Tag Archives: Sentencing

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Evidence, Jury instructions, Jury trial, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000555

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because we are unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the omission of an instruction on the organizational nexus element of the gang allegations did not contribute to the verdict obtained, we reverse all gang enhancements under section 186.22(b), the gang-related firearm enhancement on count 1 under section 12022.53,(d) and (e)(1), and the gang-related indeterminate sentence imposed on count 13 under section 186.22(b)(C)(4). We remand for resentencing and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

First Holding:

All gang-related enhancements must be reversed because the jury was not instructed on the organizational nexus element of the gang enhancement under amended Penal Code section 186.22(b).

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

AB 333 substantially narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang and made numerous amendments to the statutory language. The specific amendment relevant here concerns the definition of criminal gang activity. Under the amended language, the prosecution must now present evidence that the members of the gang collectively engaged in a pattern of criminal activity, as opposed to the former language under which individual criminal action by members was sufficient.

While the evidence necessary to establish an organizational nexus might often overlap with the evidence used to demonstrate how a predicate offense commonly benefitted the gang, the inquiries are nonetheless conceptually distinct. The phrase collective engagement calls for an inquiry not just into how the predicate offenses benefited the gang, but also how the gang works together as a gang. It calls for a showing of a connection, or nexus, between an offense committed by one or more gang members and the organization as a whole.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 752, 762

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 738

Third Holding:

Section 186.22 now requires evidence demonstrating a nexus between the individual predicate offenses and the gang as an organized, collective enterprise. This organizational nexus requirement is satisfied by showing a connection between the predicate offenses and the organizational structure, primary activities, or common goals and principles of the gang. Defendant’s trial took place several months before the Supreme Court issued its decision in Clark and before CALCRIM No. 1401 was amended. The jury was therefore not instructed on the organizational nexus element as interpreted in Clark. The pre-Clark instruction given below was adequate.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

When a jury instruction omits an element of an offense or special allegation, it impermissibly lessens the prosecution’s burden of proof and implicates the defendant’s federal due process rights. When such an instructional error occurs, we assess prejudice under the federal harmless error standard of Chapman In this context, our review under Chapman requires an examination of the record in its totality. If, at the end of that examination, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error, the instructional error was not harmless. Put another way, the error was prejudicial if we determine the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the omitted element.

Authority:

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 742 [concluding Chapman applied in assessing prejudice where instructions omitted new element of gang enhancement that common benefit to gang must be more than reputational]

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

People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 417

Fifth Holding:

Defendant had the right to cross-examine a witness about whether he had been offered inducements to testify, expected benefits from giving his testimony, or otherwise had a motive to lie. Exposing a witness’s potential for bias and fabrication has long been recognized as one of the most important functions of cross-examination.

Authority:

EVID 780(f)

People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 455

Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 678–679

Sixth Holding:

The trial court is vested with broad discretion to impose reasonable limitations on defendant’s cross-examination without offending the constitution. Within the confines of the confrontation clause, the trial court retains wide latitude in restricting cross-examination that is repetitive, prejudicial, confusing of the issues, or of marginal relevance. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.

Authority:

People v. Contreras (2013) 58 Cal.4th 123, 152

Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 679

People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1292

Seventh Holding:

We review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings in this context under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. Moreover, as a general rule, the application of the ordinary rules of evidence do not impermissibly infringe on a defendant’s right to present a defense.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 9–10 [discretion abused only where exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice]

People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 620

Eighth Holding:

In order to establish a prejudicial abuse of discretion that violated the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, a defendant is required to affirmatively show the trial court’s order limiting or precluding cross-examination left the jury with a significantly different impression of the witness’ credibility. Otherwise, the trial court’s exercise of its discretion in this regard does not violate the Sixth Amendment.

Authority:

People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 455-456

Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 680

People v. Gonzalez (2021) 12 Cal.5th 367, 406

Ninth Holding:

The record reflects the trial court failed to impose sentence on counts 14 and 15, two of the extortion counts on which the jury found defendant guilty. As defendant concedes in his reply brief, the appropriate course of action in such circumstances is a remand for the purpose of pronouncement of a judgment in accordance with the verdict. In light of the reversal of all gang enhancements, the gang-related firearm enhancement on count 1 and the gang-related indeterminate term on count 13, the superior court, on remand, shall conduct a full resentencing at which it may consider all of its sentencing choices anew.

Authority:

People v. Taylor (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 349, 353

Equal protection, Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000552

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in concluding that a sentence of 45 years to life is not the functional equivalent of a sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP), within the context of section 1170(d) for those who committed an offense as a juvenile and were convicted as an adult.

First Holding:

Section 1170(d)(1)(A) provides that 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. Where the length of a sentence is the functional equivalent of LWOP, it is a denial of equal protection to exclude the defendant from consideration under section 1170(d).

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608

People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349 [50 years to life is the functional equivalent of LWOP for a nonhomicide juvenile offender in the Eighth Amendment context]

Second Holding:

The People contend that defendant’s current eligibility for early youth offender parole under section 3051 and future eligibility at age 50 for elderly parole under section 3055 render him ineligible for relief under section 1170(d). However, that question is being considered by the Supreme Court in Munoz. Pending that decision, we agree with the reasoning in Heard that section 3051 eligibility does not defeat defendant’s section 1170(d) petition.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000550

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The amount of credit for time served was short by three days. The judgment is modified to include those three days.

Holding:

The appellate court has authority to modify the judgment to correct the credit for time served.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 485, 493–494 [modifying judgment to correct custody credits]

Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000549

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Upon determining that the minor violated probation by using marijuana, the juvenile court committed the minor to juvenile hall for 18 months, a sentence that the court had initially stayed in favor of home detention on probation with GPS monitoring. On appeal, the minor argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in automatically lifting the stay and imposing the commitment without a reassessment of the minor’s circumstances. The juvenile court erred in imposing the 18-month commitment without considering relevant factors and will vacate the disposition order and remand for the court to conduct a new disposition hearing.

First Holding:

The juvenile court’s decision may be reversed on appeal only upon a showing that the court abused its discretion in committing the minor to juvenile hall.

Authority:

In re Jose T. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1147

Second Holding:

A juvenile court cannot lift an imposed, stayed or suspended term of confinement without meeting the requirements of Welfare and Institutions Code section 777. Section 777 requires that an order changing or modifying a previous order by removing a minor from the physical custody of a parent and directing commitment to a county institution shall be made only after a noticed hearing.

Authority:

In re Gabriel T. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 952, 960

In re Jose T. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1147

Third Holding:

In order to commit the minor to juvenile hall, the court must be fully satisfied that the minor’s mental and physical condition and qualifications render it probable the minor will benefit from the commitment. To determine what is appropriate under a given set of circumstances, a court must review those circumstances every time the minor appears for a dispositional hearing. Juvenile courts must consider safety and protection of the public and the best interests of the minor in all deliberations. Violation of a juvenile court’s order cannot lead automatically to imposition of some reserved measure, but requires a complete review of the order and such amendments as the court finds meet and proper under the governing statutory criteria.

Authority:

WIC 734

WIC 202

In re Gabriel T. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 952, 960

In re Jose T. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1147-1148 [The juvenile court must determine the best manner in which to facilitate the rehabilitation of the minor]

In re Chad S. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 607, 614

In re Ronnie P. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1088-1089

Appellate Principles, Duty of counsel, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000548

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(GARY note: This case actually provided no relief at all to the defendant. It is included because it teaches a valuable lesson on the burden an appellant bears to prevail on appeal. The defendant argued that the protective order was unlawful because he was not convicted of a crime eligible for protective orders.

(But the Court of Appeal concluded that the defendant did not show that he did not commit the crime in the course of a domestic violence course of conduct, and the Court of Appeal must assume that the trial court made such a finding or it would not have imposed the order.

(The defendant was required to prove a negative. It is entirely possible that there was nothing in the record that would disprove there was or was not a domestic relationship. The conviction resulted from a plea bargain with a stipulated sentence. No objection was interposed at the time the protective order was issued.

But the case highlights the importance of understanding that an appellate court is not bound to help the defense. The conviction shifted the presumption from innocence to guilt, and the burden shifted likewise. The California Constitution requires upholding a conviction in the absence of a miscarriage of justice. Thus, the appellate courts start with a mandate that the conviction be affirmed. It is appellate counsel’s role to chip away at the presumption that orders of the superior court were properly issued. Don’t make any assumptions that cannot be backed up by the record.)

First Holding:

The defendant contends the trial court erred in issuing a criminal protective order pursuant to section 136.2(i) because his conviction for assault with a semiautomatic firearm (section 245(b)) is not an offense enumerated under the statute.

Assault with a semiautomatic firearm is not an explicitly enumerated offense under section 136.2(i). However, assault with a semiautomatic firearm can qualify under the statute as a crime involving domestic violence if the defendant’s abusive conduct is directed at someone with a qualifying relationship to him.

The record on appeal is silent as to the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the victim. The defendant has not remedied this silence with an adequate record from which we can discern whether his conviction constituted a crime involving domestic violence. On this silent record, we indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the criminal protective order, including the existence of a qualifying relationship between Hooks and the victim. Because the record does not support the defendant’s claim, he fails to meet his burden on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 13700

FAM 6203(a), 6211(c)

Second Holding:

The People assert the defendant forfeited his contention by failing to object in the trial court. As a general rule, an appellant waives issues on appeal that he or she did not initially raise in the trial court. But there are exceptions to this rule for unauthorized sentences and sentencing decisions that are in excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction. Because this case involves the jurisdictional validity of the trial court’s decision to issue a protective order during sentencing, we will consider the defendant’s claim on the merits.

Authority:

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 381-382

Third Holding:

Perhaps the most fundamental rule of appellate law is that the judgment challenged on appeal is presumed correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error. This presumption also applies to a lower court’s orders. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support the order on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. On appeal, the defendant must affirmatively demonstrate error below and provide an adequate record to support his arguments. Any uncertainty in the record must be resolved against the defendant. We will not presume error.

Authority:

People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573

People v. Sullivan (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 524, 549