Tag Archives: Sentencing

Sentencing

Case: 000136

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by imposing sentences for both counts 2 and 3 in violation of section 654.

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. Therefore, section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for offenses committed during a single or indivisible course of conduct.

Authority:

PEN 654

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

People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1207–1208

Second Holding:

Section 654 prohibits the imposition of concurrent sentences for offenses committed during a single or indivisible course of conduct. The accepted procedure for such offenses is to sentence defendant for each count and stay execution of sentence on certain counts to which section 654 is applicable.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

The trial court erred by imposing punishment for both count 2 and count 3 because both offenses arose out of a single or indivisible course of conduct. Both counts 2 and 3 were committed during the defendant’s single or indivisible course of conduct of driving his car and causing injury to one victim. Therefore, section 654 prohibits punishment of the defendant for both counts. Because under amended section 654, the trial court has discretion whether to punish the defendant for either count 2 or count 3, we reverse its imposition of punishment for both counts and remand the matter for the limited purpose of resentencing him on count 2 and count 3.

Authority:

PEN 654

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000135

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We find that in making the prima facie determination, the trial court properly reviewed the preliminary hearing and partial trial transcripts as part of the record of conviction, completely independent from the factual basis stipulation at the plea hearing, to find defendant was the actual killer and ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. Defendant’s contrary claims, including his alleged “immunity” and ineffective assistance arguments, are refuted by the record. As in Patton, however, we grant defendant’s request to remand the matter for him to have the opportunity to file a supplemental petition in the trial court.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 amended the felony-murder rule by adding section 189(e). It provides that a participant in the qualifying felony is liable for felony murder only if the person: (1) was the actual killer; (2) was not the actual killer but, with the intent to kill, acted as a direct aider and abettor; or (3) was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. The Legislature also amended the natural and probable consequences doctrine by adding subdivision (a)(3) to section 188, which states that malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.

Authority:

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 50–51

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707–708

People v. Reyes (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 292, 295

Second Holding:

While this appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court decided Patton and held that in making the prima facie determination as to whether a petitioner, who entered a plea instead of going to trial, was convicted under a now-invalid imputed malice theory of homicide in a section 1172.6 petition, the trial court may rely on unchallenged, relief-foreclosing facts within a preliminary hearing transcript to refute conclusory, checkbox allegations made in a form section 1172.6 petition. It disapproved of appellate decisions that conditioned the use of preliminary hearing transcripts to make the prima facie determination on whether a petitioner previously admitted the truth of testimony contained therein or stipulated to the transcript as the factual basis of a plea. It affirmed the trial court’s denial of the section 1172.6 petition in that case but granted the defendant’s request to remand the matter for the opportunity to file an amended petition consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 569 fn. 12, 564, 569-570

Third Holding:

As relevant herein, the petitioner must declare (1) A complaint, information, or indictment was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder, murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime, or attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (2) The petitioner was convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter following a trial or accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which the petitioner could have been convicted of murder or attempted murder. (3) The petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(a)(1)–(3)

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 569 fn. 12, 564, 558

Fourth Holding:

When a petitioner files a facially sufficient petition, the trial court must appoint counsel to represent the petitioner. The trial court may consider the record of conviction to determine whether the petitioner makes a prima facie showing only after the appointment of counsel and the opportunity for briefing has occurred.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 292, 298

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 569 fn. 12, 564, 559

Fifth Holding:

The amendments to sections 188 and 189 did not invalidate murder convictions based on the theory that the defendant was the actual killer. Where the record of conviction shows the defendant was the actual killer, he was not convicted under a now-invalid imputed malice theory and is ineligible for relief as a matter of law, and no evidentiary hearing is required. If the trial court commits error in making the prima facie finding to deny the petition without an evidentiary hearing, the error is harmless if the defendant is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law.

Authority:

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707

People v. Mares (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1158, 1166–1167

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52

People v. Garcia (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 956, 973

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 973–974

Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000134

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court erred in imposing the upper term on factors that had not been proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

A criminal judgment does not become final for purposes of Estrada when an appellate court affirms a conviction, but leaves sentencing issues pending before the trial court following remand. During the resentencing on remand, the benefits of supervening ameliorative legislation apply retroactively.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 392

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

Second Holding:

Absent waiver or stipulation, aggravating factors such as the increasing seriousness of a defendant’s prior convictions and unsatisfactory performance on probation must be found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury before those facts can be used to justify an upper term sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082

Third Holding:

This case must be distinguished from Brannon-Thompson, which found that the plain language of section 1172.75(d)(4) indicated the Legislature intended the new burden of proof amendments to section 1170(b) to apply only if the trial court is imposing the upper term for the first time at a section 1172.75 resentencing. In this case, the defendant was not being resentenced after a prior sentence that imposed an upper term was recalled.

Instead, he was on remand from the prior appeal directive to strike prior prison term enhancements before section 1172.75 even went into effect (which the court did). As such, when the trial court proceeded to resentence defendant in 2023, his sentence already lacked any enhancements imposed pursuant to former section 667.5(b). Defendant accordingly was not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 in 2023, making the provision inapplicable. Instead, appearing for resentencing based on a remand in the prior appeal, the defendant was entitled to the benefits of supervening ameliorative legislation, including the new evidentiary standards of section 1170(b).

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388

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

People v. Brannon-Thompson (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 455

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000132

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We shall reduce one conviction to reflect a lesser included offense, remand for resentencing, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

In considering the sufficiency of evidence, we must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment, presuming in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. We also accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence. We do not resolve credibility issues or evidentiary conflicts.

Authority:

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690

People v. Baker (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1044, 1103

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

Second Holding:

In considering the substantiality of generic testimony regarding multiple indistinguishable instances of child sexual abuse, a victim of child molestation need not specify precisely the date, time, or circumstances of each crime. Rather, the victim must describe the kind of act or acts committed with sufficient specificity, both to assure that unlawful conduct indeed has occurred and to differentiate between the various types of proscribed conduct (e.g., lewd conduct, intercourse, oral copulation or sodomy). Moreover, the victim must describe the number of acts committed with sufficient certainty to support each of the counts alleged in the information or indictment, a requirement that can be met with such testimony as “twice a month” or “every time we went camping.”

Authority:

People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 299–300, 315–316

Third Holding:

The jury was instructed pursuant to CALCRIM No. 1015 that duress means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, hardship, or retribution that causes a reasonable person to do or submit to something that he or she would not otherwise do or submit to, and that in making its determination the jury should consider all the circumstances, including the age of the other person and his relationship to the defendant.

As to fear, the jury was told, “[a]n act is accomplished by fear if the other person is actually and reasonably afraid.” The existence of duress is an objective inquiry, and it is not dependent on the response exhibited by a particular victim.

We consider the totality of the circumstances, including the victim’s relationship to the perpetrator, whether the perpetrator physically controlled the victim when the victim attempted to resist, and the relative physical vulnerability of the victim. Duress may arise in a variety of ways related to psychological and/or situational factors between the perpetrator and victim, including an uneven power dynamic between a victim and perpetrator inhabiting a position of authority. Not all forms of coercion necessarily constitute duress, however.

Authority:

People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229, 246

People v. Guenther (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 483, 518 [courts apply reasonable person standard to inquiry into duress]

People v. Thomas (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1063, 1072–1073

People v. Veale (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 40, 44, 47

People v. Espinoza (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1321

Fourth Holding:

A variance between the crime charged and proved is not material unless it is of such a substantive character as to mislead the accused in preparing his defense, or is likely to place him in second jeopardy for the same offense.

Authority:

PEN 960 [No accusatory pleading is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment, or other proceeding thereon be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter of form which does not prejudice a substantial right of the defendant upon the merits]

People v. Williams (1945) 27 Cal.2d 220, 226

People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342

Fifth Holding:

A lesser offense is necessarily included in a charged offense if one of two tests is met: either all the legal ingredients of the corpus delicti of the lesser offense are included in the elements of the greater offense (the “elements test”) or the charging allegations of the accusatory pleading include language describing the offense in such a way that if committed as specified the lesser offense is necessarily committed (the “accusatory pleading test”). We do not consider the evidence presented at trial to determine whether one offense is necessarily included in the other.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 282, 288–289

People v. Cheaves (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 445, 454

People v. Ortega (1998) 19 Cal.4th 686, 698

Sixth Holding:

Despite the constitutional prohibition of a second trial if a conviction is reversed for insufficient evidence, when a trial or appellate court concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction of a greater offense, it can reduce the conviction to a lesser included offense that is supported by the evidence.

Authority:

PEN 1181

PEN 1260

People v. Goolsby (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1225

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 677

People v. Espinoza (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1321–1322, 1324 [reducing conviction to reflect lesser included offense where there was no evidence defendant used direct or implied threat to commit a lewd act]

Seventh Holding:

We review a court’s award of restitution to a victim for abuse of discretion, reversing only if it is arbitrary or capricious. An abuse of discretion exists when there is no rational and factual basis for the amount of restitution ordered. The court must demonstrate a rational basis for its award, and ensure that the record is sufficient to permit meaningful review. The burden is on the party seeking restitution to provide an adequate factual basis for the claim.

Authority:

People v. Gomez (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 111, 116

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000129

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court must correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that the court never imposed fines or fees other than restitution to the Victim’s Compensation Board, and must recalculate his actual custody credits.

First Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that the court waived the imposition of a restitution fine and the parole revocation fine and other fines and fees.  [GARY NOTE: The court did not cite authority for correction of the abstract of judgment, but the law is clear that it has the authority to do so, and I have listed some authorities below.]

Authority:

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324

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

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–388

People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Second Holding:

As the People did not object in the court below, the People have forfeited the issue of the propriety of the trial court order waiving the restitution and other fines and fees.

Authority:

People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 303

Third Holding:

When a trial court resentences a defendant who is currently in custody, it must calculate and credit him with all actual days spent in custody (whether in jail or prison) up to that time, including time in custody after the original sentencing. [GARY NOTE: the court did not cite authority for remanding for the court to determine custody credits, but the law is clear, per the authorities I have set forth below.]

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

PEN 2900.5

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

Fines and fees, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000127

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is entitled to a jury trial on two of the aggravating factors the trial court found to be true in the present case. He entitled to resentencing due to prejudicial error, and we remand the matter for that purpose.

First Holding:

The trial court erroneously imposed the upper term by relying on its own determination that the defendant’s two prior convictions were numerous. The defendant was entitled to have a jury decide that issue beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 742-743

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1076

People v. Berry (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 184, 191 [two prior convictions cannot be numerous]

Second Holding:

In assessing a defendant’s ability to pay, a court may consider a defendant’s past income-earning capacity. Moreover, a court may consider whether a defendant has the ability to satisfy the fine and assessments through prison wages and future earnings after release from custody.

Authority:

People v. Johnson (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 134, 139

People v. Aviles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1076

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000126

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erroneously used the defendant’s 2012 prior conviction to sentence him under the Three Strikes law without first determining whether that gang-enhanced felony could have been obtained after amendments enacted by AB 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 699).

First Holding:

Where a defendant has previously suffered a conviction under the prior version of Penal Code section 186.22, the changes made in AB 333 apply 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.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

By treating the defendant’s 2012 conviction as a prior strike conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence that is unauthorized by law under Fletcher. The defendant’s argument is therefore not forfeited.

Authority:

People v. Mancebo (2002) 27 Cal.4th 735, 749, fn. 7 [forfeiture principles do not apply to legal error resulting in an unauthorized sentence]

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 751 [The unauthorized sentence rule is an exception to the forfeiture doctrine. It permits a challenge to an unauthorized sentence on appeal even if the defendant failed to object below.]

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000125

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It appears the trial court, in finding that the defendant is guilty of murder under current law, misunderstood that its role as independent fact finder entailed weighing witness credibility. We therefore remand the matter for a new evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6(d). At that evidentiary hearing, the defendant may again raise any contention regarding witness credibility, which the trial court must then rule on in deciding whether the defendant is guilty of murder under current law.

First Holding:

The trial court’s role at the evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6 is to act as an independent fact finder and determine, in the first instance, whether the petitioner committed murder under the law as amended by SB 1437.

Authority:

People v. Guiffreda (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 112, 123

Second Holding:

The statute’s plain language shows the People are required to establish the defendant is guilty under current law as a matter of fact and beyond a reasonable doubt. A fact finder tasked with holding the People to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard must impartially compare and consider all the evidence that was received throughout the entire trial and determine whether that proof leaves it with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. Unlike the prima facie stage where the trial court should not decide unresolved factual issues that involve credibility determinations or weighing of evidence, the court should decide such issues after issuing an order to show cause and holding an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 294-296

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 51

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

Case: 000123

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A jury convicted the defendant of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and found true that he personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of those counts. We conclude the injury to the victim in count 2, which the emergency room doctor described as a “superficial laceration,” is not sufficient to support the enhancement under section 12022.7(a). Consequently, we reverse the true finding, strike the one year imposed under section 12022.7(a), associated with count 2, and remand for resentencing to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion anew with the changed circumstance.

First Holding:

Great bodily injury is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.

Authority:

People v. Wyatt (2012) 55 Cal.4th 694, 702

People v. Sandoval (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 357, 361 [noting that great bodily injury is significant or substantial physical injury that is more than minor or moderate]

People v. Martinez (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 727, 735–736 [evidence of superficial lacerations held not sufficient to prove great bodily injury]

Second Holding:

We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury’s true finding on a section 12022.7(a) enhancement under the same standard that applies to a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence is evidence that reasonably inspires confidence and is of solid value.

Authority:

People v. Escobar (1992) 3 Cal.4th 740, 750

People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 307

Third Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681

People v. Burbine (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1259 [upon remand for resentencing after the reversal of one or more subordinate counts of a felony conviction, the trial court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the defendant’s sentence on the counts that were affirmed, including the term imposed as the principal term]

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000122

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the defendant’s resentencing under section 1172.75, the trial court erred in failing to resentence him under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 to twice the principal term for the underlying crime, as opposed to the 25-year-to-life sentence it reimposed. The People concede both of these points. We vacate the defendant’s sentence, and remand for a full resentencing with directions to recalculate the credit for time served.

First Holding:

Even where the defendant is serving a sentence under the Three Strikes law, on recall the trial court is required to apply the Three Strikes Reform Act in a section 1172.75 proceeding absent a finding of unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

When a trial court resentences a defendant who is currently in custody, it must calculate and credit him with all actual days spent in custody (whether in jail or prison) up to that time, including time in custody after the original sentencing.

Authority:

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000121

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court failed to recalculate the actual time defendant had served pursuant to the sentence for which he was being resentenced and reflect those credits in the amended abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

The trial court, having modified defendant’s sentence on remand, was obliged, in its new abstract of judgment, to credit him with all actual days he had spent in custody.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37 [The trial court, having modified defendant’s sentence on remand, was obliged, in its new abstract of judgment, to credit him with all actual days he had spent in custody]

Second Holding:

Generally, a clerical error is one inadvertently made. Clerical error can be made by a clerk, by counsel, or by the court itself. A court has the inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records at any time so as to make these records reflect the true facts.

Authority:

People v. Schultz (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 804, 808

In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000120

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant submitted both a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion for recall and resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court erroneously treated both as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which it denied without prejudice to allow the defendant to separately file a petition under section 1172.6. Though contained in the same envelope and assigned a single case number by the court clerk, there were two separate matters presented to the trial court. The matter is remanded for the trial court to give due consideration to the petition/motion filed for recall of sentence under section 1172.6. There is also an error in the abstract of judgment that should be corrected, depending on the outcome of the hearing on the petition.

First Holding:

The record indicates that defendant submitted not only a petition for writ of habeas corpus, but also a separate motion for resentencing. The title page of the habeas petition states it was being filed concurrently with a motion for recall and resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. Defendant included a separate section 1172.6 “motion” with its own title page and caption designating it as such. That defendant, a prisoner, mailed the documents in one envelope as opposed to two, and placed his “motion” for resentencing before the exhibits to the petition for writ of habeas corpus, does not change the fact he submitted a separate “motion” to the court. As for the assignment of only one case number—for the habeas proceeding—this was a clerical matter over which defendant had no control. The trial court was required to consider the motion/petition filed under section 1172.6.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 960 [where resentencing petition complies with the three facial sufficiency requirements of sec. 1172.6(b), the court proceeds to consider whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief under subd. (c)]

Second Holding:

The abstract contains an error on whether the two counts were ordered served concurrently or consecutively. Should the trial court determine defendant is ineligible for relief pursuant to section 1172.6, we direct the trial court to issue an amended abstract of judgment that corrects this error.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [courts may correct clerical error in their records at any time and appellate courts that have assumed jurisdiction over a case may order correction of abstracts of judgment that do not accurately reflect judgment]