Tag Archives: Sentencing

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000357

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On remand from the Supreme Court, the prior opinion is amended to vacate the strike finding and prior serious felony enhancement in light of AB 333, enacted after he was sentenced. As held in the original opinion, three of the four counts of felon in possession of a firearm must be vacated, because the same gun was possessed for all four underlying robberies.

First Holding:

The evidence is insufficient to support three of the four charged counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm because he possessed the same gun continuously and can therefore be convicted of only one count. As the Attorney General concedes, the evidence shows a single continuing offense without the interruption in possession necessary for separate crimes. (Indeed, to help prove identity of the perpetrator, the prosecutor relied on the fact that the same gun was used in all the offenses.) We will therefore reverse the judgment and order all but one firearm possession conviction vacated.

Authority:

People v. Mason (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 355, 365

Second Holding:

After defendant was sentenced, section 1170(b) was amended to create a presumption in favor of the low term under certain circumstances, including where the defendant was under age 26 at the time of the offense and youth was a contributing factor in the offense. Because that new provision is ameliorative, it applies retroactively to this nonfinal judgment.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(6)

People v. Flores (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1039

Third Holding:

The Attorney General does not dispute defendant was under 26 at the time of the offenses but argues resentencing is not required because there is no evidence youth was a contributing factor and the aggravating factors found by the court outweigh the mitigating factors such that the court would not have imposed the low term in any event. But when a court has imposed a sentence while unaware of the extent of its discretion—in this case because the legislation was not yet in effect—resentencing is required unless the record clearly indicates the court would have imposed the same sentence under the new standard. We are not persuaded that a lack of evidence showing youth contributed to the offense obviates the need for remand, as before the enactment of the new law, counsel may have had less incentive to present mitigation on the point, and defendant should now be allowed the opportunity to do so.

Authority:

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1096

Fourth Holding:

Defendant’s sentence was increased based on the finding that he was convicted in 2012 of a serious felony. The prior conviction is for assault under former Penal Code section 245(a)(1), which qualified as a prior serious felony because it was found to have been committed to benefit a criminal street gang under the version of Penal Code section 186.22 then in effect. The strike finding and prior serious felony enhancement must be vacated because legislation enacted after his sentencing (AB No. 333) added several elements to the gang enhancement statute and, if the current standard is applied to his 2012 conviction, the evidence in the record is insufficient to prove the new elements. Where a defendant has suffered a conviction under the prior version of section 186.22, AB 333 applies to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements. We will therefore remand for possible retrial as contemplated in Fletcher, or for resentencing without an increase to defendant’s sentence based on a prior serious felony conviction.

Authority:

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

Fifth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2020, Penal Code section 667.5(b) was amended to limit prior prison term enhancements (for nonviolent offenses not listed in 667.5(c)) to sentences that were served for sexually violent offenses as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600(b). The amendment applies retroactively and requires the prior prison term enhancements to be vacated because they were not based on sexually violent offenses.

Authority:

SB 136

PEN 667.5

Sixth Holding:

The trial court imposed a concurrent prison term for possessing ammunition, which should have been stayed under section 654 because the ammunition offense is based on the same conduct as unlawfully possessing a firearm, for which the court also imposed a prison term. When resentencing defendant, the trial court shall apply section 654 to stay any prison terms arising from conduct for which punishment is otherwise imposed.

[GARY NOTE: Section 654 now gives the court the discretion to impose punishment for ANY ONE of multiple counts (and stay the punishment on the other(s)) where section 654 applies, and does NOT require that it impose the sentence on the count bearing the greater sentence.]

Authority:

PEN 654

Sixth Holding:

On resentencing, the defendant will be entitled to consideration under the amendments to section 1385 under SB 81 to to limit sentencing enhancements by requiring that great weight be given to evidence of certain mitigating circumstances. By its terms, amended Penal Code section 1385 applies to all sentencings after January 1, 2022, which will include defendant’s resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1385

Fines and fees, Juveniles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000354

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because of legislation enacted since the disposition hearing, the $300 restitution fine is ordered stricken in this Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 juvenile proceeding. The statutory change regarding joint and severally liability, however, does not apply retroactively.

First Holding:

While this appeal was pending, the Legislature amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 and removed the requirement that a minor pay a restitution fine. The relevant portion of the statute now states that the court shall not impose a separate and additional restitution fine against a minor found to be a person described in section 602. Because the judgment is not final, the appellant is entitled to the ameliorative benefits of this amendment.

Authority:

WIC 730.6

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740

Second Holding:

The modification of section 730.6(b)(3), eliminating joint and several liability for juvenile offenders for direct restitution, is not punitive, but civil. Because it is not ameliorative of punishment, there is no presumption that it applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments. Enacted after the order imposing direct restitution jointly and severally with other parties, it has prospective effect only, and does not apply retroactively to this minor’s case.

Authority:

WIC 730.6(b)(3)

In re J.L. (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 388

Discretion, Duty of the court, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000353

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights by imposing a sentence based on aggravating circumstances that were neither admitted by him nor tried to a jury. The trial court conducted an inadequate inquiry when the defendant requested that new counsel be substituted.

[GARY NOTE: The unpublished opinion lays out several observations that it characterizes as possibly arguable deficiencies in counsel’s performance that would support a finding that it would be necessary to substitute new counsel as the defendant requested. Many of the specifics have been redacted from the filed opinion itself, as the Marsden hearing is a confidential inquiry conducted outside the presence of the prosecution and the public, and the matters stated by any participants (the defendant, the attorney for the defendant, the court) at the hearing are not subject to public disclosure.]

First Holding:

The defendant is entitled to resentencing because the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by relying on aggravating circumstances based on facts that had not been admitted or tried to a jury. Although the defendant did not preserve this claim in the trial court, his failure to do so does not forfeit his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

Authority:

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47-48

Second Holding:

In Cunningham, the United States Supreme Court held that, except for prior conviction allegations, the Sixth Amendment requires any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence to be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The sentencing scheme in effect in California at the time violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because it allowed a defendant’s prison sentence to be increased beyond the statutory maximum based on facts that had not been found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or admitted by the defendant. The statutory maximum, for Sixth Amendment purposes, is the maximum sentence the court may impose without finding any additional facts beyond those necessary to support the verdict. Cunningham explained that California could comply with the Sixth Amendment either by requiring jury findings for any facts necessary to impose an aggravated sentence or, alternatively, by authorizing sentencing courts to exercise broad discretion within a statutory range.

Authority:

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281, 294

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 746-747

Third Holding:

California’s current sentencing scheme (in effect at the time of the defendant’s sentencing) adopts the first option Cunningham outlined. Under section 1170(b), when a statute specifies three possible terms, the court must order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial. After revoking the defendant’s probation, the court found in aggravation that the crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threats of great bodily harm, and other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness. But this aggravating factor was not admitted or otherwise proved to the trier of fact.

Authority:

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 294

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 748

Fourth Holding:

We apply the rigorous Chapman standard of review to determine whether the trial court’s reliance on unproven aggravating circumstances was prejudicial. Under that standard, the violation is prejudicial unless we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a jury would have found true all the aggravating facts upon which the challenged sentence was based. The defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing unless the appellate court can conclude that the omission of a jury trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to every aggravating fact the trial court used to justify an upper term sentence. Put another way, the defendant is entitled to a remand unless no reasonable jury would have found in favor of the defendant as to any of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court. In conducting this analysis, moreover, we may not assume that the record contains all the evidence that would have been presented had the aggravating circumstances been tried to a jury.

Authority:

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768, 775

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

Fifth Holding:

Further, because the court imposed an enhancement for great bodily injury under section 12022.7, it was improper to also rely on great bodily injury as a factor in aggravation for purposes of imposing the upper term, although that error is subject to harmless error analysis. The court could, without running afoul of section 1170(b)(5), rely on other aggravating circumstances independent of the great bodily injury enhancement, such as a finding that the offense involved great violence or reflected a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(5) [a court cannot impose an upper term by using the fact of any enhancement upon which sentence is imposed under any provision of law]

Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1)

People v. Gutierrez (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1729, 1735-1736

People v. Castaneda (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 611, 614-615

Sixth Holding:

When a defendant requests that his appointed counsel be relieved and new counsel be appointed under Marsden, the trial court must give the defendant an opportunity to explain his concerns about his counsel’s performance and provide examples of deficiencies. The defendant is entitled to substitute counsel when the record clearly shows that the appointed counsel is not providing adequate representation. The trial court abuses its discretion when the defendant has shown that a failure to replace the appointed attorney would substantially impair the right to assistance of counsel. The trial court also abuses its discretion if it does not conduct an adequate inquiry into the defendant’s motion. When the defendant has identified shortcomings by counsel, the court must obtain counsel’s response and conduct any further inquiry that is needed to determine whether counsel had adequate explanations for all of the defendant’s complaints.

The critical factual inquiry in a Marsden hearing will often involve whether counsel consulted sufficiently with their client, adequately investigated the facts, and properly prepared for the relevant hearing. When the trial court’s inquiry is deficient, we remand the case for a new Marsden hearing. On this record, the trial court lacked an adequate basis to determine whether counsel had properly investigated and prepared the defendant’s mitigation case for the sentencing hearing. Likewise, we lack an adequate record to review the trial court’s denial of Marsden relief. On remand, the trial court should conduct a Marsden hearing to determine whether the defendant is entitled to substitute counsel for purposes of his resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 123-124

People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 599

People v. Carter (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1092, 1099, 1102-1104

People v. Ng (2022) 13 Cal.5th 448, 500

People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 488

People v. Ivans (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1666 [stating the trial court must make a careful inquiry before it can intelligently rule on the Marsden motion]

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

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000345

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Pursuant to a plea bargain, the two defendants pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter. Both petitioned the court for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. The court denied each man’s petition. We reverse and remand for the trial court to hold another evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 1172.6(d)(3) to determine whether the defendant’s would be guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt under current law.

First Holding:

In 2019, the Legislature enacted SB 1437, which altered the rules of murder liability to ensure culpability more closely matched punishment. To provide retroactive relief, SB 1437 also established a resentencing process, now codified in section 1172.6. This statute permits individuals convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter under a theory made invalid by the current law to petition the sentencing court to vacate the conviction and seek resentencing. Petitioners can seek such relief whether their convictions are the result of a trial or acceptance of a plea offer in lieu of a trial.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 472

Second Holding:

We review the court’s finding for substantial evidence, making all inferences in favor of the judgment.

Authority:

People v. Schell (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 437, 442

Third Holding:

Three times the court stated the defendants could be convicted of the crime to which they pleaded–voluntary manslaughter. In one instance, the court noted it was significant the crime they had pleaded to was manslaughter. However, that is not the question the court must answer. The evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6(d)(3), requires the court to determine whether the petitioner could be convicted of murder or attempted murder under current law – not manslaughter.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

Fourth Holding:

On this record, we cannot confidently find the trial court meant to find the two men could be found guilty of murder and not manslaughter under current law. We therefore remand for the court to hold an evidentiary hearing and answer the required question under section 1172.6(d)(3) with regard to their manslaughter convictions.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000343

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The true finding on the defendant’s prior felony strike conviction must be reversed in light of changes to the gang criminal activity statute by AB 333. Defendant’s sentence, as well as the true finding that defendant’s prior conviction qualifies as prior serious felony conviction under the Three Strikes law, is vacated. The matter is remanded to the trial court for any retrial of that allegation, applying the elements of section 186.22 as amended by AB 333 and for resentencing.

First Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature amended section 186.22 with the passage of AB 333. AB 333 changed the elements of gang offenses and enhancements by narrowing the definitions of criminal street gang, pattern of criminal activity, and what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang. AB 333 is ameliorative legislation that applies to nonfinal judgments under the rule of Estrada.

Authority:

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

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740

Second Holding:

In Fletcher, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether AB 333 applies to a sentencing court’s determination of whether a defendant’s conviction under the prior version of section 186.22 qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction for purposes of prior serious felony enhancements. It concluded that where a defendant has suffered a prior conviction under the earlier version of section 186.22, AB 333 applies to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements. It also held that it applies retroactively to cases in which the judgment is not yet final.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

That the defendant admitted the prior conviction does not forfeit the issue. Defendant’s admission cannot be construed as knowingly and/or intelligently made because it was prior to the decision in Fletcher. The true finding on defendant’s strike prior should be reversed, and the matter remanded to the trial court for any retrial of the strike allegation, applying the elements of section 186.22 as amended by AB 333. Notwithstanding the admission of the prior conviction in the trial court, we have discretion to reach the merits.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [an appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party]

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 400 [an appellate court may reach the merits of a forfeited issue in order to forestall a cognizable ineffective assistance of counsel claim]

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000342

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the court dismissed the now-invalid prior prison term enhancements, but decline to apply the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 to reduce the sentence further. The trial court concluded that section 1172.75 unconstitutionally amended section 170.126 (the petition-for-recall process for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act). Because the Supreme Court has since determined that there is no constitutional conflict, the matter is reversed and remanded for the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Holding:

The Three Strikes Reform Act limited indeterminate life sentences for nonserious, nonviolent third strike offenses. Pursuant to the Reform Act, codified at section 1170.126, a defendant can petition for a recall of sentence and request resentencing. In 2021, section 1172.75 was enacted by the Legislature, directing courts resentencing defendants to use currently applicable sentencing rules and to apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion with a goal of eliminating disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing. Because section 1172.75 incorporates the consideration of the danger to public safety inherent in section 1170.126, the two statutes operate harmoniously, and section 1172.75 is therefore constitutional and a valid, applicable statute under which a defendant may request resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1170.126

PEN 1172.75(d)(2)

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 849-850

Jury trial, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000340

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was committed to the Department of State Hospitals nearly 50 years ago after being found not guilty by reason of insanity of robbery and assault. He challenges the order recommitting him for two years. The record fails to establish that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights to a jury trial and we therefore reverse.

First Holding:

Where a criminal defendant has been found to have been insane at the time the offense was committed, unless it appears to the trial court that the sanity of the defendant has been recovered fully, the court may order the defendant committed to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) or any other appropriate facility for care and treatment. The commitment order must specify the maximum term of commitment, which is defined as the longest term of imprisonment which could have been imposed for the offense of which the person was convicted.

Authority:

PEN 1026(a)

People v. K.P. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 331, 338

Second Holding:

A person committed to DSH who completes the maximum term of commitment must be released unless, prior to the expiration of that term, the prosecution files a petition seeking to extend the commitment by two years and demonstrates that the person, by reason of a mental disease, defect, or disorder represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. Upon the filing of such a petition, the person is entitled to a jury trial, unless that right is waived by both the person and the prosecuting attorney.

To proceed with a bench trial instead of a jury trial in a recommitment proceeding, the trial court must obtain a personal waiver of that right from the defendant unless the court finds substantial evidence that the defendant lacks the capacity to make a knowing and voluntary waiver, in which case defense counsel controls the waiver decision. Here, neither party contends that the defendant lacked the capacity to knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to a jury, so the only question before us is whether he personally waived it.

Authority:

PEN 1026.5(b)

People v. Superior Court (Frezier) (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 652, 661–662

People v. Tran (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1160, 1163

Third Holding:

We uphold a jury-trial waiver only if the record affirmatively shows that it is voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. We do not start with a presumption of validity that may only be rebutted by signs of a defendant’s confusion or unwillingness in entering a waiver. Instead, a reviewing court satisfies itself of a legitimate waiver only when the record affirmatively demonstrates it was knowing and intelligent.

The denial of a defendant’s right to a jury trial in a recommitment proceeding, including through the acceptance of an invalid jury trial waiver is not susceptible to ordinary harmless error analysis and automatically requires reversal.

We cannot be certain on this record that the court and the defendant were ever, in the court’s words, on the same page regarding his desire to waive his right to a jury trial. And because we cannot be confident that the defendant actually waived the right, we do not ascribe much significance to his final indication that he did not have any questions about waiving the right. Under the totality of the circumstances, the record does not affirmatively demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury.

As a result, the order extending his commitment to DSH cannot stand.

Authority:

People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 991

People v. Tran (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1160, 1169