Tag Archives: Sentencing

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

Case 000481

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Denial of the petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 is reversed, and the matter is remanded for the court to redetermine whether petitioner acted with reckless indifference to human life, taking into consideration his youth at the time of the offense. We also conclude substantial evidence does not support the court’s finding that petitioner aided and abetted the murder with intent to kill and the denial of the petition therefore cannot be upheld on this alternative ground.

First Holding:

Although petitioner briefly argued in the superior court that his youth should be considered in the court’s analysis of whether he was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, the superior court did not address this argument. Indeed, the superior court may have felt compelled to conclude, based on the state of the law at the time, that petitioner’s youth was not a relevant factor, given that petitioner was a young adult at the time he committed the offense and not a juvenile.

We continue to find there was substantial evidence for the trial court to conclude that the defendant acted with indifference of human life, but pending this appeal, there have been cases that squarely hold that the court should consider youth of a nonjuvenile in that determination.

If we do not address this issue, petitioner may be able to file a second petition for resentencing in the superior court to have the court consider his youth as part of the totality of circumstances bearing on whether he acted with reckless indifference to human life. In the interests of justice and for the sake of judicial economy, we address this argument on the merits. We conclude that petitioner is entitled to a new evidentiary hearing to apply new law relating to the effect, if any, of his youth on the court’s reckless indifference finding.

Authority:

People v. Jimenez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 994, 1008

Second Holding:

We review the court’s findings for substantial evidence. Under this standard, we review the 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 beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner acted with reckless indifference.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 988

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

Third Holding:

In the first stage of this appeal–before review was granted and the matter was transferred back to this court–petitioner raised the argument (that the court should take into consideration the defendant’s youth) in his reply brief for the first time. Ordinarily, we do not consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief. As such, this argument was not addressed in our prior opinion.

Authority:

In re Luke H. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1090

Fourth Holding:

During the pendency of this appeal, the appellate court in Jones addressed the relevance of youth to the reckless indifference finding in a case involving a young adult who was 20 years old at the time of the offense.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1076, 1091–1093

Fifth Holding:

In Oliver, the appellate court assumed, without deciding, that the trial court was required to consider the petitioner’s youth (23 years of age) in reference to the petitioner’s mental state, but held that its failure to do so was harmless under the standard of Watson

Authority:

People v. Oliver (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 466, 488–489 and fn. 8

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836

Sixth Holding:

In Pittman, the court applied the Watson standard and concluded there was a reasonable possibility the failure to consider the petitioner’s youth impacted the trial court’s decision. The court noted inferences of immaturity could be drawn from the fact that the petitioner was 21 years old when he participated in the attack with two peers who were 16 and 17 years old. Additionally, the crime suggested the participants acted impulsively, under the influence of rashness, and while intoxicated. Thus, the court determined the interests of justice were best served by remanding for the court to consider whether youth impacted the petitioner’s ability to form the requisite mental state for second degree murder.

Authority:

People v. Pittman (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 400, 417-418

Seventh Holding:

In Jiminez, the appellate court agreed that there had been a significant change in the law governing young adult offenders since the ruling on the first petition, and therefore the doctrines of collateral estoppel and law of the case did not apply. In this regard, the court noted that early cases addressing this issue of a petitioner’s youth applied only to juvenile offenders under the age of 18, and only to the major participant and reckless indifference findings.

Thereafter, however, the law was expanded to hold that youth was a consideration for other mental state requirements, including implied malice, and additionally expanded to include young adults who were in their late teens and early 20’s when they committed the crimes. Additionally, the Legislature had enacted similar changes to a variety of statutes to expand youth-related considerations to persons 25 years of age and younger. The court also determined that the error in failing to consider the petitioner’s age was not harmless under the Watson standard.

Authority:

People v. Jimenez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 994, 1001-1004

Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000480

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by failing to apply Penal Code section 1170(h)(5)(A) and (B), regarding mandatory supervision, after sentencing the defendant to county jail.

First Holding:

Punishment for a conviction of possession for sale of methamphetamine is governed by section 1170(h), which provides that punishment shall be by imprisonment in county jail. Although the section 12022(c) firearm enhancement directed imprisonment in state prison, section 1170(h)(9) required the sentence to be punishable as directed by the underlying offense. Under section 1170(h)(5)(A) and (B), a court imposing a sentence under subdivision (h)(1) must suspend execution of a concluding portion of the term for a period selected at the court’s discretion, known as mandatory supervision, unless it finds, in the interest of justice, that it is not appropriate in a particular case.

This section creates a statutory presumption in favor of the imposition of a period of mandatory supervision in all applicable cases, and, if the court denies mandatory supervision, it must state its reasons on the record. Given that the court ordered a term of imprisonment in county jail under section 1170(h), it is appropriate to remand for resentencing for consideration of mandatory supervision.

Authority:

PEN 1170(h)

Second Holding:

After the date of offense in this matter, section 12022(c)(2) was amended and now provides for imprisonment in state prison as punishment for a violation with a firearm enhancement under that section, not under section 1170(h). Applying this statute retroactively would likely violate the ex post facto clause.

Authority:

PEN 12022(c)

U.S. Const., art. I, secs. 9, 10

People v. White (2017) 2 Cal.5th 349, 360 [A statute violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws if it increases the punishment for a crime after it is committed]

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000477

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing under section 1172.75 for recall of sentence and resentencing, the trial court failed to conduct a full resentencing because it limited resentencing to only one of the several cases consolidated into an aggregate sentence. The defendant had been sentenced in the 1990s in two separate sentencing hearings involving multiple cases. Only one of the cases was enhanced by a now invalid prior prison term enhancement. That case made him eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75. The trial court conducted a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75 on only that single case, and declined to resentence on the others. The trial court should have conducted a full resentencing that reconsidered sentencing choices in all five cases in the late 1995 aggregate sentence.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75(a) provides thatany sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense is legally invalid. Once the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) identifies those persons currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a) to the sentencing court, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. Here, defendant’s sentence was subject to recall and resentencing because the CDCR identified his now invalid prison prior.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(b), (c)

Second Holding:

On recall of his sentence, defendant was entitled to a full resentencing that included all aspects of his aggregate sentence. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements. Section 1172.75(d)(2) specifies that the court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

When a sentence is subject to recall, the resentencing court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the sentence, and not just the portion subjected to the recall. Where there are multiple counts and discretionary decisions at play, the trial court may consider the entire sentencing scheme and reconsider all sentencing choices. This includes an aggregate prison term, which is not a series of separate, independent terms, but one term made up of interdependent components. The invalidity of one component infects the entire scheme.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402

People v. Hill (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 831, 834

People v. Walker (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 198, 206

People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562, 568

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

People v. Marcus (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 201, 214

Third Holding:

Defendant’s sentence is an aggregate prison term comprised of five separate cases. Even though defendant only referenced the one of the 1995 sentences instead of both of the 1995 sentences, the trial court mistakenly believed it was limited to resentencing defendant on the narrow portion of his sentence that included the prison prior. Defendant’s sentence contains interdependent component parts from multiple cases. Therefore, the court erred by treating the portion of the sentence with the invalid prison prior as an independent, separate term, rather than an integral part of the whole and reconsidering every aspect of the sentencing scheme as required. The trial court should have conducted a full resentencing that reconsidered sentencing choices in all five cases in the later 1995 aggregate sentence.

Authority:

People v. Hill (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 831, 834

People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562, 568

People v. Marcus (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 201, 214

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000476

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The imposition of the upper term of imprisonment violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and was unauthorized under section 1170, subdivision (b) as he did not expressly waive the right as to the aggravating circumstances relied on by the sentencing court to justify imposing the upper term nor stipulate to their truth.

First Holding:

The court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only if there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the upper term. The facts underlying those aggravating circumstances must 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.

Authority:

PEN 1170

Second Holding:

The Sixth Amendment entitles a defendant to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 755–767

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1086

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490 [Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.]

Third Holding:

An express waiver of a federally-derived jury trial right is required even in cases in which the circumstances make it apparent that all involved—the trial court, the prosecutor, defense counsel, and the defendant—assumed that the defendant had waived or intended to waive the right to a jury trial. That is, the right to a jury trial on aggravating circumstances, which is guaranteed by the federal constitution, may not be forfeited without an express waiver by the defendant.

Authority:

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47

Fourth Holding:

Here, appellant did not expressly waive his right to a jury trial on the aggravating circumstances and therefore has not surrendered his claim. No aggravating circumstances were pled in the complaint; as such, appellant’s plea, and his corresponding waiver of his constitutional rights, did not encompass any aggravating circumstances. A defendant does not waive his right to a jury trial on aggravating sentencing factors by pleading no contest to substantive offenses. Even if forfeiture did apply, we would nevertheless exercise our discretion to reach the issue. Such discretionary review is typical when a forfeited claim involves an important issue of constitutional law or a substantial right.

Authority:

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 50

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party]

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887, fn. 7

Fifth Holding:

We cannot determine from this record beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found every aggravating factor relied on by the trial court properly proven. Several of the factors relied on by the sentencing court were fact-specific, which a reasonable jury could disagree on. Moreover, the sentencing court relied on factual recitations in the police reports, which counsel did not stipulate to admitting into evidence for the purpose of establishing aggravating factors, and which contained hearsay. Additionally, we cannot necessarily assume that the record reflects all of the evidence that would have been presented had aggravating circumstances been submitted to the jury.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 775 [To the extent a potential aggravating circumstance at issue in a particular case rests on a somewhat vague or subjective standard, it may be difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court]

Sixth Holding:

One court has held that the rule 4.421(c) residual clause [which was relied on in part by the trial court here, and lists as a potential factor in aggravation “Any other factors statutorily declared to be circumstances in aggravation or that reasonably relate to the defendant or the circumstances under which the crime was committed” exceeds the legislative delegation in section 1170.3 and thus violates the separation of powers clause of the California Constitution. It reasoned that because the 4.421(c) residual clause specifies no criteria for its use in jury factfinding, it supplies prosecutors unrestricted authority to make fundamental policy decisions on an ad hoc basis by letting prosecutors draft aggravating factors to submit to the jury not based on any statute or rule in order to expose the defendant to increased penalty. The court held that rule 4.421(c) is no longer appropriate under the current determinate sentencing law.

Authority:

Lovelace v. Superior Court (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1099

Sentencing

Case 000475

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We remand to the trial court with directions to clarify its section 654 findings for count 3 (false imprisonment). If the trial court clarifies on remand that section 654 applies, we direct it to modify the judgment to stay the sentence for count 3 and amend the abstract of judgment accordingly. We also direct the court to correct the determination of credit for time served.

First Holding:

Section 654’s applicability is reviewable on appeal even if, as here, the issue was not raised with the trial court.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354, fn. 17

Second Holding:

Section 654(a) protects against multiple punishment where the crimes arise from either (1) the same act or omission or (2) an indivisible course of conduct united by a single intent and objective. In the absence of any reference to PC 654 during sentencing, the fact that the court did not stay the sentence on any count is generally deemed to reflect an implicit determination that each crime had a separate objective subject to substantial evidence review.

Authority:

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335

People v. Tarris (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 612, 626

Third Holding:

The court made comments suggesting a section 654 stay applied to the false imprisonment term at the original sentencing but was silent on the matter at resentencing. The trial court originally sentenced the defendant to a total prison term of more than 20 years. At the sentencing hearing, the court said it would impose and stay the middle-term sentence for count 3 (false imprisonment) primarily based on the fact that all of these facts are essentially running together, that there was some overlap with the other counts, as it viewed the false imprisonment as being somewhat encapsulated in the rape, witness intimidation, and domestic violence.

A few months later, the court recalled the sentence, believing the defendant had been given too harsh a sentence, and resentenced the defendant to nearly five years less. At that resentencing hearing, there was no mention of the applicability of section 654. In light of the uncertainty regarding what the trial court intended regarding a finding under section 654, it appears appropriate under these circumstances to remand the matter to permit the trial court to clarify.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 834, 839

Fourth Holding:

The defendant is entitled to one day additional credit, because the correct calculation must include the date of arrest. Further, it is the trial court’s responsibility to calculate all credit for time served through the date of the resentencing, and the duty cannot be delegated to the custodial facility personnel.

Authority:

eople v. Kennedy (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 385, 394

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