Tag Archives: Sentencing

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000121

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court failed to recalculate the actual time defendant had served pursuant to the sentence for which he was being resentenced and reflect those credits in the amended abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

The trial court, having modified defendant’s sentence on remand, was obliged, in its new abstract of judgment, to credit him with all actual days he had spent in custody.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37 [The trial court, having modified defendant’s sentence on remand, was obliged, in its new abstract of judgment, to credit him with all actual days he had spent in custody]

Second Holding:

Generally, a clerical error is one inadvertently made. Clerical error can be made by a clerk, by counsel, or by the court itself. A court has the inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records at any time so as to make these records reflect the true facts.

Authority:

People v. Schultz (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 804, 808

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

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000120

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant submitted both a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion for recall and resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court erroneously treated both as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which it denied without prejudice to allow the defendant to separately file a petition under section 1172.6. Though contained in the same envelope and assigned a single case number by the court clerk, there were two separate matters presented to the trial court. The matter is remanded for the trial court to give due consideration to the petition/motion filed for recall of sentence under section 1172.6. There is also an error in the abstract of judgment that should be corrected, depending on the outcome of the hearing on the petition.

First Holding:

The record indicates that defendant submitted not only a petition for writ of habeas corpus, but also a separate motion for resentencing. The title page of the habeas petition states it was being filed concurrently with a motion for recall and resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. Defendant included a separate section 1172.6 “motion” with its own title page and caption designating it as such. That defendant, a prisoner, mailed the documents in one envelope as opposed to two, and placed his “motion” for resentencing before the exhibits to the petition for writ of habeas corpus, does not change the fact he submitted a separate “motion” to the court. As for the assignment of only one case number—for the habeas proceeding—this was a clerical matter over which defendant had no control. The trial court was required to consider the motion/petition filed under section 1172.6.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 960 [where resentencing petition complies with the three facial sufficiency requirements of sec. 1172.6(b), the court proceeds to consider whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief under subd. (c)]

Second Holding:

The abstract contains an error on whether the two counts were ordered served concurrently or consecutively. Should the trial court determine defendant is ineligible for relief pursuant to section 1172.6, we direct the trial court to issue an amended abstract of judgment that corrects this error.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [courts may correct clerical error in their records at any time and appellate courts that have assumed jurisdiction over a case may order correction of abstracts of judgment that do not accurately reflect judgment]

Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000117

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court’s judgment is modified to vacate any portions of the probation related fees imposed by the trial court as part of probation condition No. 14 that remained unpaid as of July 1, 2021.

First Holding:

AB 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) repealed the authority to collect various fees. The bill makes the unpaid balance of these fees unenforceable, uncollectible, and requires that any portion of a judgment imposing such fees be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Second Holding:

The defendant is entitled to the retroactive application of these ameliorative changes.

Authority:

People v. Esquivel (2021) 11 Cal.5th 671, 680

People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 258

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing

Case: 000114

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude that the abstract of judgment must be modified to accurately reflect the defendant’s presentence custody credits and his sentence on the attempted murder count. We accordingly modify the judgment to correct these sentencing errors and affirm the judgment as modified.

First Holding:

While a defendant sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole becomes eligible for parole after serving seven years, the correct sentence to be imposed remains life with the possibility of parole, plus any determinate enhancements. The abstract of judgment, which currently describes the sentence on the attempted murder with premeditation and deliberation as “seven years to life,” must be corrected accordingly. [Gary note: The court did not provide its authority for ordering that the abstract of judgment be corrected, but there are many cases it could have cited. I have listed some below, which were not in the opinion but support the correction.]

Authority:

PEN 3046(a)(1)

PEN 664(a)

People v. Wong (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 972, 977, fn. 4 [shorthand pronouncement of seven years to life where statutory term is life with the possibility of parole is incorrect because it indicates a minimum term exists, rather than a minimum parole eligibility]

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

Second Holding:

The trial court miscalculated the credit for time served. The defendant is entitled to three additional days, and the abstract of judgment must be modified accordingly. [GARY NOTE: The court did not provide any authority for this correction, most likely because it is so obvious that it must be corrected. Authorities supporting the court’s order (but not cited by the court) could include those I set forth below, among others.]

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Smith (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 523, 527

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000106

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court modified the defendant’s sentence only to the extent required under sections 1172.75 and 1170.18, but otherwise left the balance intact, finding that the defendant remained a danger to the public. The case is remanded for the trial court to calculate the days of actual custody and to correct the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

Because the sentence was modified under PC 1172.75, the trial court erred in not calculating the actual days in custody.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

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

Second Holding:

We review the trial court’s finding that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety under the clear and convincing evidence standard.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(1)

Third Holding:

The clear and convincing evidence standard requires the party with the burden of proof to convince the trier of fact that it is highly probable the facts which he asserts are true.

Authority:

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998

Fourth Holding:

The narrow definition of danger to public safety under PC 1170.18 does not apply to the undefined term of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. [GARY NOTE: after the opinion in this case 000106 was filed, the Supreme Court ruled in Guevara that it was constitutionally necessary to apply the Three Strikes Reform Act’s understanding of the term “unreasonable risk to public safety” within the meaning of section 1170.126 (enacted by initiative) in order to reconcile the application of section 1172.75 (enacted by the Legislature) to those who would otherwise qualify but are serving a sentence under the Three Strikes Law (an initiative provision).]

Authority:

People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 374, 374-375

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

Fifth Holding:

The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects a determinate term of 14 years instead of 10 years, and it must be corrected. [GARY NOTE: The court did not cite authority, most likely because the error and solution are obvious. There are many relevant cases supporting this holding, some of which I have set out below.]

Authority:

People v. Hamed (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 928, 937–938

People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 242

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

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89