the court, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000863

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We modify the sentence by vacating the trial court’s stay of punishment for the firearm enhancement and instead strike the punishment.

First Holding:

After taking the defendant’s admission to the firearm enhancement, the trial court did not impose additional punishment for it. Instead, the trial court incorrectly imposed and stayed the low term of three years for the firearm enhancement. Generally, a court has no discretion to stay an enhancement.

The court must either impose or strike the enhancement. Under section 1385(b)(1), the court may also strike the punishment, instead of the enhancement itself. The trial court’s stay of the enhancement resulted in an unauthorized sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1385(b)(1)

People v. Haykel (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 146, 151

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 355, 364-365

People v. Eberhardt (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1112, 1122–1123

People v. Bradley (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 386, 391

Second Holding:

A resentencing hearing is unnecessary because the correction does not require resolving a factual dispute or exercising discretion. The trial court did not intend to dismiss the firearm enhancement because an admission to it was required by the plea agreement. Nor did the trial court intend to impose additional punishment for the firearm enhancement.

The record clearly supports the court’s intention to strike the punishment for the enhancement had it known a stay was not possible. We accordingly modify the sentence by vacating the trial court’s order that imposed and stayed the three-year term for the firearm enhancement as to count 1. We further modify the sentence to comply with the terms of the plea agreement by striking the punishment for the firearm enhancement pursuant to section 1385(b)(1).

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 294

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473

Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000862

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed an incorrect maximum term for the juvenile, and one of the probation conditions was overbroad.

First Holding:

The court declared that the maximum confinement time for the minor was 16 years, when it fact the maximum was 10 years.

Welfare and Institutions Code section 726(d)(1) provides that if the minor is removed from the physical custody of the minor’s parent or guardian as the result of an order of wardship made pursuant to section 602, the order shall specify that the minor may not be held in physical confinement for a period in excess of the middle term of imprisonment that could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the offense or offenses which brought or continued the minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 726(d)(1)

Second Holding:

Section 726 defines the maximum term of imprisonment as the middle of the three time periods set forth in section 1170(a)(3) of the Penal Code, plus enhancements.

To the extent section 726 is ambiguous, we think it logical that the method for selecting the term for the underlying offense should apply in selecting the term for an enhancement.

Here, the middle term for the underlying offense is six years, and the middle term for the enhancement is four years, for a total of ten years.

Authority:

WIC 726(d)(2)

In re George M. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 376, 381 [interpreting prior version of section 726]

Third Holding:

The juvenile court ordered a total commitment of in terms of a number of days that exceed even the 16-year maximum confinement time in the court’s minute order. Rather than expressing the commitment in days, we will modify the disposition order such that appellant’s total commitment is for the maximum confinement period of 10 years.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 896, fn. 15 [remand unnecessary where maximum sentence had been imposed]

Fourth Holding:

Appellant’s probation conditions included the following: (1) “You shall not possess, nor shall you knowingly associate with anyone who possesses, any weapon, including, but not limited to firearms, pellet or BB guns, chemical weapons, a replica of any weapon, ammunition, or C02 canisters. You shall not remain in any vehicle where you know anyone has such a weapon or ammunition”; and (2) “You shall not associate with any person who is using or trafficking in any controlled substance, including marijuana.”

The juvenile court has wide discretion to select appropriate conditions, but a probation condition that imposes limitations on a person’s constitutional rights must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad. While we generally review the imposition of probation conditions for abuse of discretion, we review constitutional challenges to probation conditions de novo.

The two conditions at issue are overbroad because they encompass people who legally possess weapons and use controlled substances. We will modify these conditions to specify that they apply only to illegal possession or use. While the word “trafficking” seems to imply illegal conduct, to remove any doubt, we will also specify that the trafficking must be illegal. The condition prohibiting association with those using or trafficking in controlled substances lacks a knowledge requirement. Modification to impose an explicit knowledge requirement is necessary to render the condition constitutional.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118

People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717, 723

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 892

People v. Garcia (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 101-102

Eighth Amendment, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000857

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed an incorrect term for one of the counts of conviction. It appears that the court may not have considered whether section 654 applies to some counts. And the court’s medical costs order requires clarification.

First Holding:

The court imposed one year in the county jail for violation of Health and Safety Code section 11364 (possession of narcotics paraphernalia), a misdemeanor. Because there is no specific sentence defined for that offense, the general provisions of section 11374 apply.

Every person who violates or fails to comply with any provision of the division that includes section 11364, except one for which a penalty is otherwise in that division specifically provided, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine in a sum not less than thirty dollars ($30) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by imprisonment for not less than 15 nor more than 180 days.

It was error to impose a jail term greater than 180 days, and the sentence imposed was an unauthorized sentence.

Authority:

HSC 11364

HSC 11374

People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19, 26 [a sentence is generally unauthorized when it cannot be lawfully imposed under any circumstance in a particular case]

Second Holding:

On remand, the trial court may reconsider all components of defendant’s sentence, including whether section 654 applies to counts 3 and 4.

Authority:

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 994

Third Holding:

The trial court ordered defendant to pay for his own medical costs or medical fees while incarcerated. The trial court was not authorized to require him to pay his medical costs or fees while in prison. The probation report cited section 4011 as the authority for the medical costs order, but that section applies only to medical care of prisoners while in a city or county jail and not costs incurred during state level incarceration.

Further, section 5007.5 prohibits the Secretary from imposing a fee for inmate-initiated medical visits in prison. The statute does not prohibit requiring a prisoner to pay any other medical fees or bills that may be charged to him while incarcerated.

On remand, the trial court is instructed to clarify its order requiring defendant to pay his medical costs and fees in accordance with Penal Code section 5007.5.

Authority:

PEN 5007.5 [prohibiting the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from charging a fee for an inmate-initiated medical visit of an inmate confined in the state prison.]

PEN 4011 [concerning incarceration in a city or county jail]

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

Case 000856

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This is an appeal from a hearing on the petition for resentencing under section 1172.75. Because the trial court did not orally pronounce sentence on defendant’s conviction, impose the mandatory parole revocation fine, or calculate credits for time served, we remand the matter for full resentencing. On remand, the trial court is directed to orally impose judgment; determine what the amount of the restitution fine would have been so it can impose, then stay, the parole revocation fine in a proper amount, and calculate credit for time served.

First Holding:

Our review of the record reveals the court did not orally pronounce judgment. Accordingly, we must remand the matter for a full resentencing. The failure to pronounce sentence on a count is an unauthorized sentence and subject to correction on remand, as is the failure to impose a parole revocation fine required by section 1202.45. Because an unauthorized sentence is a narrow exception to the general requirement that only those claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal, we raise the issue even though neither party has addressed it.

Authority:

People v. Price (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1405, 1411 fn. 6

People v. Terrell (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1255

People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19, 26

Second Holding:

Because the trial court’s recall of defendant’s sentence pursuant to section 1172.75(c) vacated that sentence, the trial court was required to conduct a full resentencing. While the court struck defendant’s now-invalid section 667.5(b) enhancements and ruled on his Romero motion, it did not orally pronounce judgment on defendant for his conviction for possessing cocaine. Nor did it orally reimpose the restitution fine or parole revocation fine or calculate actual custody credits. Because the trial court’s failure to orally pronounce judgment resulted in an unauthorized sentence, we remand for a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 360-361

Third Holding:

While the term of imprisonment, parole revocation fine, and actual custody credits are nevertheless listed in the minute order and abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement of judgment controls over both.

Authority:

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

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

Fourth Holding:

A trial court has a duty in both felony and misdemeanor cases to pronounce sentence on every conviction.

Authority:

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 994

Fifth Holding:

Add Section 1465.9 bars reimposition of the restitution fine upon defendant. Because the restitution fine was originally imposed on defendant more than 10 years ago, the fine is uncollectable and unenforceable by operation of law.
blurb here

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

People v. Bertsch and Hronis (2026) 19 Cal.5th 183, 332

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600-601 [resentencing does not restart sec. 1465.9’s 10-year clock], review granted on a different issue Mar. 11, 2026, S295038

Sixth Holding:

Although section 1465.9(d) imposed a 10-year limit on the enforcement and collection of the restitution fine, it did not provide relief with respect to the parole revocation fine. Under section 1202.45 and Kopp that fine remains mandatory and must be set in the same amount as the court would have set for defendant’s restitution fine even though the restitution fine itself may no longer be reimposed.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23-24

Seventh Holding:

Finally, at resentencing, the trial court is required to credit the defendant with all actual days he had spent in custody up to that time, including time in custody after the original sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

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

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000855

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred under section 654 by imposing concurrent sentences on three separate convictions arising from the same single act.

First Holding:

Section 654(a) provides that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. When a court determines that a conviction falls within the meaning of section 654, it is necessary to impose sentence but to stay the execution of the duplicative sentence. The imposition of concurrent sentences is precluded by section 654 because under such a sentence the defendant is deemed to be subjected to the term of both sentences although they are served simultaneously.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 796

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 380 [The trial court is required to impose judgment on each count, which involves selecting a term, and then staying execution of the duplicative sentence, the stay to become permanent upon defendant’s service of the portion of the sentence not stayed.]

Second Holding:

Section 654 provides the trial court with discretion to impose and execute the sentence of either term, which could result in the trial court imposing and executing the shorter sentence rather than the longer sentence.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379

Third Holding:

One provision of the One Strike law, section 667.61(h)), states: “Notwithstanding any other law, probation shall not be granted to, nor shall the execution or imposition of sentence be suspended for, a person who is subject to punishment under this section.”

There is a split of authority over whether this provision precludes a sentencing court from staying execution of a One Strike sentence under section 654. We conclude that People v. Govan has the better reasons view of the interplay between section 667.61(h) and section 654.

Authority:

People v. Caparaz (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 669

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1032-1035 [Based on the Govan court’s review of legislative history, the “no suspension clause” must be read in the context of a bar against the grant of probation, and does not supersede section 654’s prohibition against multiple punishment, disagreeing with Caparaz.]

Fourth Holding:

When we interpret a statute, our fundamental task is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose.

We first examine the statutory language, giving it a plain and commonsense meaning. If the language is clear, courts must generally follow its plain meaning unless a literal interpretation would result in absurd consequences the Legislature did not intend.

If the statutory language permits more than one reasonable interpretation, courts may consider other aids, such as the statute’s purpose, legislative history, and public policy.

Furthermore, we consider portions of a statute in the context of the entire statute and the statutory scheme of which it is a part, giving significance to every word, phrase, sentence, and part of an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose.

Authority:

People v. Reynoza (2024) 15 Cal.5th 982, 989–990

Fifth Holding:

Courts have recognized that the suspension clause’s language has a technical meaning unique to a grant of probation. We therefore conclude the Legislature intended for section 667.61(h)’s suspension clause to have its technical, probation related meaning.

Indeed, as used in section 1203(a), “probation” means the suspension of the imposition or execution of a sentence and the order of conditional and revocable release in the community under the supervision of a probation officer.

When the Legislature uses a term of art, a court construing that use must assume that the Legislature was aware of the ramifications of its choice of language. We therefore conclude the Legislature intended for section 667.61(h)’s suspension clause to have its technical, probation related meaning.

Authority:

PEN 7(c) [Words and phrases shall be construed according to the context and the approved usage of the language, but technical words and phrases, and any others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law, shall be construed according to that peculiar and appropriate meaning.]

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1033

People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524, 536, fn. 8 [the words ‘suspension of execution’ are employed in conjunction with a grant of probation and have developed into terms of art], (disapproved on another ground by People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3)

People v. Borynack (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 958, 965

Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838, 850, fn. 3

Sixth Holding:

This interpretation is consistent with how some courts have interpreted similarly worded statutes. Many related criminal statutes with related purposes contain language identical to section 667.61(h). Courts have not historically interpreted similar statutory provisions as precluding a stay under section 654.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1138, 1141 [We consider the language of the entire scheme and related statutes, harmonizing the terms when possible.]

People v. Barela (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 152, 160 [holding section 1203.06–with similar language–does not preclude a stay under section 654]

People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524, 536, fn. 8 [rejecting as unpersuasive the contention that a prohibition on suspension of execution of sentence under repealed section 12311 precluded a stay under section 654]

Seventh Holding:

We presume that when the Legislature enacted section 667.61 in 1994 and amended it in 2006, the Legislature was aware of how courts had interpreted identical statutory language and that the Legislature intended for that interpretation to also apply to section 667.61.

Where legislation has been judicially construed and a subsequent statute on the same or an analogous subject uses identical or substantially similar language, we may presume that the Legislature intended the same construction, unless a contrary intent clearly appears.

Authority:

People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293, 1367

Eighth Holding:

Finally, we are satisfied that interpreting section 667.61 as allowing a stay under section 654 is consistent with the One Strike law’s legislative purpose in imposing lengthy prison sentences for certain sex offenses.

Although interpreting section 667.61 this way allows for shorter sentences in some circumstances, it does not require it. Rather, it leaves the decision to the trial court’s sound sentencing discretion.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Reynoza (2024) 15 Cal.5th 982, 989

Ninth Holding:

When a sentencing court is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

In light of the presumption on a silent record that the trial court is aware of the applicable law, including statutory discretion at sentencing, we cannot presume error where the record does not establish on its face that the trial court misunderstood the scope of that discretion.

The record indicates, however, that the trial court did not understand the scope of its discretion. The court expressly stated it took no joy in imposing the harsh sentence, and that it had imposed counts concurrently wherever it could, but that it had no discretion to impose other than the harsh sentence–that the sentence it imposed were the only options.

Therefore, we must remand for resentencing given the extent of the court’s full discretion under section 654.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424

People v. Gutierrez (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 515, 527

(Gary note, of marginal historical interest: Prior to 1998, Penal Code section 654 had exactly the same language as it currently has, and a court was free to impose sentence on any one of the counts to which section 654 applied. See People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1. In response to that Supreme Court decision, the Legislature amended section 654 to require that the court impose sentence on the count containing the longest potential term. Through AB 518, effective 1/1/2022, the Legislature restored section 654 to its former language, thus restoring to the court the discretion to choose on which count punishment should be imposed and executed.)

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000853

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault on a child. We agree the trial court did not make the necessary probable cause finding for the defendant to undergo AIDS testing absent evidence of transfer of bodily fluids. Remanded for the court to hold a hearing to see if there is evidence warranting the order.

First Holding:

Section 1202.1 requires that a court order AIDS testing if the defendant is convicted of specified sex offenses if the court finds that there is probable cause to believe that blood, semen, or any other bodily fluid capable of transmitting HIV has been transferred from the defendant to the victim.

Authority:

PEN 1202.1(e)(5)(A)

Second Holding:

There was no evidence presented to the sentencing court that such a transfer occurred. But it would be inappropriate simply to strike the testing order without remanding for further proceedings to determine whether the prosecution has additional evidence that may establish the requisite probable cause. On remand, the court should conduct further proceedings to determine whether probable cause exists to order AIDS testing under section 1202.1(e)(5)(A).

Authority:

People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, 1129

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

Case 000849

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing hearing held under section 1172.75, the resentencing court erred by (1) imposing consecutive sentences on the defendant’s attempted murder and felon in possession of a firearm counts because the court was unaware of its discretion to impose concurrent terms, (2) not recalculating custody credits, and (3) reimposing a restitution fine under section 1202.4.

First Holding:

When the Three Strikes law applies, sentences for current qualifying offenses must be ordered to run consecutively to each other if the current offenses occur on separate occasions and do not arise from the same set of operative facts.

Conversely, where a sentencing court determines that two or more current felony convictions were either committed on the same occasion or arise from the same set of operative facts, consecutive sentencing is not required under the three strikes law, but is permissible in the trial court’s sound discretion.

Authority:

PEN 667(c)(6)

People v. Henderson (2022) 14 Cal.5th 34, 45

People v. Lawrence (2000) 24 Cal.4th 219, 233

Second Holding:

When the record shows the trial court proceeded with sentencing on the erroneous assumption it lacked discretion, remand is necessary so that the court may have the opportunity to exercise its sentencing discretion at a new sentencing hearing. Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court, and a court that is unaware of its discretionary authority cannot exercise its informed discretion.

Authority:

People v. Brown (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1228

Third Holding:

The attempted murder and felon in possession of a firearm counts were based on the defendant’s possession and use of the same firearm. There is no suggestion that the defendant possessed more than one gun when he committed the offenses.

Because the attempted murder and felon in possession of a firearm counts arose from the same set of operative facts, the resentencing court had discretion to impose concurrent sentences. Remand for resentencing is appropriate as the court was unaware of its discretion, and there is no indication that had it been aware of its discretion, it would nevertheless have imposed consecutive terms.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1567

People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 600

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

Fourth Holding:

When a felony sentence is modified during the term of imprisonment, the trial court must recalculate and credit the actual time defendant had served on his sentence prior to the modification. Where a defendant has served any portion of his sentence under a commitment based upon a judgment which judgment is subsequently declared invalid or which is modified during the term of imprisonment, such time shall be credited upon any subsequent sentence he may receive upon a new commitment for the same criminal act or acts. On remand, the resentencing court must recalculate the defendant’s custody credits for actual time served.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23

Fifth Holding:

The restitution fine imposed under section 1202.4 must be vacated under section 1465.9. Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9 was amended to add subdivision (d), which 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.

Because the defendant’s restitution fine was imposed more than 10 years ago, any balance is unenforceable and uncollectable by operation of law. The fine must be vacated

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

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

Case 000848

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in imposing an indeterminate sentence on the attempted sodomy conviction and failed to properly calculate the defendant’s determinate sentence.

First Holding:

In evaluating claims of insufficient evidence, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence such that a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We presume the existence of every fact supporting the judgment that the jury reasonably could deduce from the evidence. A judgment will be reversed only if there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict under any hypothesis. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury, reweigh the evidence, or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses.

Authority:

People v. Elliot (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 466

People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206

People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331

Second Holding:

Under either simple or aggravated kidnapping, the asportation element requires that the movement be more than that which is merely incidental to the commission or attempted commission of the associated crime.

Simple kidnapping requires that the defendant moved the victim a substantial distance, but no minimum distance is required.

The aggravated kidnapping circumstance, however, also requires that the movement substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim beyond that inherent in the underlying offense. The increased risk may be of either physical or psychological harm.

Authority:

People v. Waqa (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 565, 577-578

Third Holding:

The crime of attempted sodomy is not subject to the One Strike law under section 667.61(c). Thus, it was error to impose an indeterminate sentence for that offense.

Authority:

PEN 667.61

People v. Rodriguez (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 204, 217

Fourth Holding:

Sentencing a defendant for offenses subject to determinate terms involves a three-step process:

First, the trial court is required to select a base term—either the statutory low, middle or upper term—for each of the crimes.

Second, if the court determines that a consecutive sentence is merited, it must designate the crime with the greatest selected base term as the principal term and the other crimes as subordinate terms.

Third, the court sentences the defendant to the full base term it selected for the principal term crime and one-third of the middle term for any crimes for which the sentence is ordered to run consecutively.

A subordinate term is one-third of the middle term even if the trial court had initially selected the lower or upper term as the base term. The court did not follow this procedure on three of the counts, and resentencing is required.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1

People v. Rodriguez (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 204, 211-212

Fifth Holding:

Generally, when a defendant successfully appeals a criminal conviction, California’s constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy precludes the imposition of more severe punishment on resentencing.

This rule does not apply, however, when a trial court imposes an unauthorized sentence. In such cases, courts may impose the proper judgment on remand even though it is more severe than the original unauthorized pronouncement.

Authority:

People v. Vizcarra (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 422, 431

People v. Burhop (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 808, 814 [An unauthorized sentence renders the unlawful part of a judgment of conviction and sentence void and correctable at any time.]

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1036, fn. 21 [We must correct an unauthorized sentence even where the corrected sentence results in a longer term.]

Sixth Holding:

Here, the trial court’s sentence on count 4 of an indeterminate term of 25 years to life was unauthorized and must be corrected. Likewise, the court’s failure to designate a principal term among counts 6 through 8 amounted to an unauthorized sentence. Accordingly, the trial court is not constrained by the length of the original determinative sentence for purposes of resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Neely (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 787, 797–798 [court erroneously applied principal term/subordinate term methodology set forth in sec. 1170.1 to all the offenses when it imposed one-third of the middle term sentences for the determinate term offenses]

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000847

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the court failed to award credit for the time the defendant served in custody. The court imposed a restitution fine that should have been vacated. The court imposed repealed fees. Remanded for the trial court to correct these errors, along with errors in the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

Where a defendant has served any portion of his sentence under a commitment based upon a judgment which judgment is subsequently declared invalid or which is modified during the term of imprisonment, such time shall be credited upon any subsequent sentence he may receive upon a new commitment for the same criminal act or acts.

A court resentencing a defendant must credit the defendant with all actual days he had spent in custody, whether in jail or prison, up to that time. The updated total of credit must then be added to the abstract of judgment.

Here, the most recently amended abstract reflects no credit for time served. On remand, the trial court will need to recalculate the number of days the defendant spent in custody from the initial sentencing through the date of the resentencing and prepare an updated abstract of judgment.

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the correct date that the new sentence was pronounced at the resentencing hearing, not the date of the original sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

PEN 2900.5

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

People v. Phoenix (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125, 1129-1130

Second Holding:

The restitution fine imposed under section 1202.4 at the original sentencing in 2011 must be vacated. Section 1465.9(d) 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)

Third Holding:

The trial court was not authorized to impose fees under former Government Code section 29550.2. The Legislature repealed that statute effective July 1, 2021. (Stats. 2020, ch. 92, sec. 25.) Even if Government Code section 29550.2 were still in effect, the Legislature has declared such fees unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated. Accordingly, we vacate the main jail booking fee and the main jail classification fee imposed by the trial court.

Authority:

GOV 6111(a)

Fourth Holding:

We note a clerical error in the most recently amended abstract of judgment. The abstract includes a solitary numeral “1” in section 3 of the enhancements section. The numeral is listed without an identifying label and is not included in the aggregate sentence. Presumably, this numeral is left over from the prior prison term enhancement that was stricken by the trial court at resentencing and should be deleted. We will direct the trial court to correct the amended abstract of judgment by deleting this errant numeral.

(Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for its order directing correction of the abstract of judgment, but the law is clear that it has that authority. I have listed below some cases the court could have cited as authority.)

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