Tag Archives: Standard of review

Discretion, Juveniles, Standard of review

Case 000860

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse the juvenile court’s transfer order and remand for a new hearing and ruling on the district attorney’s transfer motion.

First Holding:

The ultimate question for the juvenile court in a transfer petition is whether a minor is amenable to rehabilitation before the juvenile court’s jurisdiction expires. To order a minor’s transfer to a court of criminal jurisdiction, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(3)

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.770(a), (b)

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 212

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 416

Second Holding:

In making that determination, the juvenile court must consider five specific criteria: (1) the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the minor; (2) whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction; (3) the minor’s previous delinquent history; (4) success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor; and (5) the circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in the petition to have been committed by the minor.

Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(a)(3) also sets forth a nonexhaustive list of relevant factors for the juvenile court to consider with respect to each of the five criteria.

Authority:

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 212

Third Holding:

The allegation that a minor committed a serious offense, including murder, does not automatically require a finding of unfitness. Rather, in evaluating this criterion, a juvenile court may rely on evidence that, while not justifying or excusing the crime, tends to lessen its magnitude.

Authority:

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 189

Fourth Holding:

A juvenile court can retain jurisdiction over a minor as described in section 602 for the offense of murder until he or she attains 25 years of age, or upon the expiration of a two-year period of control, whichever occurs later.

In determining whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction, ‘the juvenile court shall give weight to any relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the minor’s potential to grow and mature.

Expert witnesses may testify on the issue of the availability of treatment programs in the juvenile court system and the amenability of the minor to those programs.

Authority:

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 213

Fifth Holding:

A minor’s amenability to rehabilitation is the central and dispositive question in proceedings under section 707, and the juvenile court’s analysis of the section 707 criteria must be focused through the lens of amenability to rehabilitation.

Authority:

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 161–162

In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1288, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re J.M. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 745, 751–753

Sixth Holding:

We review the juvenile court’s ruling on a transfer motion for abuse of discretion. The lower court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.

The court’s ultimate finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under its jurisdiction is also reviewed for substantial evidence. In conducting substantial evidence review, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court’s findings.

Moreover, a trial court abuses its discretion when its factual findings are not supported by the evidence, or its decision is based on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 160

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 433

Seventh Holding:

When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true.

The clear and convincing evidence standard requires a finding of high probability. The evidence must be so clear as to leave no substantial doubt; sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.

Authority:

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 160–161

Eighth Holding:

The court’s reliance on uncertainty born out of the district attorney’s limited proof about why the minor would not accept or respond to the available treatment that the probation department believed would prepare the minor for re-entry into the community resulted in an improper shift of the burden from the district attorney to show the minor’s unamenability to the minor to show his amenability to rehabilitation.

This shift amounts to an abuse of discretion based on the application of an incorrect legal standard. Given that the juvenile court improperly applied the burden of proof in deciding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the court’s jurisdiction, we agree with the minor that the court’s order granting the transfer motion must be reversed and the matter remanded for a new transfer hearing.

Authority:

J.N. v. Superior Court (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 706, 722 [holding there was an abuse of discretion where there was no evidence that demonstrated existing programs were unlikely to result in the minor’s rehabilitation, why they were unlikely to work in this case, or that they would take more than three years to accomplish the task of rehabilitating minor]

People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 673 [The prosecution cannot suggest that deficiencies in the defense case can make up for shortcomings in its own]

Fifth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000858

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We hold that the officers’ un-Mirandized questioning of the defendant was a custodial interrogation and reverse the judgment.

First Holding:

When reviewing issues under Miranda, we accept the trial court’s findings of historical fact if supported by substantial evidence but independently determine whether the interrogation was custodial. Where, as here, an interview is recorded, the facts surrounding the admission are undisputed and subject to our independent review.

Authority:

People v. Aguilera (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1161

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 172

Second Holding:

To give force to the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination, a custodial interrogation must be preceded by Miranda warnings and the suspect’s voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights.

Persons in custody thus must be warned that they have the right to remain silent, any statement made may be used as evidence against them, and they have the right to an attorney.

For Miranda purposes, interrogation means express questioning or words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.

Authority:

Florida v. Powell (2010) 559 U.S. 50, 59

People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523, 530–531

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 244

Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291, 301

Third Holding:

The protections provided by Miranda apply only to custodial interrogations. The term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.

Volunteered statements, for instance, that were not made in response to police questioning are not the product of an interrogation and thus not inadmissible under Miranda even when the statements were made while in custody.

Where a defendant seeks to exclude statements made in the absence of a Miranda advisement, they must therefore establish both that the police questioning was an interrogation and that it occurred while the individual was in custody.

Authority:

People v. Zapata (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 529, 538

Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291, 301

People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 648

Fourth Holding:

A custodial interrogation occurs when a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would feel that their freedom has been deprived in any significant way; for example, a formal arrest or a restraint of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest.

When there has been no formal arrest, the question is how a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have understood their situation. All the circumstances of the interrogation are relevant to this inquiry, including the location, length and form of the interrogation, the degree to which the investigation was focused on the defendant, and whether any indicia of arrest were present.

Whether a person is in custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.

Authority:

California v. Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 1125

People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 491

People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal.4th 386, 395

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 172

Fifth Holding:

When the court considers whether an individual was in custody during their questioning, it looks at the interplay and combined effect of all the circumstances to determine whether on balance they created a coercive atmosphere such that a reasonable person would have experienced a restraint tantamount to an arrest. The courts have articulated a number of non-exhaustive factors to consider when conducting this analysis.

The relevant factors include: (1) whether contact was initiated by the police or the person interrogated, and if by the police, whether the person voluntarily agreed to an interview; (2) whether the express purpose of the interview was to question the person as a witness or a suspect; (3) location of the interview; (4) whether police informed the person they were under arrest or in custody; (5) whether they informed the person they were free to terminate the interview and leave at any time; (6) whether there were restrictions on the person’s freedom of movement during the interview; (7) length of the interrogation; (8) how many police officers participated; (9) whether they dominated and controlled the course of the interrogation; (10) whether they manifested a belief that the person was culpable and they had evidence to prove it; (11) whether the police were aggressive, confrontational, and/or accusatory; (12) whether the police used interrogation techniques to pressure the suspect; and 13) whether the person was arrested at the end of the interrogation.

Authority:

People v. Aguilera (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1162

Sixth Holding:

The circumstances are less likely to suggest to an individual that they are unable to leave or end the questioning when they voluntarily subject themselves to such an examination.

Authority:

People v. Potter (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 528, 541 [holding that the defendant was not in custody when he voluntarily came to the police station for an interview]

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 173 [defendant’s agreement to be voluntarily interviewed in unmarked police car weighed against a custodial finding]

Seventh Holding:

A custodial interrogation does not occur where an officer detains a suspect for investigation and limits questioning to the purpose of identification or obtaining sufficient information to confirm or dispel the officer’s suspicions that a crime has occurred.

Authority:

People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 180

People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 679–680

Eighth Holding:

The mere fact that an individual is a suspect is not enough to foster a custodial environment; the officers’ suspicion must also be communicated to that person for it to factor into the custody determination.

The awareness of the person being questioned by an officer that the police have ample cause to arrest him, may well lead him to conclude, as a reasonable person, that he is not free to leave, and that he has been significantly deprived of his freedom.

Authority:

People v. Vasquez (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1163—1164

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 176 [holding that officers’ expressed belief that the defendant was culpable and they had evidence to prove it weighed in favor of custody determination]

Ninth Holding:

An interview that takes place in public within view of any passersby reduces the ability of an unscrupulous officer to use illegitimate means to elicit incriminating responses and should lessen a suspect’s fear of abuse should they not cooperate.

Authority:

Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 438

Tenth Holding:

The longer the period of questioning, the more likely it will be found to be coercive and custodial, although even one question may be enough in the proper circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Herdan (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 300, 307, fn. 12

Eleventh Holding:

If the court finds that the statement was admitted in violation of Miranda, the court must determine whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not impact the jury’s guilty verdict, such that the jury would not have reached a different result had the trial court excluded the challenged statements.  

The court assesses whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. To say that an error did not contribute to the verdict is to find that error unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question.

Authority:

People v. NavaAdame (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1, 21–22

People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 495

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

Twelfth Holding:

A confession is like no other evidence. Indeed, the defendant’s own confession is probably the most probative and damaging evidence that can be admitted against him. On the record in this case, we cannot find that the admission of the defendant’s statements was harmless error.

Authority:

Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 296.

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 181 [finding prejudice where there were no witnesses or physical evidence and defendant’s non-Mirandized statements was primary evidence]

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Vicarious liability

Case 000852

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage. Remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

First Holding:

Morris held that an aider and abettor of murder must actually aid and abet the lethal act in order to be convicted of murder, we agree with defendant that the record of conviction does not show he was convicted as either the actual killer or as an aider and abettor who acted with the intent to kill as a matter of law,

Authority:

People v. Morris (2026) 19 Cal.5th 671, 678

Second Holding:

SB 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), effective January 1, 2019, significantly limited the scope of California’s felony-murder rule and eliminated liability for murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine through two key statutory provisions.

Section 189 was amended so that a defendant is liable for felony murder only if he was (1) the actual killer, (2) a direct aider and abettor with the intent to kill, or (3) a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Section 188 was amended to impose a new requirement that, except in cases of felony murder, a principal in the crime of murder can only be convicted where he or she acted with malice aforethought, and malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.

Authority:

PEN 189

PEN 188

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 449

People v. Love (2025) 107 Cal.App.5th 1280, 1286

People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 724

People v. Berry-Vierwinden (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 921, 931

Third Holding:

A person convicted of felony murder or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime may file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

Fourth Holding:

Courts may not engage in factfinding at the prima facie stage. The court takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved. If so, the court must issue an order to show cause.

A court should not reject the petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. At the prima facie hearing, the court may consider the record of conviction. The record of conviction includes jury verdicts, jury instructions, and closing arguments.

This does not include our appellate opinion. The factual summary in an appellate opinion is not evidence that may be considered at an evidentiary hearing to determine a petitioner’s eligibility for resentencing. If such evidence may not be considered at an evidentiary hearing to determine a petitioner’s ultimate eligibility for resentencing, we fail to see how such evidence could establish, as a matter of law, a petitioner’s ineligibility for resentencing at the prima facie stage.

If the petition and record in the case establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief, the trial court may dismiss the petition.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971-972

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 54-56 [considering jury instructions and verdicts to determine whether defendant made prima facie showing of eligibility]

People v. Ervin (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 90, 106 [considering sentencing enhancements, jury instructions, closing arguments, and verdicts at prima facie stage]

People v. Flores (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 974, 988, fn. omitted

People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 292 [Trial judges should not rely on the factual summaries contained in prior appellate decisions when a section 1172.6 petition reaches the stage of a full-fledged evidentiary hearing.]

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708

Fifth Holding:

We independently review a trial court’s determination of whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing. We may affirm a ruling that is correct in law on any ground.

Authority:

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52

People v. Cortes (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 198, 204

Sixth Holding:

For a person to be convicted of murder as an aider and abettor, the person must aid and abet the actual killer in the lethal act itself, and not just in the underlying felony.

Here, the record of conviction does not establish as a matter of law that defendant participated in aiding and abetting the kidnapping and other acts that led to the victim’s death and that he acted with the intent to kill. We thus reverse the trial court’s order and remand the matter with directions to issue an order to show cause and to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

People v. Morris (2026) 19 Cal.5th 671, 681

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000851

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude the trial court erred when it denied mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36, conditionally reverse the judgment, and remand the matter for the court to reconsider the defendant’s motion.

First Holding:

Diversion under section 1001.36 postpones criminal proceedings to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment, subject to specified conditions. It is intended to mitigate the entry and reentry of people with mental disorders into the criminal justice system by addressing their unique needs while simultaneously protecting public safety. A recognition that incarceration accomplishes little to deter lawlessness, but successful mental health treatment helps individuals and makes communities safer, led the Legislature to create and then expand this pretrial diversion.

Authority:

PEN 1001.35(a)(c)

People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 801

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 890–891

Second Holding:

To qualify for mental health diversion, defendants must meet the two eligibility criteria under section 1001.36(b), and the four suitability criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of that section.

Authority:

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 685

Third Holding:

Eligible defendants are suitable for diversion where (1) in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert the defendant’s mental disorder would respond to treatment; (2) the defendant consents to diversion and agrees to waive his or her speedy trial rights; (3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment requirements; and (4) if treated in the community, the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety’ as defined in section 1170.18, which concerns the risk the defendant will commit violent felonies colloquially referred to as super strikes.

Authority:

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 452

Fourth Holding:

Even when the defendant makes a prima facie showing of meeting the statutory eligibility and suitability criteria, the court may nonetheless exercise its discretion to deny diversion.

But this residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law, including the strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders given the resulting benefits to both the offending individual and the community.

Where the court chooses to exercise this residual discretion to deny diversion, its statement of reasons should reflect consideration of the underlying purposes of the statute and explain why diversion would not meet those goals.

Authority:

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 679

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

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on a request for mental health diversion for abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary 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:

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 687

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 453

Sixth Holding:

A ruling or decision, itself correct in law, will not be disturbed on appeal merely because given for a wrong reason. If right upon any theory of the law applicable to the case, it must be sustained regardless of the considerations which may have moved the trial court to its conclusion.

Authority:

People v. Turner (2020) 10 Cal.5th 786, 807

Seventh Holding:

The court erred in finding the defendant not suitable for diversion because of his repeated failures to comply with other forms of supervision. It was an abuse of discretion to deny diversion based on such reasoning, whether on the ground that the defendant’s symptoms would not respond to treatment  or on the ground that the recommended treatment plan would not meet his or her needs.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(1), (f)(1)(A)(i)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 893-894

Eighth Holding:

We will conditionally reverse the judgment and remand the matter for the trial court to reconsider the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion, bearing in mind the statutory principles and purpose of the statute, including the goal of promoting increased diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate their entry and reentry into the criminal justice system.

We express no opinion as to how the court should rule on remand. Still, we observe that denying diversion based on a defendant’s treatment history may be a proper exercise of discretion if the proposed treatment plan is no different from one that failed in the past.

On the other hand, a defendant’s failure to benefit from past treatment may not support an order denying diversion where the proposed treatment plan adequately addresses the defendant’s mental health needs and is significantly different from the prior treatment.

Authority:

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 892, 895

People v. Russo (2026) 121 Cal.App.5th 134, 139

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 894-895

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000848

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in imposing an indeterminate sentence on the attempted sodomy conviction and failed to properly calculate the defendant’s determinate sentence.

First Holding:

In evaluating claims of insufficient evidence, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence such that a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We presume the existence of every fact supporting the judgment that the jury reasonably could deduce from the evidence. A judgment will be reversed only if there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict under any hypothesis. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury, reweigh the evidence, or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses.

Authority:

People v. Elliot (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 466

People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206

People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331

Second Holding:

Under either simple or aggravated kidnapping, the asportation element requires that the movement be more than that which is merely incidental to the commission or attempted commission of the associated crime.

Simple kidnapping requires that the defendant moved the victim a substantial distance, but no minimum distance is required.

The aggravated kidnapping circumstance, however, also requires that the movement substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim beyond that inherent in the underlying offense. The increased risk may be of either physical or psychological harm.

Authority:

People v. Waqa (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 565, 577-578

Third Holding:

The crime of attempted sodomy is not subject to the One Strike law under section 667.61(c). Thus, it was error to impose an indeterminate sentence for that offense.

Authority:

PEN 667.61

People v. Rodriguez (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 204, 217

Fourth Holding:

Sentencing a defendant for offenses subject to determinate terms involves a three-step process:

First, the trial court is required to select a base term—either the statutory low, middle or upper term—for each of the crimes.

Second, if the court determines that a consecutive sentence is merited, it must designate the crime with the greatest selected base term as the principal term and the other crimes as subordinate terms.

Third, the court sentences the defendant to the full base term it selected for the principal term crime and one-third of the middle term for any crimes for which the sentence is ordered to run consecutively.

A subordinate term is one-third of the middle term even if the trial court had initially selected the lower or upper term as the base term. The court did not follow this procedure on three of the counts, and resentencing is required.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1

People v. Rodriguez (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 204, 211-212

Fifth Holding:

Generally, when a defendant successfully appeals a criminal conviction, California’s constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy precludes the imposition of more severe punishment on resentencing.

This rule does not apply, however, when a trial court imposes an unauthorized sentence. In such cases, courts may impose the proper judgment on remand even though it is more severe than the original unauthorized pronouncement.

Authority:

People v. Vizcarra (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 422, 431

People v. Burhop (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 808, 814 [An unauthorized sentence renders the unlawful part of a judgment of conviction and sentence void and correctable at any time.]

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1036, fn. 21 [We must correct an unauthorized sentence even where the corrected sentence results in a longer term.]

Sixth Holding:

Here, the trial court’s sentence on count 4 of an indeterminate term of 25 years to life was unauthorized and must be corrected. Likewise, the court’s failure to designate a principal term among counts 6 through 8 amounted to an unauthorized sentence. Accordingly, the trial court is not constrained by the length of the original determinative sentence for purposes of resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Neely (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 787, 797–798 [court erroneously applied principal term/subordinate term methodology set forth in sec. 1170.1 to all the offenses when it imposed one-third of the middle term sentences for the determinate term offenses]