Tag Archives: Sentencing

Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000734

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed as a condition of probation: “Do not associate or communicate with your co-participant and anyone you know who is on probation, parole, or a gang member” The defendant objects to the inclusion of the phrase “or a gang member.” The condition must be modified.

First Holding:

The juvenile court has wide discretion to select appropriate conditions and may impose any reasonable condition that is fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced. Although courts have broad discretion to set conditions of probation, the trial court’s discretion in setting the conditions of probation is not unbounded.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889

People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 624

Second Holding:

A term of probation is invalid if it: (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality Conversely, a condition of probation that requires or forbids conduct that is not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the minor was convicted or to future criminality.

Authority:

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 48

Third Holding:

When a gang condition imposed by the juvenile court involves non-criminal conduct and prohibits a minor from engaging in otherwise legal conduct, we can uphold it only if there is a reasonable connection between the condition and the offense or between the condition and future criminality. Gang-related probation conditions are reasonably related to preventing future criminality when there is evidence of the minor’s affiliation with criminal street gangs.

In the absence of evidence of gang affiliation or association with gang members or risk of gang involvement on the minor’s part, the gang condition is not tailored to his future criminality. In this case, any connection between the minor’s offense and gang activity is speculative.

Accordingly, the condition is modified to “Do not associate or communicate with your co-participant and anyone you know who is on probation or parole.”

Authority:

In re Edward B. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1228, 1236

People v. Brandão (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 568, 574

Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000733

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We strike the protective order, because none of the offenses involved domestic violence. We also remand to give the defendant the opportunity to present evidence on his ability to pay the restitution fine and assessments.

First Holding:

Although initially charged with crimes involving domestic violence, his guilty plea was to a crime that did not involved domestic violence as defined in section 13700 or in Family Code section 6211. His crime is not specifically listed in section 136.2(i)(1), and it does not require registration as a sex offender. Hence, the trial court was without authority at sentencing to issue the criminal protective order for the victim’s benefit under section 136.2(i)(1). As the court did not have statutory authority to issue the criminal protective order, it must be stricken.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 901

Second Holding:

The court imposed a $2,400 restitution fine, as well as a $2,400 parole revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45. The court also imposed a $40 court operations assessment (sec. 1465.8(a)(1)) and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373(a)(1)).

After sentencing, while this matter was still on appeal, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kopp. As to punitive fines, including restitution fines, the court found that due process does not require a trial court to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine.

However, the court also noted that both the federal and state Constitutions prohibit excessive fines, and held that the excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines.

As to court operations assessments and court facilities assessments, which are ancillary costs, the court held that equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing either assessment.

Because neither defendant nor the trial court had the benefit of Kopp’s reasoning and holding at the time of the sentencing hearing, we will direct the court to give defendant an opportunity to challenge the restitution fine and the assessments under Kopp.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 13, 23, 30

Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000731

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was resentenced under section 1172.75. We remand with directions to the trial court to recalculate the defendant’s custodial credits and to reimpose the restitution order with joint and several liability.

First Holding:

When the defendant was originally sentenced in 2008, the trial court imposed a restitution order of (more than $50,000) on all three defendants. The court ordered joint and several liability, that is, each defendant is entitled to a credit for any actual payments by the other. The trial court has the authority to order direct victim restitution paid by all defendants jointly and severally. On resentencing, the court reimposed an order for restitution in the same amount, but did not make an order of joint and several liability. To prevent the possibility of unjust enrichment—a double recovery by the victim—the restitution order must be corrected to reflect joint and several liability.

Authority:

People v. Blackburn (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1520, 1535

People v. Leon (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 620, 622 [if two defendants convicted of the same crime caused economic loss, a court may impose liability on each defendant to pay the full amount of the economic loss, as long as the victim does not obtain a double recovery]

Second Holding:

The trial court erred in delegating the recalculation of the defendant’s custody credits to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The trial court should have recalculated and pronounced the number of custody credits the defendant had garnered to the date of resentencing. When a prison term already in progress is modified the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served, whether in jail or prison, and whether before or since he was originally committed and delivered to prison custody.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000729

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the court was required to resentence the defendant under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 to determine whether he should be sentenced as a second strike defendant under the Act, subject to a finding that such resentencing would present an unreasonable risk of danger to the public in the context of the Act.

First Holding:

The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 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.

Authority:

PEN 1170.126

PEN 1172.75

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

Second Holding:

In Guevara, the Supreme Court held that 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:

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

Third Holding:

Section 1172.75 requires that the resentencing court makes a new determination as to whether a defendant’s resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as of the present day. A prior finding that a particular defendant poses a risk to public safety under section 1170.126(f) is unquestionably relevant, and will no doubt be given consideration by a court subsequently resolving a resentencing under section 1172.75 involving an indeterminate Three Strikes sentence.

However, given significant passage of time, it is possible that a defendant who once presented a threat to public safety may no longer do so. For instance, not only may defendants present evidence that they have significantly rehabilitated since a prior section 1170.126 proceeding, but serious illness or advanced age may have substantially reduced the danger to public safety they once posed. Realistically assessing such changed circumstances is appropriately left to the trial court on remand.

On remand, the trial court should conduct an analysis of whether defendant, at the time of the hearing, continues to pose a danger to public safety.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 878, fn. 17

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000728

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the trial court should have vacated the restitution fine that was imposed more than 10 years earlier. We remand the case for the court to determine the defendant’s ability to pay the parole revocation restitution fine, which is not vacated by section 1465.9(d).

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 added subdivision (d) to section 1465.9, which provides that, upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to Section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated. It does not, however, apply to the parole revocation restitution fine.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Second Holding:

In Kopp, our Supreme Court clarified that, although fines may properly be imposed as punishment for crime, the excessive fines analysis under the state and federal Constitutions is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines, such as parole revocation fines. In addition, a trial court must conduct an ability to pay hearing before imposing a restitution fine (or corresponding parole revocation fine) that exceeds the statutory minimum of $300.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1 23, 17, 30