Tag Archives: Sentencing

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000445

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Convicted of both murder and conspiracy to commit that murder, the court should have stayed the sentence for the conspiracy under section 654.

First Holding:

Section 654(a) provides in pertinent part that 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. The waiver doctrine does not apply to questions involving the applicability of section 654. Errors in the applicability of section 654 are corrected on appeal regardless of whether the point was raised by objection in the trial court or assigned as error on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295

Second Holding:

Section 654 precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. Even concurrent sentences on convictions subject to section 654 are prohibited; the sentence on one of the two applicable convictions must be imposed and then stayed. The purpose of section 654 is to insure that a defendant’s punishment will be commensurate with his culpability.

Authority:

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

People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 591–592

People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1211

Third Holding:

To determine the applicability of section 654, we first consider if the different crimes were completed by a single physical act. If so, the defendant may not be punished more than once for that act. Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single intent and objective or multiple intents and objectives.

Authority:

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311

Fourth Holding:

If the convictions involve more than one act, the court reaches step two of the section 654 analysis: whether the course of conduct involved multiple intents and objectives. At step two, whether crimes arise from an indivisible course of conduct turns on the perpetrator’s intent and objective. If all of the crimes were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, a defendant may be punished only once. If, however, a defendant had several independent criminal objectives, he may be punished for each crime committed in pursuit of each objective, even though the crimes shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct. Whether a defendant harbored a single intent—and thus a single objective—is a factual question; the applicability of section 654 to settled facts is a question of law.

Authority:

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

People v. Perry (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1521, 1525

Fifth Holding:

Because the conspiracy count in this case did not include a broader objective than the commission of the first degree murder, section 654 applied.

Authority:

People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 247

People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 439 [overruled on other grounds in People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919]

People v. Briones (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 524, 529

People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 835, 866 [disapproved on other grounds in People v. Riccardi (2012) 54 Cal.4th 758, 824, fn. 32]

People v. Ramirez (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 603, 615–616

Sixth Holding:

We acknowledge the trial court’s discretion under section 654 to choose which punishment to stay. Nevertheless, we conclude that a remand is unnecessary because the trial court’s decision on which punishment to stay would make no difference to the total sentence for the defendant. In this case, the sentence for the first degree murder count and the conspiracy to commit murder count are the same, 25 years to life. Under these circumstances, we will correct the trial court’s error by modifying the defendant’s sentence to stay the punishment on count 2, the conspiracy to commit murder conviction and the attached enhancements, to comply with section 654.

Authority:

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379

People v. Cortez (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1223, 1237
People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 835, 870 [disapproved on other grounds in People v. Riccardi (2012) 54 Cal.4th 758, 824, fn. 32]

People v. Calles (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1221

People v. Bey (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 144, 167

Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case: 000444

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court had no jurisdiction to modify the long-final judgment in response to a letter from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) that pointed out sentencing errors (which were adverse to the defendant’s interests). The defendant appealed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because there was no jurisdiction in the lower court, and thus nothing to appeal from.

It did, however, treat the appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and granted the writ, directing the trial court to to vacate the order modifying the defendant’s’ sentence on the conviction for dissuading a witness and reinstate the original sentence imposed on that count.

First Holding:

Under the general common law rule, a trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has commenced. However, there are limited exceptions to this rule. For example, the court has inherent power to correct a clerical error at any time. A court also may resentence a defendant in connection with a petition for writ of habeas corpus or under specified conditions provided in section 1172.1.

Authority:

People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 787, 790–791

Second Holding:

Here, the trial court made two modifications to the defendant’s sentence long after execution of the sentence had commenced. First, the court imposed a 10-year enhancement under section 12022.5(a), rather than under section 667.6(c). A record of the court’s oral pronouncement of the original sentence could not be produced for this appeal, so it is not clear if the court misspoke while announcing the sentence, or if the mistake appeared for the first time in the minute order.

In any event, it is apparent the court intended to impose the enhancement under section 12022.5(a), as alleged in the information and found true by the jury. Therefore, the error was essentially clerical, which the trial court had inherent discretion to correct at any time.

Authority:

People v. Menius (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1294 [court’s inadvertent reference to the wrong statute at sentencing was a clerical error]

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 790–791

Third Holding:

Second, the trial court modified the defendant’s sentence to impose a full consecutive middle term on the dissuading a witness count. The original sentencing court imposed a consecutive one-third the middle term on that count, as is generally required under section 1170.1(a). However, the resentencing court determined section 1170.15 required it to impose a full consecutive term, presumably because the victim of the dissuading offense also was the victim of another felony conviction. A court’s failure to impose a full consecutive term under section 1170.15 is a judicial error, not a clerical error.

Authority:

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 792 [a court makes a judicial error when it fails to impose the legally required sentence under section 1170.15]

Fourth Holding:

Courts of Appeal are split on whether trial courts have inherent jurisdiction to correct an unauthorized sentence, i.e., a sentence that could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. The majority of appellate courts have concluded they do not but others see it differently.

Authority:

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

People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 633

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 62–63

People v. Hernandez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1122–1124

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 796–797

People v. Garcia (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 139, 144–145

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 990

People v. Cervantes (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 825

In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000443

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in ordering restitution in the amount of the full retail price of sunglasses that were returned to the victim, a retail store, by the police soon after the theft.

First Holding:

In every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court.

Restitution shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct, including, but not limited to, full or partial payment for the value of stolen or damaged property. The value of stolen or damaged property shall be the replacement cost of like property, or the actual cost of repairing the property when repair is possible. A victim may also seek lost profits.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)

Second Holding:

A prima facie case for restitution can be made based on a victim’s testimony or other claim or statement of the amount of economic loss. Once a prima facie showing of loss has been made, the burden shifts to defendant to demonstrate that the amount of the loss is other than that claimed by the victim.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

We review restitution orders for abuse of discretion. Where the specific issue is whether the court’s factual findings support restitution, we review those findings for substantial evidence.

Authority:

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

People v. Hume (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 990, 995

People v. Trout-Lacy (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 369, 373

Fourth Holding:

Ordering a defendant to pay retail value is justified when a retailer shows it lost the opportunity to sell the stolen goods to customers at that price — in other words, that it lost profits because of the thefts.

Authority:

People v. Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1178 [retail value of recovered stolen property was not an appropriate measure of restitution when the prosecutor presented no evidence that the victim retailer lost any profits as a result of the theft]

Fifth Holding:

Had the victim been a person who purchased the sunglasses at a store for the retail price, the retail price may have been the accurate measure of damages.

But the victim retailer did not seek lost profits on its restitution request form or introduce evidence at the hearing supporting such a claim. The trial court, in fact, ordered defense counsel to refrain from examining the store manager about the store’s sales volume after the prosecutor objected on relevancy grounds. The restitution award was therefore limited to the replacement cost of like property.

Using retail value as the sole basis to calculate restitution, based on this record, resulted in a windfall to the victim retailer.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(f)(3)(A)

People v. Chappelone (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1172 [A restitution order is intended to compensate the victim for its actual loss and is not intended to provide the victim with a windfall]

People v. Valle (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1329, 1333 [awarding purchase price of stolen cell phone that was returned to victim was error when defendant elicited testimony the victim hoped to use or sell the phone]

Jurisdiction, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case: 000442

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant entered into a plea agreement that stipulated the length of his sentence and how it was to be served (a split sentence under Realignment). When he was eventually sentenced, the court deviated from that agreed-on sentence. The defendand appealed. While the appeal was pending, the trial court and parties attempted to modify the judgment in accordance with the plea agreement. Because the defendant was never advised of his right to withdraw his plea if the court chose to not abide by the agreed sentence under section 1192.5, the matter is reversed to allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court had no jurisdiction to modify the judgment while the appeal was pending.

First Holding:

A plea of guilty or nolo contendere may specify the punishment. Where, as here, the plea is accepted by the prosecuting attorney in open court and is approved by the court, the defendant, except as otherwise provided in this section, cannot be sentenced on the plea to a punishment more severe than that specified in the plea and the court may not proceed as to the plea other than as specified in the plea.

If the court approves of the plea, it shall inform the defendant prior to the making of the plea that (1) its approval is not binding, (2) it may, at the time set for the hearing on the application for probation or pronouncement of judgment, withdraw its approval in the light of further consideration of the matter, and (3) in that case, the defendant shall be permitted to withdraw the plea if the defendant desires to do so. The advisement required by section 1192.5(c) was not given here. When the trial court fails to give a section 1192.5 admonition, the defendant’s failure to object at sentencing does not waive his claim on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 1192.5

People v. Silva (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 578, 589

People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1024–1025 [overruled on other grounds by People v. Villalobos (2012) 54 Cal.4th 177, 183]

Second Holding:

The three-year prison sentence originally imposed is more severe than the agreed-upon sentence of two years in county jail with one year of mandatory supervision. There is a qualitative difference between an inmate in actual prison custody and a felon released in the community under mandatory supervision.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 935 [length of jail term is significant]

People v. Silva (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 578, 591–592 [30-day jail sentence consecutive to agreed-upon sentence allowed defendant to withdraw plea]

Wofford v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1037

Third Holding:

The filing of a valid notice of appeal vests jurisdiction of the cause in the appellate court until determination of the appeal and issuance of the remittitur. Because an appeal divests the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction, the court lacks jurisdiction to vacate the judgment or make any order affecting it. Thus, action by the trial court while an appeal is pending is null and void. The purported changes to the sentence that were made while appeals in this matter were pending are thus void.

Authority:

People v. Alanis (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1472-1473

Fourth Holding:

While an appeal is pending, a trial court has inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records, including correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts. The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered. Here the court had the power to correct the erroneous section designation in the original abstract. But it did not have the power to change the sentence while the appeals were pending. Under such circumstances, the proper procedure is to reverse the void judgment rather than dismiss the appeal.

Authority:

People v. Alanis (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1473-1474

Discretion, Sentencing

Case: 000441

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The gang conviction in count 6 is based on the same felonious conduct that comprises the murder conviction in count 1. Accordingly, the trial court was required to stay execution of one of these sentences. We vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. The trial court shall exercise its discretion under section 654 to determine which of the sentences for counts 1 and 6 must be stayed.

First Holding:

Section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for a single act or course of conduct that violates more than one statute. Where all offenses are incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for only one of them, and execution of sentence on the remaining counts must be stayed.

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 337

Second Holding:

Under amended section 654 (AB 518 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.)) (Stats. 2021, ch. 441), the sentencing court has discretion to determine which sentence should be stayed. This could result in the trial court imposing and executing the shorter sentence rather than the longer one. Here, although the lower court’s decision to run the sentence in count 6 concurrently strongly suggests it would not stay the sentence for murder, nothing in the sentencing record affirmatively shows how the trial court would have exercised its discretion under section 654. Accordingly, we remand for resentencing so the trial court may determine which sentence must be stayed.

Authority:

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379