Tag Archives: Sentencing

Due process, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000580

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Judgment is reversed and remanded for the court to consider the fines and fees imposed with regard to ability to pay and under the excessive fines doctrine.

First Holding:

In Kopp, the Supreme Court addressed how court-ordered payments should be analyzed when a defendant claims inability to pay. There are three categories: fines, ancillary costs, and victim restitution. “Fines” refers to penalties inflicted by the sovereign for commission of offenses. I.e., “fine” refers to a legislatively provided punishment following a criminal conviction.

By contrast, “ancillary costs” refers to payments that are generally not intended to punish for the commission of a crime but instead are funding mechanisms, created by the Legislature to reimburse a government agencies for expenditures or to otherwise fund a broad assortment of services. “Restitution” refers to payments made to compensate crime victims for economic loss caused by an offense.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 9, 11-12

Second Holding:

Restitution fines under section 1202.4 constitute punishment and therefore fines rather than true restitution and that parole revocation restitution fines under section 1202.45—which are in the same amount as restitution fines—are likewise punitive and therefore fines. Such fines do not need to be structured to reflect each person’s ability and avoid disproportionate burdens. Accordingly, due process does not require courts to consider the ability of defendants to pay fines before imposing them. Instead, excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 13-14, 22-23

Bearden v. Georgia (1983) 461 U.S. 660, 666, fn. 8

San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez (1973) 411 U.S. 1, 22

Third Holding:

Ancillary costs or assessments should be imposed on criminal defendants only if they have the ability to pay the costs, on equal protection grounds. Kopp noted that the Legislature has enacted a robust fee waiver system in civil cases. In addition, because both the civil operations and facilities assessments imposed on the defendant in Kopp were enacted to raise money for the courts and were ultimately deposited into the same fund, the Supreme Court concluded that there appears no rational basis to deny only indigent criminal defendants the ability to avoid those costs.

Accordingly, the court in Kopp directed the trial court on remand to consider the defendant’s ability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under section 1465.8 or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 24-30

Amelioration, Discretion, Eighth Amendment, Juveniles, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000574

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant filed a petition under section 1170(d) for recall of his sentence. The trial court did not appoint counsel and summarily denied appellant’s petition to recall because it found he had not been incarcerated in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for at least 15 years as required by section 1170(d)(1)(A). We find the trial court’s ruling on the calculation of appellant’s period of incarceration was erroneous as a matter of law, and appellant’s preconviction custody must be included to calculate he had been incarcerated for 15 years when he filed his section 1170(d) petition.

The matter is remanded for the superior court to appoint counsel and conduct the hearing as provided in section 1170(d).

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, if the defendant meets additional statutory requirements.

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)

Second Holding:

When a trial court is not aware of the full scope of its sentencing discretion, a defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 425

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 771-772

Third Holding:

The empanelment of separate juries at the defendant’s original trial in 2010 was likely based on Aranda and Bruton. Broadly stated, the Aranda/Bruton rule declares that a defendant is deprived of his or her Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses when a facially incriminating statement of a nontestifying codefendant is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider the statement only against the declarant. The problem addressed in Bruton and Aranda may be solved by the use of separate juries for codefendants, with each jury to be excused at appropriate times to avoid exposure to inadmissible evidence.

Authority:

People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518

Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123

People v. Gallardo (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 51, 68

People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1208

People v. Washington (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 19, 27

Fourth Holding:

Appellant filed his petition based on the recall and resentencing provisions of section 1170(d), effective January 1, 2013. Under Graham, the Eighth Amendment prohibits LWOP sentences for juvenile offenders who committed non-homicide offenses. In response to Graham, the Legislature enacted section 1170(d), creating a recall and resentencing procedure for certain juvenile offenders sentenced to LWOP terms.

Authority:

In re Kirchner (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1040, 1049

People v. Gibson (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 315, 322–323

Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 442

Fifth Holding:

On appeal, we review statutory interpretations de novo. We review the trial court’s factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence, and do not reweigh or reinterpret the evidence.

Authority:

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

People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26

Sixth Holding:

Absent a specific statutory definition of “has been incarcerated for at least 15 years” we may look to its plain meaning as understood by the ordinary person, which would typically be a dictionary definition. The Legislature did not use the word sentenced in section 1170(d)(1)(A). Instead, it used the word “incarcerated.”

Based on the plain meaning of “incarcerated,” the defendant’s period of incarceration for purposes of a section 1170,(d)(1)(A) began to run on the date the defendant was placed in jail, i.e., incarcerated, for the relevant charges.

Authority:

People v. Ruiz (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1027, 1031, 1032

Seventh Holding:

Section 1171 expressly addresses the trial court’s procedures in postconviction proceedings to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute. It defines a postconviction proceeding to mean a proceeding to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute. Ameliorative statutes include, but are not limited to, Sections 1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75. Section 1171(c)(1) states that upon receiving a request to begin a postconviction proceeding that is authorized in law, the court shall consider whether to appoint counsel to represent the defendant. This section does not prevent the court from assigning counsel at a later time.

Authority:

PEN 1171

Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000573

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A remand for resentencing is required because the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel by reason of defense counsel’s failure to raise his mental health issues as a mitigating factor at the time of sentencing, despite there having been considerable evidence introduced during pretrial proceedings that the defendant had mental health issues, including a finding under section 1372 that he was incompetent to stand trial, whereupon he was committed to a state hospital until his competency was deemed restored three months later.

First Holding:

Defense counsel should have pointed out that there was evidence suggesting that, at least at the time of the offense, he was struggling with mental health issues. Under rule 4.423, mental illness is a mitigating factor at sentencing. Section 1385(c)(5) defines mental illness as a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

That subdivision further provides that a court may conclude that a defendant’s mental illness was connected to the offense if, after reviewing any relevant and credible evidence, including, but not limited to, police reports, preliminary hearing transcripts, witness statements, statements by the defendant’s mental health treatment provider, medical records, records or reports by qualified medical experts, or evidence that the defendant displayed symptoms consistent with the relevant mental disorder at or near the time of the offense, the court concludes that the defendant’s mental illness substantially contributed to the defendant’s involvement in the commission of the offense.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. text rev. 2022) defines an overarching new category of substance use disorders—with the specific substance used defining the specific disorders. It states that the essential feature of a substance use disorder is a cluster of cognitive, behavioral, and physiological symptoms indicating that the individual continues using the substance despite significant substance-related problems.

Authority:

Rules of Court, rule 4.423

PEN 1385(c)(5)

Second Holding:

Despite considerable evidence, defense counsel remained silent at the sentencing hearing when the trial court remarked that no mitigating circumstances had been presented.

To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show counsel’s performance was deficient and resulting prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.

We can conceive of no reasonable tactical purpose for defense counsel’s failure to argue rule 4.423(b)(2) and (b)(4) applied in this case. We further conclude defense counsel’s omission was prejudicial. For the trial court to impose the upper term the court was required to find that there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term.

Had defense counsel raised the applicability of rule 4.423(b)(2) and (b)(4), there is a reasonable probability the court would have balanced the mitigating factors against those in aggravation and would not have imposed the upper term.

Authority:

People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009

People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 675–676 [where there was no conceivable reasonable tactical purpose for defense counsel’s omission, defense counsel’s failure to object to prosecutorial misconduct was ineffective]

Third Holding:

Defense counsel inexplicably made no arguments regarding any mitigating factors” when arguing the Romero motion to strike his prior convictions. On remand, the defendant is free to make the arguments he believes counsel should have made.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497

People v. Dryden (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1029 [both aggravating and mitigating circumstances are relevant considerations in determining whether to strike a prior strike conviction]

People v. Jones (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 37, 46 [on remand for resentencing, full resentencing is appropriate]

People v. Ramirez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 55, 64 [When a case is remanded for resentencing by an appellate court, the trial court is entitled to consider the entire sentencing scheme]

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 000572

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The gang and gang-related firearm enhancements must be vacated in light of the amendments under AB 333.

First Holding:

AB 333, which amended section 186.22, was enacted in 2021 and became effective on January 1, 2022. The amendments AB 333 made to section 186.22 apply retroactively to the defendant’s case. The substantive amendments to section 186.22 require us to vacate the jury’s findings on the gang allegations and gang-related firearm allegations. We remand the matter to afford the prosecution the opportunity to retry these allegations, should it choose to do so.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, 7

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

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

Second Holding:

AB 333 added new elements to the substantive gang offense and gang enhancements in section 186.22—for example, by requiring proof that gang members collectively engage in a pattern of criminal gang activity, that the predicate offenses were committed by gang members, that the predicate offenses benefitted the gang, and that the predicate and underlying offenses provided more than a reputational benefit to the gang. These changes had the effect of increasing the threshold for conviction of the section 186.22 offense and the imposition of the enhancement.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

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

People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, 9

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 749

Third Holding:

When a substantive change occurs in the elements of an offense and the jury is not instructed as to the proper elements, the omission implicates the defendant’s right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment, and reversal is required unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same in the absence of the error. On this record, reversal of the gang enhancements is required, and the prosecution must be given the opportunity to establish the additional elements on remand, should it choose to do so.

Authority:

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

People v. Eagle (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 275, 280

Fourth Holding:

In addition to amending section 186.22, AB 333 added section 1109, which requires that the trial of a gang enhancement charged under section 186.22(b), be bifurcated from and follow trial of the underlying offenses when requested by the defendant. AB 333’s enactment of section 1109 became effective almost two years after defendant’s trial. But section 1109 is not retroactive and therefore does not apply.

Authority:

PEN 1109

People v. Ramos (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 1116, 1129 [disapproved of on other grounds in People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, at p. 31]

People v. Burgos (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1, 9

Fifth Holding:

The same rationale applies to the jury’s findings on the section 12022.53(e)(1) firearm allegations, which require findings under section 186.22(b). Section 12022.53(e)(1) provides for enhanced firearm penalties for any person who is a principal in the commission of an offense if the prosecution pleads and proves that (1) the person violated section 186.22(b), and (2) any principal in the offense committed a firearm violation specified in section 12022.53(b), (c), or (d).

Here, the jury found three section 12022.53(e)(1) allegations true as to the defendant. Because this enhancement depends on a finding pursuant to section 186.22(b), the changes to section 186.22 made by AB 333 require that the true findings on these allegations also be vacated and the matter remanded to the trial court.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53(e)(1)

People v. Lopez (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 327, 346-348

Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000571

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in imposing fees regardless of the defendant’s inability to pay. We strike the fees.

Holding:

In Kopp, our Supreme Court recently held that, if a defendant requests, a trial court must consider the defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under section 1465.8(a)(1), or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1). Here, defendant argued he had not been working and was therefore unable to pay any fines and fees, and the trial court agreed as to the court operations and court facilities assessments.

However, instead of waiving these fees as a court would do for an indigent civil litigant, the trial court imposed and stayed the ancillary costs. Given that the Legislature has provided fee waivers to indigent civil litigants, equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a criminal defendant’s inability to pay before imposing either assessment. No similar differences justify denying criminal defendants the right to seek a waiver of certain ancillary costs when civil litigants facing the same costs may receive such a waiver. While the trial court did not have the benefit of our Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kopp at the time it imposed fines and fees, the order nonetheless violated defendant’s equal protection rights, and we must strike the fees.

Authority:

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