Tag Archives: Sentencing

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000185

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant’s Penal Code section 1172.75 petition for resentencing asked the trial court to strike certain sentencing enhancements that were no longer valid under current law and to exercise its discretion to strike other enhancements and prior strike convictions. The trial court held a resentencing hearing, struck the invalid enhancements, but declined to further reduce defendant’s sentence. We reverse for some certain conceded errors in the pronouncement of sentence, including with respect to custody credits, but otherwise affirm.

First Holding:

A trial court conducting a resentencing under section 1172.75 has discretion to dismiss a “strike” allegation under the Three Strikes law. There was no abuse of discretion here.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 504

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161

Second Holding:

The trial court calculated certain elements of the defendant’s sentence by subtracting the one-year prior prison term enhancements from his original sentence as opposed to the later sentence imposed on remand following a determination that it was error to sentence on two–rather than just one–of the counts because of Penal Code section 654. There was some further ambiguity in the sentence imposed at the section 1172.75 hearing. The matter must be remanded to the trial court to strike the prior prison term enhancements on Counts Two and Three, to clarify the sentence on Count Three remains stayed, and to clarify the status of the prior serious felony enhancement on Count Two.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 834, 838-839

Third Holding:

The trial court improperly delegated calculation of his custody credits to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Authority:

PC 2900.1

PC 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23-24

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000182

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In light of AB 333, the trial court’s true findings on the prior serious felony enhancement and the strike prior allegations must be reversed. It is undisputed that there was insufficient evidence that defendant’s prior gang-related conviction (sec. 186.22(a)) satisfied the more stringent evidentiary requirements imposed by the change in law. Therefore, the court erred in considering that conviction to double defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, we will vacate the sentence and remand the matter for further proceedings. The defendant’s sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings, including a full resentencing. On remand, the People may elect to retry, under current law, the allegation that defendant’s prior gang-related conviction qualifies as a serious felony and strike prior for purposes of the three strikes law and a prior serious felony enhancement.

First Holding:

Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) narrowed liability for gang-related offenses by requiring more stringent evidentiary requirements for proving them.

Authority:

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

People v. Rojas (2023) 15 Cal.5th 561, 576

Second Holding:

AB 333 applies to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements. It applies to the analogous determination under section 667(a) for prior serious felony enhancements. Thus, AB 333’s amendments to section 186.22 apply to the current determination of whether the prosecution has proven the prior serious felony enhancement allegations in this case. In other words, whether a prior conviction was for an offense that constitutes a felony violation of Section 186.22 is determined by applying the current version of section 186.22.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583, 605, 607

Third Holding:

Where, as here, AB 333 applies retroactively to the determination of whether a prior gang-related conviction qualifies as a serious felony for purposes of the three strikes law and a prior serious felony enhancement we review for harmless error pursuant to Chapman. Vacating a true finding is required unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the finding would have been the same under current law. If there is any reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the finding, vacatur is required.

Authority:

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

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1207

People v. Lewis (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 874, 887

Fourth Holding:

At the time the defendant entered his guilty plea, the People were not required to prove, and defendant did not admit, the current evidentiary requirements of that provision, as amended by AB 333. Under these circumstances, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the true findings on the allegations that defendant’s prior gang-related conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony for purposes of the three strikes law and the prior serious felony enhancement and remand the matter to the trial court to allow the People the opportunity to retry those allegations under current law, considering the elements of section 186.22 as amended by AB 333.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 607-608

Sentencing

Case: 000177

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in its calculation of credit for time served. The miscalculation appears to be the result of the trial court failing to include the fact defendant was in custody from his initial arrest for an earlier period before he was arrested a second time.

Holding:

The appellate court accepted the People’s concession regarding the credit for time served error and modify the judgment to include the correct number of days.

Authority:

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Eighth Amendment, Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000176

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The $150 restitution fine and the parole revocation fine imposed on count three are unauthorized and must be vacated or stayed. The fine had been imposed on a count that was stayed under Penal Code section 654. Aside from that problem, a separate parole revocation fine cannot be imposed on a misdemeanor offense. Also, the abstract of judgment must be corrected because it incorrectly states that he has a prior strike and was sentenced under Penal Code section 667(b) through (i), or section 1170.12.

First Holding:

When a court imposes multiple punishments in violation of section 654, it acts in excess of its jurisdiction and imposes an unauthorized sentence that can be challenged for the first time on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Soto (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1234

Second Holding:

Defendant is not subject to parole separately for the misdemeanor and is thus not subject to a parole revocation restitution fine on it.

Authority:

People v. Holmes (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 539, 547

Third Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it erroneously states that he has a prior strike and that he was sentenced under section 667(b) through (i), or section 1170.12. There is no indication in the record defendant has sustained a prior strike conviction. We will order the abstract of judgment corrected to reflect that he does not have a strike prior, and he was not sentenced pursuant to section 667(b) through (i), or section 1170.12.

[Gary note: The court cited no authority for the obvious proposition that the abstract of judgment needs to be corrected. I have listed below some of many cases that the court could have relied on.]

Authority:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000173

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals from an order finding her ineligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75. The trial court found her ineligible because the prior prison term enhancement had been stayed and not executed. We reverse with instructions that the trial court conduct further proceedings under that section.

First Holding:

The defendant is not requesting resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act. She was not even eligible for the Three Strikes Reform Act process because her current felony is a serious felony, to which the Reform Act is inapplicable. She is requesting the trial court exercise its discretion under in the furtherance of justice under Romero to strike one of her prior strike offenses. Because she is not eligible for (and is not seeking relief under) the Three Strikes Reform Act, section 1172.75 does not unconstitutionally conflict with it.

Authority:

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 347, 363-364

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

Second Holding:

A defendant is entitled to the provisions of section 1172.75 even when execution was stayed for the now-invalid enhancement for a prior prison term.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

[Gary note: This opinion was filed before Espino was decided. It is not applicable here because the prior conviction was stayed. But I think it is important to know the current complete state of the law. Rhodius dealt solely with prior convictions whose punishment was stayed, deferring the question whether section 1172.75 applies to prior convictions that were stricken. On July 2, 2026, the Supreme Court answered that question in People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987). It held that section 1172.75 applies to those prior convictions that were stricken at time of sentencing. This is not discussed in the summary above because the trial court had relied the prior conviction having been stayed, not stricken (why do I think of a secret agent when I write that?), which was directly addressed by Rhodius.]

Authority:

People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987)

Fourth Holding:

In 2020, the Legislature enacted section 1172.75, which limits the circumstances when section 667.5, subdivision (b) sentencing enhancements may be imposed. Someone serving a sentence that includes an enhancement that section 1172.75 now renders invalid is eligible for possible resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276, 1282

Fifth Holding:

Though inapplicable here because the defendant is ineligible for relief under the Three Strikes Reform Act, the Reform Act’s revised penalty provisions may be applied at a section 1172.25 resentencing if section 1170.126’s substantive requirements are satisfied.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 850, 861