Tag Archives: Sentencing

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

Case 000767

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We find that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for discharging a firearm for the benefit of a criminal street gang.

However, the defendant cannot be convicted of both discharging a firearm at a motor vehicle and grossly negligent discharge of a firearm at a motor vehicle, and the abstract of judgment must be corrected to list the enhancements found true.

First Holding:

In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we examine the entire record and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial credible evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The focus of the substantial evidence test is on the whole record of evidence presented to the trier of fact, rather than on isolated bits of evidence. Resolving conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the jury’s exclusive province.

We do not redetermine the weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. Moreover, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction.

Authority:

People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 57

People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252, 261

People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181

People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60

Second Holding:

We must accept logical inferences that the trier of fact might have drawn from the evidence even if we would have concluded otherwise. If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.

The reviewing court need not address assertions of conflicts in the evidence or alternative theories regarding the inferences that should have been drawn from the evidence. A reversal for insufficient evidence is unwarranted unless it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict. This is true for both direct and circumstantial evidence.

In this case, a reasonable jury could have found that the actions of the defendant were gang related and for the benefit of a gang.

Authority:

People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 241, overruled on other grounds as stated in People v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 804, 834

People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60

People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 162

People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357

People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87

People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 113

Third Holding:

The crime of grossly negligent discharge of a firearm which could result in injury or death (sec. 246.3(a)) is a lesser included offense of discharging a firearm at a motor vehicle (sec. 246).

Although section 954 provides that a single act or course of conduct can lead to convictions of any number of the offenses charged, the courts have created an exception to this rule where multiple convictions are based on necessarily included offenses.

In Ramirez, our Supreme Court reviewed the elements of both offenses and concluded that the only difference between the two crimes, and the basis for the more serious treatment of a section 246 offense, is that the greater offense requires that an inhabited dwelling or other specified object be within the defendant’s firing range.

All the elements of section 246.3(a) are necessarily included in the more stringent requirements of section 246. Therefore, we shall reverse defendant’s conviction on the count alleging grossly negligent discharge of a firearm.

Authority:

PEN 954

People v. Ramirez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 980, 984–985

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment fails to accurately reflect the sentence orally pronounced by the trial court. Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts (including this one) that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.

Authority:

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

Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000764

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred by not staying punishment for the second count under section 654. Also, the court must recalculate the credit for time served on resentencing. Further, the abstract of judgment erroneously reflects that the defendant stands convicted of a count that was reversed in the prior appeal.

(Gary note: This was mentioned only in a footnote, and there was no express direction for correction. But the court did order resentencing “consistent with this opinion,” which most likely implies a direction that the subsequent abstract of judgment accurately reflect the record.)

First Holding:

Section 654(a) states 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.

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

Second Holding:

Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an act or omission may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective.

We first consider if the different crimes were completed by a single physical act. If so, the defendant may not be punished more than once for that act. Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single intent and objective or multiple intents and objectives. At step one, courts examine the facts of the case to determine whether multiple convictions are based upon a single physical act.

When those facts are undisputed the application of section 654 raises a question of law we review de novo. However, we review the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311–312

People v. Washington (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 776, 795

Third Holding:

A review of the record indicates that there was but one act constituting the crime. Accordingly, the sentence on count 2 should have been stayed.

Authority:

PEN 654

Fourth Holding:

While we do not address the trial court’s failure to recalculate the defendant’s actual days of presentence custody credits because it was not raised by the defendant and we are remanding the matter for resentencing, we note that trial courts are required to do so.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 41

Fifth Holding:

(Gary note: the court mentioned in a footnote that the abstract incorrectly lists a conviction of an offense that was reversed in a prior appeal. It made no express direction for correct of the abstract, but there is much authority that would have supported such an order, some of which I set forth below.)

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

Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000763

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in declining to determine the defendant’s ability to pay fines and fees. Its stated basis was the probation office’s strong stance on rejecting the plea, based on the victim. After sentencing, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kopp.

First Holding:

A defendant may challenge the imposition of a punitive fine under the United States and California Constitutions’ excessive fines provisions. The California Supreme Court The court used the “fine” term to refer to penalties provided by the Legislature to punish a criminal offense and included restitution fines and parole revocation restitution fines within that category. Because its decision was issued after the defendant was sentenced, the defendant should be given the opportunity to develop an excessive fines argument in the first instance on remand.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23, 30-31

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution [Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted]

Article I, section 17 of the California Constitution [Cruel or unusual punishment may not be inflicted or excessive fines imposed.]

Second Holding:

Because the trial court failed to consider the defendant’s ability to pay the the court operations and court facilities assessments despite his request, we must remand for such consideration. Because there is no rational basis for distinguishing criminal defendants from indigent civil litigants—who are afforded waivers for similar assessments—equal protection principles require the trial court to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing these ancillary costs.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 14-15, 24-31

AppellateAdvisor Updates, Duty of the court, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000762

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erroneously denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss his conviction under section 1203.4 following his fulfillment of conditions of probation. The trial court concluded that the defendant was not eligible for relief as long as he had to register as a sex offender. The trial court denied the defendant’s petition for an erroneous reason without determining whether he fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire probation period. Therefore, the order denying the petition is reversed, and the trial court is directed to make that determination.

First Holding:

When a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation, the defendant is entitled to have his conviction set aside and the case dismissed.

Authority:

PEN 1203.4(a)(1)

Second Holding:

This statutory provision is clear. If the defendant fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, the trial court shall allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea and shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information. Dismissal in this circumstance is mandatory.

Authority:

People v. Daffeh (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 790, 796

People v. Tran (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 877, 892, fn. 6 [under section 1203.4, if the petitioner establishes either of the necessary factual predicates, the trial court is required to grant the requested relief]

Third Holding:

A person who has suffered a conviction specified in section 290 is required to register as a sex offender, notwithstanding dismissal of such conviction pursuant to 1203.4. But the duty to register as a sex offender does not make the person ineligible for relief under section 1203.4

Authority:

Doe v. Brown (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 408, 423

People v. Chatman (2018) 4 Cal.5th 277, 287

People v. Hamdon (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1065, 1071, fn. 3 [Section 290.007 expressly precludes relief from the sex offender registration requirement for persons whose convictions are dismissed pursuant to section 1203.4]

People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 975, 996 [same]

Fourth Holding:

If the defendant has not fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation or been discharged prior to the termination of the probation period, the court still has discretion to grant relief in the interests of justice.

Authority:

People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 975, 991

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000759

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing on a petition for resentencing (the opinion does not state under which statute the petition was filed, but in the body of the opinion it mentions section 1172.1, under which various entities can recommend the recall of sentence and resentencing), the trial court denied the defendant’s request to reduce his kidnap for robbery conviction to the lesser included offense of false imprisonment, stating that it did not have discretion to do so. The court erred, as it did have the discretion. We remand for the court to exercise its discretion.

First Holding:

Under section 1172.1(a)(3)(B), the trial court may in the interest of justice vacate the defendant’s conviction and impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense then resentence the defendant to a reduced term of imprisonment. Defendant thus asked the trial court at the hearing on his petition to reduce his conviction on count 2 from a kidnap to false imprisonment as the other counts in his sentencing were false imprisonment. The trial court viewed the request as a challenge to the evidence and declined to revisit the evidence.

The court indicated that it did not have the discretion to do anything but impose the sentence on the count of conviction. The court’s comments confirm that it was unaware it had the discretion under section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(3)(B) to reduce defendant’s kidnapping-for-robbery conviction on count 2 to false imprisonment and resentence him to a reduced term for that offense. The trial court thus abused its sentencing discretion.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1(a)(3)(B)

In re White (2020) 9 Cal.5th 455, 470

Second Holding:

When, as here, the trial court is unaware of its sentencing discretion, we must remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have made the same decision if it had been aware of its discretion. The record does not indicate that. If anything, it indicates that the trial court might have imposed a lesser sentence on count 2 if it believed it had the discretion to do so. We therefore remand for a full resentencing.

Authority:

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

People v. Terwilligar (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 585, 601

People v. Moseley (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 870, 874

People v. Marcus (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 201, 214 [Because there are multiple counts and discretionary decisions at play, the trial court may consider the entire sentencing scheme and reconsider all sentencing choices.]

People v. Byucks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000757

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

While affirming the lower court’s finding that section 654 did not apply, it did find that the sentence for the second count was unauthorized, as the trial court purported to impose one-third the middle term to be served concurrently with the other count. It should have imposed a full term to run concurrently, as the one-third the middle term calculation applies only when sentences are to be served consecutively.

First Holding:

A sentence is generally unauthorized where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. An appellate court can correct an unauthorized sentence on appeal when such error is clear and correctable independent of any factual issues presented by the record at sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354

People v. Quintero (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1156, fn. 3 [vacating and correcting the unauthorized sentence rather than remanding for resentencing because the record clearly reflects the trial judge’s intention to run the unauthorized sentence concurrently and not impose any additional consecutive time]

Second Holding:

The imposition of one-third the middle term for subordinate offenses applies in case of consecutive, but not concurrent, sentences. Because concurrent terms are not part of the principal and subordinate term computation under section 1170.1(a), they are imposed at the full base term, not according to the one-third middle term formula, even though they are served at the same time.

As such, imposition of one-third the midterm sentence on a concurrent term is an unauthorized sentence. However, remand for resentencing is unnecessary because the record clearly indicates that the trial court intended to run the sentence on his possession of a firearm conviction concurrently and not impose any additional consecutive time.

Authority:

People v. Matthews (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 164, 169, fn. 4

People v. Quintero (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1156, fn. 3

Third 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. The statute therefore precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. Multiple punishment includes the imposition of both concurrent and consecutive sentences because the defendant is deemed to be subjected to the term of both sentences although they are served simultaneously.

Authority:

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 353, 358

Fourth Holding:

The proscription against double punishment in section 654 is applicable where there is a course of conduct which … 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, and if all the offenses are incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of them but not for more than one.

Authority:

People v. Bauer (1969) 1 Cal.3d 368, 376

Fifth Holding:

If the defendant had multiple or simultaneous objectives, independent of and not merely incidental to each other, the defendant may be punished for each violation committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations share common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct. In the context of a conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, where the evidence shows a possession distinctly antecedent and separate from the primary offense, punishment on both crimes has been approved.

Authority:

People v. Cleveland (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 263, 267-268

People v. Bradford (1976) 17 Cal.3d 8, 22

Sixth Holding:

Whether section 654 applies in a given case is a question of fact for the trial court, which is vested with broad latitude in making its determination. Its findings will not be reversed on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them. We review the trial court’s determination in the light most favorable to the respondent and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the evidence. The evidence in this case indicates that the defendant bought the firearm and possessed it for a substantial period before the shooting, not simply during the shooting.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143

People v. Wynn (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1217 [courts have determined that section 654 applies where the defendant obtained the prohibited weapon during the assault in which he used the weapon]

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000756

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the court erred in believing that it had no discretion to consider defendant’s motion pursuant to dismiss prior serious felony enhancements under Romero. The matter is reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to hold a full resentencing hearing at which the court must consider defendant’s Romero motion.

First Holding:

In 2019, in an effort to reduce the societal and fiscal burdens of incarceration, the Legislature passed SB 136, which amended section 667.5(b) to eliminate prior-prison-term enhancements for all prior crimes except for sexually violent offenses as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

In 2021, SB 483 made this change retroactive. It enacted what is now Penal Code section 1172.75, which states that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1054

Second Holding:

A defendant serving a term for a judgment that includes a now-invalid enhancement is entitled to resentencing. To facilitate the process, the statute directs California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to identify those persons in their custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a).

Upon receiving that information, the sentencing court must review the judgment and verify that the current judgment includes a sentencing enhancement described in subdivision (a). If the court determines that the current judgment includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a), the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. The statute provides separate deadlines for identification, review, and resentencing of individuals currently serving a sentence based on the enhancement and all other individuals.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1055

Third Holding:

Section 1172.75(d) sets forth detailed instructions for resentencing once a sentence has been recalled. As relevant here, subdivision (d) specifies: that resentencing pursuant to this section shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.

Resentencing pursuant to this section shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed. The trial court must apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council as well as any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

In addition, the court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the defendant’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1055

Fourth Holding:

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. The trial court has the authority to exercise its discretion under section 1385(a) and Romero to strike any or all of defendant’s strike priors after recalling his sentence and for the purpose of resentencing him under section 1172.75.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1054

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

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 400

People v. Dowdy (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1, 9-13

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

Fines and fees, Juveniles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 000755

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because of a change in the law while the minor’s case has been pending, the restitution fine ordered by the court must be stricken.

First Holding:

Here, the juvenile court imposed a restitution fine as a condition of probation. At the time of the minor’s disposition, the restitution fine was mandatory. Effective January 1, 2025, however, the Legislature passed AB 1186 which amended Welfare and Instituitons Code section 730.6 to prohibit a court from imposing a separate and additional restitution fine against a minor found to be a person described in Section 602.

Authority:

WIC 730.6(a)(2)

Second Holding:

An adult or juvenile offender is generally entitled to benefit from amendments that become effective while their case is on appeal and not yet final.

Authority:

People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 305 [applying a revised version of the statute in setting a restitution fine]

In re N.D. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 885, 891 [rule of retroactivity applies to juvenile delinquency judgments]

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 748 [Where the amendatory statute mitigates punishment and there is no saving clause, the rule is that the amendment will operate retroactively so that the lighter punishment is imposed.

Third Holding:

Because imposing a restitution fine constitutes “punishment” and the minor’s case was not yet final when section 730.6 became effective, we conclude section 730.6 operates retroactively and precludes imposition of a restitution fine. Therefore, the restitution fine should be stricken.

Authority:

People v. Allen (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 312, 321

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000748

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court imposed a two-year sentence on each of two felony counts, stayed one of those sentences under section 654, and pronounced sentences of concurrent time on the three misdemeanor counts. The failed, however, to pronounce the sentence for those three misdemeanors, and the case is remanded for it to do so.

First Holding:

Section 12 requires courts to pass sentence on the defendant and impose the punishment prescribed upon conviction for a crime. And the trial court generally must include all aspects of a judgment in its oral pronouncement of judgment.

Authority:

PEN 12

In re Sandel (1966) 64 Cal.2d 412, 415

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

Second Holding:

Therefore, a trial court must pronounce a sentence on every felony and misdemeanor conviction. The failure to do so results in an unauthorized sentence. When the mistake in failing to pronounce sentence on a count is discovered while the defendant’s appeal is pending, the appellate court should remand the case for a proper sentence.

Authority:

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

People v. Eberhardt (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1112, 1121–1122

People v. Cheffen (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 638, 641–642

People v. Morrow (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 507, 514

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

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000743

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the defendant was not convicted of a serious felony in this case, the two five-year prior serious felony enhancements are not authorized and must be stricken.

First Holding:

The Three Strikes law is a sentencing scheme that requires a court to double or sometimes triple the punishment for a felony offense if the defendant was previously convicted of a crime that qualifies as a serious or violent’ felony. The serious or violent felonies that trigger this sentencing scheme, commonly referred to as strikes or strike priors, are enumerated by statute. If a defendant’s current offense is a serious felony, the defendant is also subject to a five-year prior serious felony enhancement—a so-called ‘nickel prior’—in addition to any strike

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 582

People v. Thomas (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1122, 1129,

People v. Arnett (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1609, 1613

Second Holding:

Penal Code section 667(a) provides that a person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted of a serious felony shall receive, in addition to the sentence imposed by the court for the present offense, a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction on charges brought and tried separately. A serious felony means a serious felony listed in section 1192.7(c), which identifies 42 offenses as serious felonies, including any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life.

Authority:

PEN 667(a)

PEN 1192.7(c)

Third Holding:

For an offense falling within the enumerated list without any change in elements since the conviction, the question whether that conviction qualifies as a serious felony is entirely legal. But if there is a factual question of whether conduct underlying the crime qualifies the offense as a serious felony, any such facts must be tried to the same factfinder that decided the defendant’s guilt of the charged crime.

Authority:

PEN 969f(a)

People v. Kelii (1999) 21 Cal.4th 452, 456

Fourth Holding:

None of the defendants prior convictions are for offenses listed in section 1192.7(c). And though he received a life sentence because he was a third-strike offender, section 1192.7(c)(7) category requires that the offense be itself punishable by life imprisonment, without regard to application of the Three Strikes law based on defendant’s status as a recidivist.

Authority:

People v. Thomas (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1122, 1130

People v. Hernandez (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 192, 198 [construing the ineligibility factors of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012–Proposition 36–depends on the nature of the offense itself, not the effect of other prior convictions on the defendant’s sentence]

People v. Harrison (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1145, 1159 [construing the ineligibility factors for consideration under section 1170.91 regarding the mitigating effect of trauma incurred in the course of military service, which may even include recall of the sentence and resentencing]

Fifth Holding:

Because the defendant was not convicted of a serious felony in this case, the two five-year prior serious felony enhancements are not authorized and must be stricken. We have authority to correct a sentence that is not authorized by law. But when an error affects part of a sentence, the case must be remanded for a full resentencing hearing as to all counts to permit a trial court to exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances. We thus remand for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Choyce (2025) 18 Cal.5th 86, 128

People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 743, fn. 13.)

People v. Shaw (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 582, 588-589

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000742

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The crime that the defendant pleaded guilty to is not one to which Health and Safety Code section 11372.5 applies to, so the $50 fee must be stricken.

First Holding:

Health and Safety Code section 11372.5(a) states that every person who is convicted of enumerated offenses must pay a criminal laboratory analysis fee of $50 for each separate offense. The fee only applies to the offenses listed or enumerated in section 11372.5(a).

Authority:

HSC 11372.5

People v. Myles (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1158, 1160

Second Holding:

Defendant pleaded no contest to an offense not listed in section 11372.5(a). Thus the trial court could not legally impose the $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee as a probation condition and the fee is, therefore, unauthorized. We therefore strike the fee.

Authority:

People v. Myles (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1158, 1160

People v. Dotson (1997) 16 Cal.4th 547, 554, fn. 6 [claim that a sentence is unauthorized may be raised for the first time on appeal and corrected whenever error comes to the attention of the reviewing court]

People v. Soto (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1231-1233 [striking unauthorized fee on appeal]

Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000741

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in not conducting a full resentencing on the defendant’s petition for recall under section 1172.75. Remanded for full resentencing.

First Holding:

When a defendant raises both statutory and constitutional bases for their appeal, we do not reach the constitutional grounds if the case can be resolved on statutory grounds. When a defendant appeals the denial of a Marsden motion, the core inquiry is whether the trial court’s ruling violated the defendant’s constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

Swart Enterprises, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 497, 513 [a reviewing court should consider a constitutional question only where essential to the disposition of a case]

People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 123

People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 696

Second Holding:

On the other hand, the scope of a trial court’s application of section 1172.75 is a question of statutory interpretation, which is subject to our de novo review. If that review resolves the appeal, it is dispositive.

Authority:

People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276, 1281–1282

Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino (1995) 11 Cal.4th 220, 230–231 [finding that where statutory and constitutional claims are at issue and resolution of the statutory ground is adequate to resolve the matter, doing so is dispositive]

Third Holding:

The parties disagree about whether defendant forfeited his argument that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a full resentencing under section 1172.75. In the interests of judicial economy, to forestall an ineffective assistance of counsel habeas petition, and to avoid the constitutional issues raised by defendant regarding the performance of his trial counsel, we decline to enforce any forfeiture under the circumstances of this case.

Authority:

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 400

Fourth Holding:

In general, we review a trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is found where the court relies upon circumstances that are not relevant to the decision or that otherwise constitute an improper basis for decision.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 323

Fifth Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court. A court that is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no more exercise that informed discretion than one whose sentence is or may have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant’s record. In such circumstances, we have held that 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.

Authority:

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

Sixth Holding:

Where an issue on appeal requires that we determine the meaning of a statute, we review the trial court’s decision de novo. In any case involving statutory interpretation, our fundamental task is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose. We begin by examining the statute’s words, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning. When the language of a statute is clear, we need go no further.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 323

People v. Scott (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1415, 1421

People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113, 1123 [If no ambiguity appears in the statutory language, we presume that the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute controls]

Seventh Holding:

Section 1172.75 makes any sentence enhancement imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to 667.5(b) legally invalid unless it was imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code. If the court determines (through the process set forth in the statute) that the defendant’s sentence includes an invalid enhancement, it is required to recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. An eligible defendant under section 1172.75 is entitled to a full resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067, fn. 3 [Where section 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing, not simply striking the now-invalidated priors]

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]