Tag Archives: Sentencing

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000903

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A defendant sentenced to LWOP is not rendered ineligible for relief under section 1172.75 unless the person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense.

First Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature declared legally invalid all prior-prison-term sentencing enhancements imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5(b) before January 1, 2020, except in cases involving terms for sexually violent offenses. Section 1172.75 established a procedure for resentencing individuals serving a term for a judgment that includes such enhancements.

Three years later, the Legislature amended the statute to preclude resentencing for an individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense as defined section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code and sentenced to death or a life term without the possibility of parole (LWOP).

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(f)

Second Holding:

The defendant was sentenced to LWOP, but has not been convicted of any sexually violent offense. Having examined the text and the legislative history of section 1172.75(f), we conclude the Legislature intended to exclude from resentencing only those individuals who were convicted of a sexually violent offense and sentenced to death or LWOP.

We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. When interpreting any statute, our goal is to determine the Legislature’s intent and give effect to the statute’s purpose. We begin by examining the statute’s words, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning. We do not, however, consider the statutory language in isolation.

We construe the words in question in context, keeping in mind the nature and obvious purpose of the statute. We also construe every statute with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part, so that all may be harmonized and anomalies avoided.

The statute’s plain meaning controls the court’s interpretation unless its words are ambiguous. If the statutory language is unclear, we may look to legislative history and public policy as aids in determining how best to give effect to Legislative intent.

Authority:

People v. Cornett (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1261, 1265

Iloff v. LaPaille (2025) 18 Cal.5th 551, 560-561

Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310, 330

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1057

People v. Robinson (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 516, 522, review granted July 15, 2026, S297048

Third Holding:

Our colleagues in the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Robinson,recently considered how to interpret section 1172.75(f). The court first observed that the ordinary and usual usage of ‘and’ is as a conjunctive, meaning an additional thing, also, or plus.

Further, the Legislature had used the term “and” and “or” in different parts of subdivision (f), which suggested that the Legislature understood the difference between the typically conjunctive “and” and the typically disjunctive “or.” It therefore appeared the challenged portion of subdivision (f) was intended to be construed conjunctively to exclude an individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense and sentenced to death or a life term without the possibility of parole.

The Robinson court further noted that even if it were to assume the plain language of section 1172,75(f) was ambiguous as to whether it should be read conjunctively or disjunctively, the legislative history supported a conjunctive interpretation.

As the plain meaning of the text and the legislative history both support a narrow reading of section 1172.75(f), we agree with the court’s holding in Robinson and find that section 1172.75(f) applies only to individuals serving a sentence of death or LWOP who are also convicted of a sexually violent offense as defined by Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600(b). Because petitioner was not convicted of a sexually violent offense, he is eligible for recall and resentencing under section 1172.75.

Authority:

People v. Robinson (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 516, 524-526, review granted July 15, 2026, S297048

Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000902

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing, the trial court erred in not awarding custody credits.

Holding:

At the resentencing hearing following remand in the defendant’s prior appeal, the court did not award any custody credits, but instead stated that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would determine them. The trial court erred and that defendant should be awarded actual custody credits, calculated from his initial arrest date to the date of the resentencing hearing.

The court should also consider whether the defendant, in light of our vacating of his conviction for attempted murder in his first appeal and the People declining to retry him, is entitled to presentence conduct credits pursuant to section 4019 and, if so, to calculate those credits.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

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

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000901

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A condition of probation must be modified, as it is not sufficiently clear on what exact conduct is proscribed.

First Holding:

Probation condition number 48 provides: “You shall not associate with any person known to you as a gang member, and you shall not frequent any area where gang members are known to congregate, or areas known for gang-related activity.” The defendant argues the terms frequent and areas known for gang-related activity are unconstitutionally vague.

Authority:

In re H.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1072 [probation condition that the minor not frequent any areas of gang related activity was objectionable because the verb ‘frequent’ would be especially challenging to understand; ‘frequent’ should be replaced with “visit”]

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 913–914 [probation condition prohibiting minor from being in areas known for gang-related activity was impermissibly vague in that it does not provide notice of what areas the minor may not frequent or what types of activities he must shun]

Second Holding:

Under the void for vagueness doctrine, based on the due process concept of fair warning, an order must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated. The doctrine invalidates a condition of probation so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.

Authority:

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 910

Third Holding:

In Victor L., we considered a similar probation condition that required the minor to stay away from areas known by him for gang-related activity. We found the condition as written, without further specificity, was not sufficiently clear to put the minor on notice of the prohibited conduct.

However, we declined to remand the matter to the trial court to reform the probation condition, observing, that to require the judge in each probation order to specify exactly which areas are forbidden to the individual gang member would impose an undue burden on the judiciary.

Instead, we elected to modify the condition of probation to provide for the probation officer to notify the minor of the areas he must avoid, as this approach was implied in law in order to avoid a claim of unconstitutional vagueness. We modified the probation term to read in relevant part, “The Minor shall not be in areas known by Minor for gang-related activity (or specified by his probation officer as involving gang-related activity).

Similarly here, we will modify the condition to read: “You shall not associate with any person known to you as a gang member, and you shall not visit any area where gang members are known by you to congregate or any area known by you for gang-related activity (or as designated by your probation officer), unless you have prior authorization from your probation officer.”

Authority:

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 913, 916-918, 931-932

In re H.C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067

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

Case 000900

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in failing to award pretrial credit for time served on several of the counts for which a determinate sentence was imposed. The abstract of judgment must be corrected as it incorrectly describes findings by the jury as enhancements.

First Holding:

We review de novo the application of section 2900.5 to the defendant’s sentence. We first examine the statutory language, giving it a plain and commonsense meaning. If the language is clear, courts must generally follow its plain meaning unless a literal interpretation would result in absurd consequences the Legislature did not intend.

Authority:

People v. Cofer (2026) 20 Cal.5th 1, 12

Second Holding:

Under section 2900.5, defendants who serve time in custody prior to their sentencing “receive credit against their prison terms for all of those days spent in custody prior to sentencing, so long as the presentence custody is attributable to the conduct that led to the conviction.

Section 2900.5(b) states in relevant part, that for the purposes of this section credit shall be given only once for a single period of custody attributable to multiple offenses for which a consecutive sentence is imposed.

That language does no more than clarify that when consecutive terms are imposed for multiple offenses in a single proceeding, only one of the terms shall receive credit for presentence custody. Thus, if sentences are imposed consecutively in a single proceeding, dual credits are expressly prohibited by statute.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 793

People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178, 1192, fn. 9

Third Holding:

Section 669(a) provides that whenever a person is committed to prison on a life sentence that is ordered to run consecutive to any determinate term of imprisonment, the determinate term of imprisonment shall be served first.

Authority:

PEN 669(a)

Fourth Holding:

Three separate sentencing schemes governed the defendant’s sentencing. For his conviction for murder (count 1), his indeterminate sentence was dictated by sections 190 and 190.2(a).

For his convictions for rape in concert (count 3) and oral copulation in concert (count 4), his indeterminate sentences were supplied by the One Strike law.

His determinate sentences for counts 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 were governed by sections 1170 and 1170.1. As the determinate sentences must be served first, the credit for time served should have been applied against the total term imposed for all seven of the determinate components of the sentence, and the court erred in failing to award credits against that part of the determinate sentence that applied to three of the counts.

He is entitled to no presentence custody against the remaining indeterminate sentences, as they were imposed consecutively.

Authority:

PEN 190

PEN 190.2

PEN 667.61(c)

PEN 669(a)

PEN 1170.1

PEN 2900.5

In re Vaquera (2024) 15 Cal.5th 706, 724 [The trial court must impose a One Strike sentence when a One Strike allegation is properly pled and proved.]

Fifth Holding:

The abstract of judgment is in error in describing the jury’s true findings under sections 190.2(d) and 667.61 as sentencing “enhancements.” The jury’s true findings pursuant to sections 190.2(d) and 667.61 are penalty provisions that exposed the defendant to greater punishment than would be authorized by a verdict on the underlying offense alone; they were not sentencing enhancements. They should not be so described in the abstract of judgment.

We will direct the trial court to delete the entries under “enhancements” in part 2 of the defendant’s indeterminate abstract of judgment.

(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for its directive that the abstract of judgment be corrected. I have listed several below (beginning with Mitchell) on which the court could have relied.)

Authority:

People v. Boswell (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 55, 60


People v. Acosta (2002) 29 Cal.4th 105, 117
.

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

Discretion, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000899

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The electronic-data conditions are unreasonable under People v. Lent. We therefore strike them and remand for the juvenile court to consider whether to impose revised conditions. We also agree with the parties that the association condition should be modified to include a knowledge requirement.

First Holding:

When a ward of the juvenile court is placed on probation, the court may make any and all reasonable orders for the conduct of the ward, including conditions of probation that (1) are individually tailored, developmentally appropriate, and reasonable; (2) impose a burden that is proportional to the legitimate interests served by the conditions; and (3) are determined by the court to be fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced. A condition of probation that is impermissible for an adult criminal defendant is not necessarily unreasonable for a juvenile receiving guidance and supervision from the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 730(b)

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118

Second Holding:

We review conditions of probation for an abuse of discretion, which occurs only if the condition is arbitrary or capricious or otherwise exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances. To determine whether a probation condition is reasonable, we apply a three-part test under Lent.

A condition cannot be held invalid under Lent unless it meets all three of the following prongs: it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not related to future criminality.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118-1119

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

Third Holding:

In addition to being reasonable, a probation condition must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated, or else it is void for vagueness. And when a probation condition imposes limitations on a probationer’s constitutional rights, it must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition—the person’s reformation and rehabilitation—to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890

Fourth Holding:

Whether a term of probation is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad presents a question of law, which we review de novo.

Authority:

In re David C. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 657, 661

Fifth Holding:

We conclude that the conditions are invalid under Lent. As to the first prong of Lent, there is no question that restricting the use of electronics The minor’s conduct involved asking the victim for her phone number, and asked the victim to put his number in her phone contacts list–which she did, but later deleted it. These acts do not establish the requisite relationship between the challenged probation conditions and the minor’s offense (sexual battery by restraint). Generally, decisions finding a sufficient connection between electronics search conditions and an offense rely on the probationer’s use of electronic devices to facilitate the offense.

In Appleton, the defendant met the minor victim online and later sexually assaulted him. The Court of Appeal held that the nexus between the offense and the probation condition at issue was sufficient even though it was somewhat attenuated. In Flores, the Court held that there was a reasonable relationship between the condition at issue and the defendant’s drug offense because the defendant used a website and an online program to arrange drug sales through a disguised phone number. Here, in contrast, there is no evidence that electronic devices played any role in facilitating the offense.

Here, in contrast, there is no indication that the minor ever actually contacted the victim through an electronic device. Indeed, he did not even have the ability to do so, as he never obtained her contact information. Nor is there any evidence that the victim attempted to communicate with the minor after the offense. The first two prongs of Lent have been met–the condition has no relation to the criminal conduct, and it restrains otherwise lawful conduct.

Authority:

People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717, 719-720

People v. Flores (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 563, 565-566, 573

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

Sixth Holding:

The third prong contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition. Thus, the mere fact that monitoring a probationer’s electronic devices and social media might deter or prevent future criminal conduct is insufficient to justify a broad electronics search condition. The electronic-data conditions burden the minor’s privacy in a manner substantially disproportionate to the claimed purposes of ensuring compliance with two of his other probation conditions (a no-contact order and prohibition from possessing sexual materials).

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1122

In re David C. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 657, 665 and fn 4

In re Amber K. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 559, 567-568

Seventh Holding:

The court ordered the following probation condition: “The Minor shall not associate with minors under the age of 14, unless it is his own child, unless in the presence of a responsible adult, or associated person is approved by the Probation Department.”

A probation condition is unconstitutionally overbroad if it (1) impinges on constitutional rights, and (2) is not tailored carefully and reasonably related to the compelling state interest in reformation and rehabilitation. The essential question in an overbreadth challenge is the closeness of the fit between the legitimate purpose of the restriction and the burden it imposes on the probationer’s constitutional rights—bearing in mind, of course, that perfection in such matters is impossible, and that practical necessity will justify some infringement.

The restriction is not unreasonable, but it must be tailored to require the minor’s express knowledge that the minor is under the age of 14. Generally speaking, if a probation condition prohibits a probationer from associating with a certain group of people, the condition is unconstitutionally vague unless it also requires that the probationer know a given person is in that group. Here, the minor may not reasonably know that an individual is under 14 years of age.

Thus, we modify the association condition to read: “The Minor shall not associate with minors whom he knows or reasonably should know are under the age of 14, unless it is his own child, unless he is in the presence of a responsible adult, or unless the associated person is approved by the Probation Department.”

Authority:

People v. Gonsalves (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1, 8–9

People v. Bray (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 494, 503

People v. Turner (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1436 [modifying condition prohibiting association with people under age 18].