Tag Archives: Sentencing

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000318

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was sentenced to prison terms of 60-to-life plus 13 years under both the Three Strikes law (section 667) and the Habitual Offender provisions of section 667.7. The sentence included 13 years for enhancements. The judgment is modified to strike the great bodily injury enhancement imposed under section 12022.7(a) and the two prior serious felony enhancements imposed under section 667(a). On the amended abstract of judgment form, the court should indicate in section No. 8 that the defendant was sentenced pursuant to both section 667.7 and the Three Strikes law.

First Holding:

As relevant here, section 667.7 defines a habitual offender as any person convicted of a felony in which the person inflicted great bodily injury as provided in section 12022.53 or 12022.7, or personally used force which was likely to produce great bodily injury, who has served two or more prior separate prison terms as defined in section 667.5 for the crime of assault with a deadly weapon. A habitual offender with two prior separate prison terms shall be sentenced to life in prison and shall be ineligible for parole for a period of time calculated as the longest of three options: (1) 20 years; (2) the determinate term that would be imposed under section 1170, including any enhancements; or (3) any period prescribed by Section 190 or 3046. In other words, a habitual offender is not eligible for parole for a minimum of 20 years and for at least the duration of the sentence that would otherwise be imposed for the crime, including applicable enhancements.

[Gary note: The minimum term was set at 60 years, which was arrived at by tripling the minimum 20 years to life set by section 667.7 in keeping with section 667(e)(2)(A)(i), which sets the minimum term for Three Strikes sentences at “three times the term otherwise provided as punishment for each current felony conviction” if that produces the greatest Three Strikes sentence. The third option listed above–the reference to section 3046–is what makes that the applicable minimum term under section 667.7.]

Authority:

PEN 667.7

PEN 3046(a)(2) [(a) An inmate imprisoned under a life sentence shall not be paroled until he or she has served the greater of the following: … (2) A term as established pursuant to any other law that establishes a minimum term or minimum period of confinement under a life sentence before eligibility for parole.]

Second Holding:

Section 667.7 is a self-contained sentencing scheme for habitual violent offenders. Because section 667.7 ensures that a habitual offender’s parole ineligibility lasts at least as long as the corresponding determinate sentence would, including enhancements, a sentencing court may not impose determinate sentence enhancements to further lengthen this period of parole ineligibility.

Authority:

People v. Jenkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 234, 241

People v. Victor (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 518, 524-526

People v. Tuggle (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 147, 157-158, disapproved on another ground in Jenkins, at p. 252

Third Holding:

Permitting determinate enhancements to be imposed on top of a habitual offender life sentence would lead to absurd, anomalous, results. Section 667.7 expressly authorizes courts to use applicable enhancements to calculate the offender’s hypothetical determinate sentence. If the total exceeds 20 years, the determinate sentence defines the offender’s minimum parole eligibility. Thus, if the determinate sentence, including enhancements, for habitual offender A equaled 21 years, this would become his minimum term. Since the enhancements were used to calculate this actual minimum term, the court could not recycle the enhancements to add another five or ten years. If the determinate sentence, including enhancements, for habitual offender B, a less serious offender, did not exceed 20 years, then B would be hit twice. First, as the Legislature intended, his minimum term would be the statutory floor, 20 years. Second, the same enhancements, which were not enough to put his determinate term over 20 years, would then be added on top of the statutory floor. This is not what the Legislature intended.

Authority:

People v. Victor (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 518, 524-525

People v. Jenkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 234, 253 [noting that engrafting a term of enhancement onto the life term would lead to a result inconsistent with the statute’s methodology for setting the minimum period of required imprisonment, and nothing in the statute suggests that the Legislature intended that those same enhancements be used again to add an additional term of imprisonment onto the life term]

Fourth Holding:

An appellate court may correct a sentence that is not authorized by law. Accordingly, we will strike the unauthorized enhancements from the defendant’s sentence.

Authority:

In re Ricky H. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 176, 191

In re Sandel (1966) 64 Cal.2d 412, 417-419

People v. Skeirik (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 444, 468-469

Fifth Holding:

On the amended abstract of judgment form, the court should indicate in section No. 8 that the defendant was sentenced pursuant to both section 667.7 and the Three Strikes law.

[Gary note: The court cited no authority for its directive for the correction of the abstract of judgment. It isn’t entirely clear that the abstract was incorrect, but a fair reading led me to that conclusion. In any event, there is much authority supporting the court’s ability to order correction of abstracts of judgment and minute orders, and I have set out some 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

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000316

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We affirm the order denying resentencing under section 1172.6, but direct the trial court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment, because the credit for time served was miscalculated.

First Holding:

Both the date of arrest and the sentencing should be included in credit calculations

Authority:

People v. Bravo (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 729, 735

Second Holding:

The failure to properly calculate custody and conduct credits is a jurisdictional error that may be corrected at any time.

Authority:

People v. Chilleli (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 581, 591

Amelioration, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000315

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals the denial of his motion to strike a strike that was based on gang activity under the definition existing prior to the changes to section 186.22 enacted by AB 333. The motion should have been granted, and we vacate the defendant’s admission of that strike. It is undisputed that the trial court did not evaluate whether the conduct underlying the defendant’s prior convictions would violate section 186.22 as amended by AB 333, and nothing in the record would have afforded it a basis to do so. We will reverse the judgment and remand the matter for the trial court to apply the elements of section 186.22 as amended. On remand, the People must decide whether to prosecute the prior strike allegations under the law as amended by AB 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.). The trial court must resentence the defendant.

Holding:

When determining whether a prior serious felony conviction qualifies as a strike based on gang criminal activity, sentencing courts must consider whether the conduct underlying a prior conviction that by operation of section 186.22 is alleged to be a serious or violent felony still satisfies section 186.22 as amended.

Authority:

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

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000314

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court improperly imposed the upper term for the attempted murder conviction based on unpleaded and unproven aggravating factors. Accordingly, we will remand for resentencing and otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

In selecting a term of imprisonment, a trial court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when 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. Notwithstanding this rule, a court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Authority:

PEN 1170

Second Holding:

With the exception of prior conviction allegations, under the Sixth Amendment, any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by a jury and established beyond a reasonable doubt. A Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established. Further the United States Supreme Court rejected the argument that the prior conviction exception to the Sixth Amendment permits a judge to find perhaps any fact related to a defendant’s past offenses. Rather, a judge may do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 747, 768

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

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 837-838

Third Holding:

A trial court’s reliance on aggravating circumstances not found in accordance with section 1170(b) is prejudicial unless an appellate court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court to justify an upper term sentence, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statutory requirements. If the reviewing court cannot so determine, applying the Chapman standard of review, the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing. When assessing prejudice under Chapman, the proper inquiry is whether any rational fact finder could have come to the opposite conclusion. If a rational juror could have reached the opposite conclusion, the error is not harmless under Chapman. The Attorney General bears the burden of establishing that the federal constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090

People v. Avalos (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 926, 953

Fourth Holding:

The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The record does not necessarily reflect that defendant’s convictions were increasing in seriousness. He was subject to a sustained juvenile petition for robbery, and his adult conviction was for unlawful firearm activity. A rational jury could have concluded that his felony conduct was not increasing in seriousness. The trial court’s remaining findings are subjective determinations that go beyond the mere fact of a prior conviction.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 767 [The Sixth Amendment jury trial right attaches to every aggravating fact, other than a prior conviction, used to justify imposition of the upper term]

Eighth Amendment, Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000313

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Tried as an adult for murder in 2008, the defendant was sentenced to 47 years to life in prison. The trial court denied his recently filed (2024) motion for resentencing under section 1170(d), believing the defendant was categorically ineligible for resentencing because he did not receive an actual LWOP sentence and the 47 years to life sentence he did receive was not long enough to qualify as the functional equivalent of LWOP. We hold, having given defendant’s circumstances individualized consideration, that defendant is eligible for resentencing because he is serving a sentence that constitutes the functional equivalent of LWOP.

First Holding:

When a defendant who was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense for which the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole has been incarcerated for at least 15 years, the defendant may submit to the sentencing court a petition for recall and resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)

Second Holding:

We conclude that defendants who are serving the functional equivalent of LWOP, not just those serving an actual LWOP sentence, are eligible for section 1170(d) relief.

Authority:

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608 [GARY NOTE: 23 years plus 80 years to life]

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435 [GARY NOTE: 10 years plus 130 years to life]

People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349, 356, 369 [holding sentences of 50 and 58 years to life imposed on two defendants who were 16 years old at the time of their kidnapping and sex offenses were functionally equivalent to LWOP and violated the Eighth Amendment]

Third Holding:

While the trial court rightly identified the line drawing problems this question raises given the current state of the law, lines must still be drawn. They need not be drawn entirely in the abstract, however. Instead, guided by our consideration of defendant’s history and prospects—and by our Supreme Court’s observation that a sentence must give a juvenile “a realistic hope of release and a genuine opportunity to reintegrate into society” to be constitutional (Contreras, supra, 4 Cal.5th at 373)—we hold defendant is serving a sentence that is the functional equivalent of LWOP and among those who are not categorically ineligible for relief under section 1170(d).

Authority:

People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349, 373

Fourth Holding:

This question is pending in the Supreme Court. Acknowledging our Supreme Court will have the final word, we hold, having given defendant’s circumstances individualized consideration, that defendant is eligible for resentencing because he is serving a sentence that constitutes the functional equivalent of LWOP.

Authority:

People v. Munoz (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 499, review granted June 25, 2025, S290828

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000312

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals the denial of his motion to strike a strike that was based on gang activity under the definition existing prior to the changes to PC 186.22 enacted by AB 333. The motion should have been granted, and we vacate the defendant’s admission of that strike.

First Holding:

The Three Strikes law doubles a felony sentence if the defendant has a prior conviction for a serious felony, which includes any felony offense, which would also constitute a felony violation of section 186.22. The prior firearm conviction constitutes a strike if committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang pursuant to section 186.22(b)(1).

Authority:

AB 333

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

PEN 667

People v. Briceno (2004) 34 Cal.4th 451, 456

Second Holding:

AB 333, effective January 1, 2022, amended section 186.22 to narrow the definition of benefit to mean to provide a common benefit to members of a gang where the common benefit is more than reputational. Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational may include, but are not limited to, financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting a perceived or actual gang rival, or intimidation or silencing of a potential current or previous witness or informant. This provision applies retroactively to cases that are not final on appeal to determine whether a prior violation of section 186.22 constitutes a strike. With regard to prior convictions that are premised on violations of section 186.22, current law applies in determining whether they qualify as prior serious felony convictions.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(g)

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 586-587

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000311

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

For a prior felony conviction based on gang criminal activity to qualify as a serious felony or a strike, it must have met the elements of section 186.22 as amended by AB 333. In this People’s appeal from the dismissal of that strike, we affirm the trial court’s order.

First Holding:

The Three Strikes law doubles a felony sentence if the defendant has a prior conviction for a serious felony, which includes any felony offense that would also constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22. The prior firearm conviction constitutes a strike if committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang pursuant to section 186.22(b)(1).

Authority:

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

PEN 667

People v. Briceno (2004) 34 Cal.4th 451, 456

Second Holding:

AB 333, effective January 1, 2022, amended section 186.22 to narrow the definition of benefit to mean to provide a common benefit to members of a gang where the common benefit is more than reputational. Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational may include, but are not limited to, financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting a perceived or actual gang rival, or intimidation or silencing of a potential current or previous witness or informant. This provision applies retroactively to cases that are not final on appeal to determine whether a prior violation of section 186.22 constitutes a strike. With regard to prior convictions that are premised on violations of section 186.22, current law applies in determining whether they qualify as prior serious felony convictions.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(g)

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 586-587

Elements of crime, Fines and fees, Juveniles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000310

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The evidence is insufficient to support an enhancement based on a finding that the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Imposition of a restitution fine is now precluded by subsequent legislation. We modify the judgment to strike the gang enhancement and vacate the restitution fine.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, section 186.22 was amended by AB 333, significantly narrowing the circumstances in which the enhancement would apply. As amended, the statute now requires, among other things, that the two predicate offenses necessary to establish a pattern of criminal gang activity must each have been committed within a specified date range by two or more gang members for the common benefit of the gang, and this benefit must have been more than reputational. Here, the evidence of predicate offenses offered by the prosecution showed three possible crimes, two of which were committed by a single gang member without anything to indicate a value to the gang that was more than reputational. This is insufficient to establish a basis for the gang enhancement as amended by AB 333

Authority:

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 752–753

Second Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 now prohibits imposition of restitution fines on juvenile offenders. This provision is retroactive. We therefore vacate the $100 restitution fine.

Authority:

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

People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 308

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

Case: 000309

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Denial of petition to vacate judgment of murder and for resentencing under section 1172.6 is reversed. The appellant’s participation in the planning and commission of the robbery and failure to render aid to the co-defendant do not demonstrate that he acted with the requisite reckless indifference to human life to be culpable of murder.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted SB 1437 to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. As amended by SB 1437, section 189 now limits liability under a felony-murder theory to actual killers and those who, with the intent to kill, aid or abet the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree. Individuals who do not fall into those categories can be held liable for murder only if they were major participants in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in section 190.2(d)—the statute defining the felony-murder special circumstance. Section 1172.6 permits individuals who were convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory, but who could not be convicted of murder following SB 1437’s changes to sections 188 and 189, to petition the sentencing court to vacate the conviction and resentence on any remaining counts.

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 189

PEN 1172.6

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708

Second Holding:

On appeal from an order denying a section 1172.6 petition after an evidentiary hearing, we review the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence. We examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value that would support a rational trier of fact in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Our job on review is different from the trial judge’s job in deciding the petition. While the trial judge must review all the relevant evidence, evaluate and resolve contradictions, and make determinations as to credibility, all under the reasonable doubt standard, our job is to determine whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support a rational fact finder’s findings beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not reweigh evidence or revisit the trial court’s credibility determinations.

Authority:

People v. Richardson (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1085, 1090

People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 298

People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 657-658

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 885

People v. Cody (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 87, 112-113

Third Holding:

In Banks, the Supreme Court set out a nonexhaustive list of considerations relevant to whether a defendant’s participation in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death is sufficiently significant to render him or her a major participant in the crime. Those considerations are: What role did the defendant have in planning the criminal enterprise that led to one or more deaths? What role did the defendant have in supplying or using lethal weapons? What awareness did the defendant have of particular dangers posed by the nature of the crime, weapons used, or past experience or conduct of the other participants? Was the defendant present at the scene of the killing, in a position to facilitate or prevent the actual murder, and did his or her own actions or inaction play a particular role in the death? What did the defendant do after lethal force was used?

Authority:

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 794, 803

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 705

Fourth Holding:

Clark similarly set forth a list of considerations relevant to determining whether a defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life. The first factor relates to weapons: was the defendant aware that weapons would be used in the felony? Did the defendant use a weapon? How many weapons were used in the crime? The court cautioned that the mere fact of a defendant’s awareness that a gun will be used in the felony is not sufficient to establish reckless indifference to human life. A robbery in which the only factor supporting reckless indifference to human life is the fact of the use of a gun is what the Banks court meant by a garden-variety armed robbery.

The second factor is the defendant’s physical proximity to the murder and the events leading up to it, and the opportunities that proximity afforded to restrain the crime or aid the victim.

The third factor is the duration of the felony, particularly the duration of the interaction between victims and perpetrators; more prolonged incidents provide “‘a greater window of opportunity for violence.

The fourth factor is the defendant’s awareness of his or her codefendants’ propensity for violence or likelihood of killing a victim.

The final factor is the defendant’s efforts to minimize the risk of violence during the felony, though the court cautioned that some effort to minimize the risk of violence does not, in itself, necessarily foreclose a finding that defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life. In cases where a defendant was a youth at the time of the crime, his or her age may also be relevant to determining whether he or she acted with reckless indifference.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 617-623

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 794, 802

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 885 fn 6

In re Moore (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 434, 453-454

People v. Ramirez (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 970, 987

Fifth Holding:

No single Banks or Clark factor is determinative. Lower courts should take care to consider the presence or absence relating to each relevant factor on its own merits before considering the evidence in its totality.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 618, 621-623

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 888

Sixth Holding:

There is significant overlap between being a major participant and acting with reckless indifference to human life, and the greater the defendant’s participation in the felony murder, the more likely that he acted with reckless indifference to human life. However, that does not necessarily mean that every major participant in a crime acts with reckless indifference to human life. Participation in a gardenvariety armed robbery is insufficient without more to establish reckless indifference. The defendant must not merely be aware of the foreseeable risk of death inherent in any violent felony; he or she must knowingly create a grave risk of death to demonstrate reckless indifference to human life. The defendant’s actions before and during the crime are important but not determinative; the key inquiry is what his actions reveal about his mental state.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 618, 614-615

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 884

Discretion, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing

Case: 000307

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand the matter for further proceedings on the firearm enhancements under Penal Code section 1385(c).

First Holding:

The defendant contends the court did not consider dismissing any of his four firearm enhancements under section 1385(c). He acknowledges his counsel didn’t ask the court to dismiss any of the enhancements, and he contends his attorney was constitutionally ineffective in that failure. The Attorney General contends the defendant has forfeited the issue. We exercise our discretion to consider the issue nevertheless, to resolve the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Trial courts have discretion to strike or dismiss firearm enhancements in the interest of justice under section 1385, which states that the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so.

Authority:

PEN 12022.5(c)

PEN 1385(c)(1)

Second Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, section 1385(c)(2) states sentencing courts shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove certain enumerated mitigating circumstances, and proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. Of the nine mitigating circumstances listed in the statute, the only one that conceivably applies to the defendant is subparagraph (B): that multiple enhancements are alleged in a single case. Subparagraph (B) provides, “In this instance, all enhancements beyond a single enhancement shall be dismissed.”

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)(2)(B)

Third Holding:

The presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance does not create a presumption in favor of dismissal. Instead, absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a court must assign significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances when they are present. In practice, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1032–1033

Fourth Holding:

However, section 1385(c) does not mean that, whenever a listed mitigating circumstance is present, the trial court must dismiss all enhancements unless it finds dismissal would endanger public safety. Even without a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, the trial court retains the discretion to impose or dismiss enhancements provided that it assigns significant value to the presence of any listed mitigating circumstances. We can’t tell whether the court considered the requirements of section 1385. Remand therefore is necessary.

Authority:

People v. Bravo (2025) 107 Cal.App.5th 1144, 1157

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1029

Fifth Holding:

When considering whether to strike a firearm enhancement, a trial court considers the same factors considered when handing down a sentence in the first instance.

Authority:

Nazir v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 478, 497

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000305

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The order denying the petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is reversed.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. It accomplished this by amending sections 188 and 189. Section 188(a)(3) now prohibits imputing malice based solely on an individual’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a principal of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule in section 189(e). Section 189 requires the prosecution to prove the defendant was the actual killer; an aider and abettor to murder who acted with the intent to kill; or a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

PEN 189

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 868–869

Second Holding:

The Legislature, to provide relief to those with existing murder convictions dependent on theories of the crime it had rejected, devised a path to resentencing. It has since expanded this path to allow relief for those with attempted murder convictions based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558

Third Holding:

If the record of conviction establishes ineligibility for resentencing as a matter of law, the petition is properly denied at the prima facie stage. However, the petition and record of conviction must establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 970-972

People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, 14

Fourth Holding:

We independently review a trial court’s determination whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief.

Authority:

We independently review a trial court’s determination whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief.

Fifth Holding:

We conclude the defendant has made a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief. The record of conviction does demonstrate a possibility that he was convicted of second degree murder under an imputed malice theory, that is, that he was guilty of murder based solely on his participation in the robbery. In assessing section 1172.6 petitions, the jury instructions will be critical. Indeed we look at the jury’s verdicts, viewed in light of the court’s jury instructions, to assess whether a defendant has made a prima facie showing for relief under section 1172.6.

Authority:

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 731

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 441

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000304

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant filed a petition for dismissal citing three different Penal Code sections—sections 1203.4, 1203.4a, and 1203.41. The trial court denied the petition based on section 1203.41, under which the defendant was not entitled to relief. We reverse and remand to allow the court to consider the defendant’s claim for relief under section 1203.4.

First Holding:

The trial court’s denial of relief under any of these statutes (1203.4, 1203.41, 1203.4a) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. McLernon (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 569, 572

Second Holding:

Section 1203.4 authorizes the trial court to expunge a criminal record if the defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period, the defendant was discharged before the probation period ended, or if the court believes relief should be granted in the interests of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1203.4

Third Holding:

Section 1203.4a authorizes dismissal of charges against defendants who are convicted of misdemeanors but were not granted probation.
Authority:

Authority:

PEN 1203.4a

Fourth Holding:

Section 1203.41 allows an individual convicted of a felony, under certain circumstances, to withdraw a guilty or nolo contendere plea, or set aside a guilty verdict in the interests of justice, in the court’s discretion. The crime to which the defendant pleaded guilty is a wobbler. In this case, because the defendant was sentenced to probation with 364 days in county jail, it is a misdemeanor offense.

Authority:

PEN 1203.41

People v. McElroy (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 874, 880

Fifth Holding:

it appears the trial court may have been confused by the defendant’s petition, which sought relief under all three statutes. Relief was not authorized to the defendant under sections 1203.4a and 1203.41, and the court did not err in denying relief under section 1203.41. When a trial court evaluates a petition under the incorrect statute or misunderstands the scope of its discretion, this is an abuse of discretion and the case must be reversed and remanded for an exercise of informed discretion, unless the record clearly indicates the same result would follow.

Authority:

People v. Fuhrman (1997) 16 Cal.4th 930, 944 [where the record affirmatively discloses that the trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion, remand to the trial court is required]

People v. Parker (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 498, 501–502 [case remanded because trial court mistakenly believed an imposed but suspended sentence is a bar to section 1203.4 relief]