Tag Archives: Standard of review

Discretion, Standard of review

Case: 000022

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed an improper burden on the defendant to demonstrate his mental disorder was a significant factor in the charged offense by reversing the statutory presumption in his favor on this issue. Because of this error, the court found defendant failed to prove he was eligible for mental health diversion as provided under Penal Code section 1001.36. Because the court did indeed use an erroneous standard, we will reverse and remand to allow the court to reevaluate the diversion request with a correct understanding of the law.

First Holding:

The prosecution bears burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that mental health diagnosis was not a causal factor in the crime.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485, 490

Second Holding:

The court reviews the trial court’s denial of a request for mental health diversion for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

Negron v. Superior Court (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1016

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448–449

Third Holding:

Diversion is discretionary, even if eligibility and suitability are present.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892–893

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 888

Fourth Holding:

If eligibility is established, the trial court must then consider whether a particular individual is suitable, by rendering a positive finding on each of four factors: (1) that in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder would respond to mental health treatment; (2) that the defendant consent to diversion and waive speedy trial rights; (3) that the defendant will agree to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and (4) that the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, which is defined as the likelihood the defendant would commit a new violent felony from a limited subset of particularly violent crimes, colloquially referred to as a “super strike.”

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892–893

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000021

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The timing of the defendant’s plea does not preclude him relief under section 1172.6 because, at the time of his plea, he could have been convicted under invalidated theories of attempted murder. We also find his admissions, including his admission to acting with an intent to kill, did not establish all the elements of a valid theory of attempted murder under current law. Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of his petition and remand for further proceedings.

First Holding:

Where a petition states eligibility on its face, and the court examines the record of the conviction suggesting otherwise, the defendant must be given an opportunity to file an amended petition.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549

Second Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill 1437 amended the felony murder rule and eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

SB 1437

SB 775

PEN 1172.6
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959

Third Holding:

At the prima facie hearing, the trial court may examine the record of conviction to assess whether it refutes a defendant’s claim of eligibility.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549

Fourth Holding:

It is only where the record of conviction establishes the petition lacks merit as a matter of law that the court may deny the petition without a hearing

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 566, 576

Fifth Holding:

When the defendant’s conviction resulted from a guilty plea rather than a trial, the record of conviction includes the facts the defendant admitted as the factual basis for a guilty plea and the defendant’s express admissions at the plea colloquy.

Authority:

People v. Gaillard (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1206, 1211–1212

People v. Fisher (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1022, 1029

(Disagreeing) People v. Glass (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 922

Sixth Holding:

If the trial court denies the petition without issuing an order to show cause, it must state its reasons.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(c)

Seventh Holding:

We independently review a summary denial of a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Gaillard (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1206

Amelioration, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000017

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse the court’s denial of the resentencing petition, which was not based on a review of the record, and remand for further proceedings under section 1172.6(c).

First Holding:

The trial court may deny a section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage only if the petition and record in the case establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. If a petitioner files a facially sufficient section 1172.6 petition by indicating, among other criteria, that he meets the statutory requirements for relief,it triggers the prosecution’s duty to submit a response and the petitioner’s right to file a reply on the issue of whether a prima facie case for relief exists.

Authority:

People v. Hickman (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1262
People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707
People v. Rodriguez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 451, 456
People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558–559

Second Holding:

The record of conviction includes documents from jury trial such as jury instructions and verdict forms.

Authority:

People v. Gallardo (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 296

Third Holding:

We review an order denying a petition at the prima facie stage de novo.

Authority:

People v. Hickman (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1262

Fourth Holding:

The right to seek replacement of counsel under Marsden applies at all stages of a criminal proceeding.

Authority:

People v. Armijo (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1171, 1179

People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118

People v. Carter (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1092, 1096 [Marsden motion sought disqualification of the public defender’s office and individual deputy public defender]

Fifth Holding:

The record of conviction will inform the court’s prima facie inquiry, allowing the court to distinguish clearly meritless claims.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971

 

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000014

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her petition for mental health diversion. We agree that the court applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on her petition. And we disagree with the People that we can imply from the court’s ruling the missing findings required by the statute. We thus conditionally vacate her no contest plea, conditionally reverse the judgment, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with section 1001.36.

First Holding:

A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard. Application of an incorrect legal standard on Mental Health Diversion requires reversal.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Grossmont Union High School Dist. v. Diego Plus Education Corp. (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 552, 584 [trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when it did not apply one of the essential components for deciding whether fees should be awarded under the applicable fee statute]

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449

Second Holding:

The court reviews denial of Mental Health diversion under the abuse of discretion standard. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard, or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448-449

Third Holding:

There is a presumption of correctness in court orders. We presume a trial court’s order is correct and indulge all intendments and reasonable inferences to support it. Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume a trial court knew and applied the law. When the record clearly demonstrates what the trial court did, we will not presume it did something different.

Authority:

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042

Lafayette Morehouse Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1384

Paterno v. State of California (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 998, 1015

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000011

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially committed constitutional and statutory error in imposing the upper term sentence based on aggravating factors not tried to the jury. The factors relied on were: the victim’s particular vulnerability; the offense was carried out with planning, sophistication, and professionalism; the defendant engaged in violent conduct which indicated a serious danger to society; the defendant had numerous prior convictions and they were of increasing seriousness.

First Holding:

The defendant is entitled to a jury trial on aggravating factors, which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before they can be relied on to impose the upper term (unless they are stipulated to by the defendant).

Authority:

PEN 1170

Second Holding:

The standard of review for evaluating the improper use of untried aggravating fact is whether error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730

Third Holding:

The parties agree the court erred in relying on those circumstances to impose the upper term on the principal count. Their disagreement centers around whether such error was prejudicial under the circumstances. On the record before us, we conclude it was.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078

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

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case 000008

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appealed from a postjudgment order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. The appellate court reversed and remanded the matter to the lower court because the evidence was insufficient to support the finding defendant aided and abetted the murder of the officer.

First Holding:

In this instance, the appellate court found that there was insufficient evidence to show that the defendant aided and abetted the murder.

Authority:

SB 1437

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 869

Second Holding:

A trial court’s denial of a section 1172.6 petition is reviewed for substantial evidence. Under this standard, the appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

Under a direct aider and abettor liability theory, the prosecution must prove the person who is not the actual killer engaged in the requisite acts and had the requisite intent to aid and abet the target crime of murder.

Authority:

People v. Pacheco (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 118, 124

Fourth Holding:

Direct aiding and abetting is based on the combined actus reus of the participants and the aider and abettor’s own mens rea.

Authority:

People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 712-713

Fifth Holding:

It is well settled that aiding and abetting the commission of a crime requires some affirmative action.

Authority:

People v. Partee (2020) 8 Cal.5th 860, 868

Sixth Holding:

A person present at the scene of a crime—even one who is the criminal’s companion, knows a crime is being committed, fails to prevent it, and later expresses approval of it—is not guilty of aiding and abetting the crime if he takes no action to aid or encourage the crime.

Authority:

In re K.M. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 323, 329

 

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000005

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief:

Section 1172.75 affords relief when the sentence enhancement was imposed but the punishment on the enhancement was stricken. Because the defendant was eligible for relief, the judgment is reversed and remanded to the lower court.

First Holding:

Penal Code 1172.75 affords relief when the sentence enhancement was imposed but the punishment on the enhancement was stricken. Any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid. If a court determines the current judgment includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a), the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 194, review granted Oct. 23, 2024, S286987 [the majority concluded section 1172.75 applies when the punishment for the section 667.5(b) enhancement was imposed but stricken]

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1054

People v. Cota (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1118

Second Holding:

The court reviews de novo interpretations of statutes.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961

Third Holding:

The court’s fundamental task in construing statutes is to interpret them in a way that gives effect to the Legislature’s intent.

Authority:

Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 837

Fourth Holding:

Because the statutory language is generally the most reliable indicator of that intent, the court looks first at the words themselves, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning.

Authority:

People v. Ruiz (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1100, 1105

Fifth Holding:

If the statute’s language is unambiguous then its plain meaning controls. If the statute’s language is unclear, ambiguous, or susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, we may look at extrinsic sources, including legislative history, as a guide to construing the statute.

Authority:

People v. Scott (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1415, 1421