Tag Archives: Sentencing

Defenses, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000300

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We order the protective order modified to strike [person x] as a protected person. We reject the defendant’s claim that the trial erred in not sua sponte instruction on the defense of unconsciousness.

First Holding:

Unconsciousness, if not induced by voluntary intoxication, is a complete defense to a criminal charge. For purposes of the defense, unconsciousness need not rise to the level of coma or inability to walk or perform manual movements; it can exist where the subject physically acts but is not, at the time, conscious of acting. The law presumes that a person who appears to be acting in a state of consciousness is conscious. Accordingly, the burden is on a criminal defendant to produce evidence rebutting this presumption of consciousness. If a defendant produces substantial evidence that he or she was unconscious, the trial court is obligated to instruct the jury on the theory; the failure to do so is error. In this case, the defendant did not rebut the presumption of his consciousness, and it was therefore not error for the trial court to fail to instruct the jury on unconsciousness sua sponte.

Authority:

PEN 26

People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 417

People v. James (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 794, 804

Second Holding:

Unconsciousness caused by voluntary intoxication may negate specific intent, but it is not a defense to a general intent crime. Assault with a deadly weapon is a general intent crime. Reckless evasion of a peace officer is a specific intent crime.

Authority:

People v. James (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 794, 805

People v. Rocha (1971) 3 Cal.3d 893, 899

People v. Williams (2001) 26 Cal.4th 779, 788

People v. Taylor (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1195, 1203-1206

Third Holding:

We review de novo whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury.

Authority:

People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 78

Fourth Holding:

A case is not authority for propositions not considered.

Authority:

People v. Chavez (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 477, 480

Fifth Holding:

Where a defendant is convicted of certain defined crimes of domestic violence, the trial may issue a protective order restraining the defendant from any contact with a victim of the crime. Such orders are limited to defendants convicted of crimes that qualify as domestic violence and where the protected person qualifies as a victim of said crimes. The trial court does not have authority to restrain a defendant from contacting a person who was not present during or otherwise suffered harm from the crime.

For instance, a protective order covering children who were present but asleep during a domestic violence incident was found to be improper in Lopez. With respect to the issuance of a legally authorized criminal protective order, we imply all findings necessary to support the judgment, and our review is limited to whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support these implied findings.

The record here contains no substantial evidence from which the trial court reasonably could conclude that [person x] was a victim of the crime subject to protection under section 136.2(i)(1).

Authority:

PEN 136.2,(i)(1)

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 237

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 648

People v. Race (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 211, 217

People v. Delarosarauda (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 205, 212 [absent evidence from which the trial court could reasonably conclude that appellant had harmed or attempted to harm two children, the court lacked authority to issue the no-contact protective order as to the children]

Fines and fees, Jurisdiction, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case: 000299

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On revoking probation, the court added an additional restitution fine to the original restitution fine and modified an eight-month consecutive term to an eight-month concurrent term in the same case, and then a 16-month concurrent term in a second case. On notice from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that the 8-month concurrent term was unauthorized because the the one-third of the middle term clculation applies only to consecutive terms. The trial court then converted the eight-month concurrent term to 16 months concurrent. The second restitution fine was unauthorized and must be stricken. The court had no authority to change the original eight-month consecutive term to either a concurrent eight-month term or a sixteen-month concurrent term, because at the time probation was granted, the court imposed a sentence (two years on the principal count and eight months on the subordinate offense) in that case, with execution suspended pending successful completion of probation. The matter is remanded for resentencing.

First Holding:

A restitution fine imposed at the time probation is granted survives the revocation of probation. Because of this, an additional restitution fine imposed at the time probation is revoked is unauthorized and must be stricken from the judgment.

Authority:

People v. Urke (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 766, 779

People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819

Second Holding:

There is a distinction between a probation grant in which imposition of sentence has been suspended (meaning, no sentence has been declared) and one where sentence has been imposed (meaning, a term has been specified) with the execution of that term suspended during the term of probation. In the former (imposition of sentence suspended), on revocation the court is free to choose whatever sentence options were available had probation never been granted. In the latter, the only choices are to reinstate probation or to revoke probation and order the previously imposed sentence executed.

Authority:

PEN 1203.2(c)

People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081

People v. Scott (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1415, 1424

Third Holding:

The letter from CDCR did not constitute a recommendation for recall of the sentence and resentencing under section 1170.1 that the sentence be modified. It was merely a letter seeking clarification on whether a lawful sentence had been imposed. Thus, the court could not base its resentencing on a response to the notice contemplated by section 1170.1.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 986-987

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

Fourth Holding:

When the parties negotiate a plea agreement that grants probation incorporating and conditioned upon the service of a specified term in custody, the resulting term of incarceration constitutes a material term of, the parties’ agreement. As such, the term is not subject to subsequent modification without the consent of both parties, and cannot be altered solely on the basis of the trial court’s general statutory authority to modify probation during the probationary period. Further, a plea agreement requiring an unauthorized sentence is not enforceable. On the other hand, once the court approves a plea bargain, it cannot change the agreement without the consent of the parties. When a guilty plea is invalidated the parties are generally restored to the positions they occupied before the plea bargain was entered.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 931, 935

In re Daniel M. Williams (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 936, 945 [the trial court cannot approve a plea bargain that calls for an unlawful sentence]

People v. Aragon (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 749, 756–757

People v. Baries (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 313, 319 [The concurrent sentence was unauthorized and could not have been lawfully imposed. It must be vacated, and the trial court must give the defendant, if she chooses, the opportunity to withdraw her plea since it cannot be honored.]

People v. Griffin (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1119

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000298

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Although a trial court has broad discretion in imposing terms and conditions when sentencing a criminal defendant to probation instead of imprisonment, any conditions imposed must have some relationship to the crime and be designed to prevent future criminality. In this case, one of the probation conditions imposed required defendant to participate in mental health and substance abuse testing and treatment. Not only was this unconnected to the underlying crime, any suggestion in the probation and sentencing report that defendant suffered from mental health or substance abuse issues was wholly unsupported. Therefore, that probation condition must be stricken.

Holding:

A sentencing court has broad discretion to impose probation conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.1. But such discretion is not unlimited: A condition of probation must serve a purpose specified in the statute and conditions regulating noncriminal conduct must be reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality. A probation condition will be upheld unless all of the following are true: it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. We review a challenge to the conditions of probation for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 403

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000297

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

First Holding:

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

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

PEN 667.5

Second Holding:

Penal Code section 1172.75 entitles a defendant to resentencing if the underlying judgment includes a prior-prison-term enhancement that was imposed before January 1, 2020, regardless of whether the enhancement was then executed or instead stayed.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000293

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2022, the trial court resentenced the defendant under Penal Code section 1172.75, which invalidated prior prison enhancements, by striking the enhancements. The trial court, however, left intact the Three Strikes sentences. The court should have considered whether to reduce the sentence in line with the Three Strikes Reform Act.

Holding:

A trial court is required to apply the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 at a section 1172.75 proceeding absent a finding the defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838