Tag Archives: Sentencing

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000352

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in not conducted a full resentencing under section 1172.75 after striking the now-invalid prior prison term enhancements and in conducting the hearing in the absence of the defendant without his express consent.

First Holding:

A defendant is entitled to a full resentencing hearing under section 1172.75.

Authority:

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402 [by its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements]

Second Holding:

Absent a valid waiver under section 977, defendant is entitled to be present physically or by remote appearance at resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Velasco (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 663, 673-674

Third Holding:

Resentencing under section 1172.75 ordinarily must be initiated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), by the CDCR notifying the trial courts—no later than December 31, 2023—of all incarcerated individuals who may be entitled to relief under the statute. Compare Burgess with Cota–two cases discussing different circumstances under which a defendant-initiated resentencing petition is improper, but the CDCR’s failure to notify trial court by deadline does not preclude full resentencing hearing. Here, it appears the trial court’s early, but incomplete action granting defendant some resentencing relief by striking his section 667.5(b) prison-prior terms in 2022 made it unlikely defendant would appear on the CDCR resentencing-eligibility lists submitted to the trial court in 2023. That defendant may have fallen through the cracks in this manner does not deprive him of full resentencing eligibility under section 1172.75. To the extent necessary for procedural regularity, we deem defendant’s appeal here a petition for habeas corpus to secure the resentencing hearing the People concede is necessary.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(b) and (c)

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 379-382

People v. Cota (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1131

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 71-72 [appeal may be treated as a habeas corpus petition in the interest of judicial economy]

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000350

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Section 654 applied and it was error to impose sentence on more than one of the three counts of human trafficking, pimping, and pandering.

First Holding:

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.

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

Second Holding:

Section 654 does not preclude multiple convictions but only multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. The proscription against double punishment is applicable where there is a course of conduct that violates more than one statute and comprises an indivisible transaction punishable under more than one statute. The divisibility of a course of conduct depends upon the intent and objective of the actor. If all the offenses are incident to one objective, then the defendant may be punished for any one of them but not for more than one. Accordingly, the trial court should have stayed the sentences on two of the counts pursuant to section 654.

Authority:

People v. Miller (1977) 18 Cal.3d 873, 885

Third Holding:

Here, the defendant was convicted in three counts of human trafficking, pimping, and pandering, each related to one victim and each during the same period. Given the specific factual scenario presented here, including that all three offenses were charged for the same period and that none relied on one specific act, the pimping offense was incidental to the pandering offense, and the intent to pander was an essential element of the human trafficking charge.

Authority:

People v. Deloach (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 323, 337 [as a general rule, any acts of prostitution that follow directly or proximately from the pandering are incident to a single objective and therefore constitute an indivisible transaction with it; that is, the subsequent sex offenses are incidental to the commission of the pandering, and are facilitated by it]

People v. Dearborne (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 250, 263 [As charged under the facts of this case, the human trafficking and pandering were part of the same criminal intent and objective, and thus the court was required to stay the sentence on the pandering count. The human trafficking charge literally has an element of an intent to pander.]

Fourth Holding:

The defendant asks us to remand the matter for resentencing based on this error, but we agree with the People that resentencing is not necessary. Rather, we exercise our authority to modify the judgment to reflect that the punishments on [named counts] are stayed pursuant to section 654.

Authority:

PEN 1260 [appellate court may reverse, affirm, or modify judgment]

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473, [court may exercise its authority to modify a judgment based on an unauthorized sentence under section 1260 in the context of section 654]

Duty of the court, Juveniles, Sentencing

Case: 000349

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The juvenile court erred in setting restitution without allowing the minor an opportunity to challenge the amount. We reverse the juvenile court’s restitution award and remand the matter for a contested restitution hearing.

First Holding:

The minor had posed as another person and agreed to buy a counterfeit watch. On meeting the seller, he robbed the seller. At the disposition hearing, the seller said he’d paid a specified amount for the counterfeit watch. The minor asked the court to reserve the question of the amount so the minor could research and present evidence on what the market rate was for counterfeit watches. The court denied the motion and set restitution at the sum the seller testified to.

A victim of conduct for which a minor is found to be a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 who incurs an economic loss as a result of the minor’s conduct shall receive restitution directly from that minor. For stolen property, the value shall be the replacement cost of like property, or the actual cost of repairing the property, whichever is less. A minor has the right to a hearing before a judge to dispute the determination of the amount of restitution. This statutory directive is meant to afford the minor a reasonable opportunity to challenge the accuracy or validity of the victims’ claimed losses. It is a crucial part of the overall statutory scheme, necessary to satisfy due process, and ensure fundamental fairness in the determination of the restitution ultimately ordered.

Authority:

WIC 730.6

In re Brittany L. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1391

Second Holding:

The juvenile court’s refusal of the minor’s request for a restitution hearing wherein he could present evidence contesting the victim’s statement to authorities and the probation department recommended restitution order was contrary to section 730.6(b)(2)’s directive and thus an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

In re S.E. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 795, 804

In re Brittany L. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1391

Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000348

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Remand is necessary for resentencing because the trial court determined one of the factors in aggravation against the defendant in violation of his constitutional right to a jury and relied on such determination in increasing his sentence. [Not error to fail to instruct on section 148 as lesser of section 69 because the jury necessarily relied on the force element of PC 69.]

First Holding:

It was error for the court to impose the upper term based on its own conclusion that the defendant’s prior convictions are numerous or of increasing seriousness. The right to a jury on any fact that increases the normal punishment for an offense derives from the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 840

Second Holding:

A criminal defendant does not waive his constitutional right to a jury trial by failing to object when a court resolves issues to which the right attaches without first obtaining the requisite waivers. As to whether the error was harmless, because the right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors derives from the United States Constitution, we assess prejudice under the standard set forth in Chapman. Under the Chapman standard, a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Authority:

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47

People v. Holmes (1960) 54 Cal.2d 442, 443–444

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

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 761 [When the trial court actually relies on improperly proven aggravating facts to justify an upper term sentence, a Sixth Amendment violation occurs and Chapman must be satisfied.]

Third Holding:

Because a reasonable jury could have concluded the defendant’s convictions were not of increasing seriousness, we remand for resentencing without the need to consider their numerosity. Even if we were to reach the issue, we would likely have reasonable doubt a jury would have concluded the defendant’s prior convictions were numerous. Whether prior convictions are “numerous” for purposes of rule 4.421(b)(2) is not further defined in the California Rules of Court. A reasonable jury might consider numerosity in terms of the number of criminal episodes resulting n convictions, not in the number of convictions alone.

Authority:

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 847

Fourth Holding:

We review the trial court’s failure to instruct on a lesser included offense de novo considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.

Authority:

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 847

Fifth Holding:

A trial court is obligated to instruct the jury on an uncharged lesser offense included in one charged if there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude the defendant committed the lesser, but not the greater, offense. Because this is a sua sponte obligation, a defendant may raise it for the first time on appeal. This instructional requirement prevents either party, whether by design or inadvertence, from forcing an all-or-nothing choice between conviction of the stated offense on the one hand, or complete acquittal on the other. Hence, the rule encourages a verdict, within the charge chosen by the prosecution, that is neither harsher nor more lenient than the evidence merits.

Authority:

People v. DePriest (2007) 42 Cal.4th 1, 50

People v. Brothers (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 24, 29-30, 33, fn. 6

Sixth Holding:

The most significant difference between the lesser offense described in section 148(a)(1) and the greater offense described in section 69(a) is that a defendant may be convicted of the lesser offense even if he did not use force or violence to effectuate the resistance. Accordingly, the trial court was required to instruct on the lesser offense of section 148(a)(1) resisting if substantial evidence supported a finding that the defendant did not use force or violence when he resisted the deputies.

Authority:

People v. Brown (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 140, 153

Seventh Holding:

Resisting an officer by force or violence under section 69(a) does not require either a threshold quantum of force or violence, or the use of force or violence upon the person of the officer. The statutory language does not, in other words, require the defendant to have actual physical contact with the officer. Thus, forceful resistance of an officer by itself gives rise to a violation of section 69, without proof force was directed toward or used on any officer. Here, there is no evidence the defendant did not use force in resisting arrest by the deputies. Under the facts here, there is no substantial evidence to show that only the lesser crime was committed. No reasonable juror could conclude the defendant’s physical resistance amounted to a violation of section 148(a)(1) but not of section 69(a). Therefore, the trial court was correct not to instruct the jury on section 148(a)(1).

Authority:

People v. Morgan (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 488, 508, disapproved on another ground in People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

People v. Carrasco (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 978, 985-986 [where uncontradicted evidence was that the defendant struggled forcefully against arrest, instruction on section 148(a)(1) was unnecessary because there was no evidence on which a jury could conclude the defendant resisted without violating section 69(a)]

Discretion, Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000346

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed a minimum $300 restitution fine and an assessment of $70 in ancillary costs. The trial court held a hearing and determined that the defendant had the ability to pay. We affirm the order on ancillary costs but remand to give the defendant the opportunity to further challenge the restitution fine under Kopp.

First Holding:

A person convicted of a crime can, and in some cases must, be ordered to pay a variety of punitive fines along with other nonpunitive ancillary costs. Some statutes require the imposition of fines and ancillary costs regardless of a defendant’s ability to pay. Other statutes require a finding of the ability to pay or allow for its consideration. Restitution fines under section 1202.4 are considered punitive fines, whereas assessments to fund court facilities and operations are considered ancillary costs. The distinction between punitive fines and other imposed payments is important because it impacts whether a given form of required payment is initially challenged under, and then reviewed under, the constitutional excessive fines clauses, or under the constitutional provision for equal protection.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 12, 14-15, 18 [we analyze fines and ancillary costs separately because different justifications support each, and different constitutional protections apply]

Second Holding:

If requested by a defendant, the court must consider the defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under section 1465.8(a)(1), or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1).

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 25-26, 30 [in light of the Legislature’s provision of fee waivers to indigent civil litigants, equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing either assessment]

Third Holding:

In reaching its conclusion that the defendant did not meet his burden to show his inability to pay the ancillary costs, the court considered his potential to earn wages while in prison and his general ability to work, which was within its discretion to do. The trial court did not state that it was relying solely on the defendant’s ability to earn wages while in prison. The court found simply that he is capable of working. The trial court’s conclusion that he had the ability to pay $70 in court assessments was not arbitrary or irrational.

Authority:

People v. Fish (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 730, 739 [collecting cases]

People v. Santos (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 923, 934 [factors to consider in determining ability to pay may include, among others, the defendant’s realistic ability to earn prison wages or obtain employment]

People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490, disapproved in part as stated in Kopp, at p. 23, fn. 17. 490 [trial court may consider potential prison pay during the period of incarceration” in determining inability to pay]

People v. Cervantes (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 213, 229 [ability to pay includes the ability both to obtain prison wages and to earn money after release from custody]

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377 [a trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it]

Fourth Holding:

Punitive fines are subject to a different approach. There is no due process requirement to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine. Sentencing judges may, and often do, consider the defendant’s ability to pay, but in such circumstances they are guided by sound judicial discretion rather than by constitutional mandate.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 23

San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez (1973) 411 U.S. 1, 22

Fifth Holding:

A court has discretion to impose a nonexcessive fine as punishment, even on indigent defendants. Thus, the excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines. The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry for excessive fines is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish. While ability to pay may be part of the proportionality analysis, it is not the only factor.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 8th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 21, 23

United States v. Bajakajian (1998) 524 U.S. 321, 334

Sixth Holding:

Under section 1202.4(b), the restitution fine shall be set at the discretion of the court and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. The court shall impose the restitution fine unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. A defendant’s inability to pay shall not be considered a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution fine. Inability to pay may be considered only in increasing the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the minimum fine.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4

Seventh Holding:

A court’s ruling on ability to pay is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating his or her inability to pay the imposed amounts.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 21, 24

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

People v. Lowery (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1046, 1057, 1053