Tag Archives: Standard of review

Duty of counsel, Immigration, Standard of review

Case: 000240

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant entered the United States in 1991 and obtained permanent residency in the mid-2000s. She was convicted by plea in 2009 of grand theft and was ordered to serve one year in the county jail as a condition of probation. At the time of her plea, she was advised under section 1016.5 that conviction may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion of admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization. There was no indication that her then-attorney discussed immigration consequences with her. She was not aware that a jail term of 364 days instead of 365 days would have made a difference regarding her immigration status.

Because service of at least 365 days in custody constitutes an aggravated felony, in 2010 she was notified by immigration authorities that she was subject to removal. She conceded removability and was deported. In 2023, someone she had kept in contact with over the years suggested she contact the public defender. She did, and a petition to vacate her conviction was filed under section 1473.7 Based on our independent review, we conclude the defendant has shown prejudicial error based on the totality of the circumstances. It was error to deny the defendant’s petition under section 1473.7 to vacate her conviction because prejudicial error impaired her ability to understand the immigration consequences of her plea.

First Holding:

Section 1473.7 allows noncitizens who have served their sentences to vacate a conviction if they can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that their conviction is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging their ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence. If the required showings are made, the court must vacate the conviction or sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7(a)(1), (e)(1)

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316

Second Holding:

Appeals from section 1473.7 hearings are subject to independent review. Under this standard, an appellate court exercises its independent judgment to determine whether the facts satisfy the rule of law. We give deference to the trial court’s factual determinations if they are based on the credibility of witnesses the superior court heard and observed. But when the trial court’s findings derive entirely from written declarations and other documents, the trial court and the reviewing court are in the same position, and no deference is owed.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319-320

Third Holding:

Subject to statutory exceptions, a motion to vacate based on immigration consequences shall be deemed timely filed at any time in which the individual filing the motion is no longer in criminal custody. The exceptions state the motion may be deemed untimely filed if it was not filed with reasonable diligence after the later of several events: receipt of a notice to appear in immigration court, notice from immigration authorities asserting adverse consequences from the conviction or sentence, or notice of a final removal order.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7(b)(1) and (b)(2)

Fourth Holding:

The statutory exceptions to timeliness do not apply here. Because the defendant was given notice of immigration consequences before the 2017 effective date of section 1473.7, the test is: What event in her life that occurred after section 1473.7 became effective would have given her a reason to look for the existence of new legal grounds for relief or, at a minimum, put her on notice of the need to investigate? We assess the reasonableness of the petitioner’s diligence from that point forward. In so doing, we must take into account the totality of the circumstances. The record does not suggest some event occurred between the time the legislation became effective in 2017 and her contact with her attorney in 2023 that put her on notice. We conclude the motion was timely.

Authority:

People v. Alatorre (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 747, 762, 765-766

Fifth Holding:

Relief pursuant to section 1473.7 requires that the defendant show prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence. Because the defendant’s conviction of theft with a one-year sentence constituted an aggravated felony, she was subject to mandatory deportation and permanent exclusion from the United States and was also ineligible for cancellation of removal, a form of discretionary relief allowing some deportable aliens to remain in the country.

Authority:

8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G)

8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)

8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(3), (b)(1)(C)

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 15

Sixth Holding:

A defendant seeking section 1473.7 relief must demonstrate that the error is prejudicial, meaning a reasonable probability that the defendant would have rejected the plea if the defendant had correctly understood its actual or potential immigration consequences. This might be based either on the desire to go to trial or on the hope or expectation of negotiating a different bargain without immigration consequences. Relief is available if the defendant establishes he or she would have rejected the existing bargain to accept or attempt to negotiate another.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529

People v. Martinez (2013) 57 Cal.4th 555, 559

Seventh Holding:

Her ignorance of the immigration consequences of her conviction and sentence was an error that damaged her ability to meaningfully understand and knowingly accept those consequences. A showing of ineffective assistance of counsel was not required because the motion was based on the inadequate advisement by the trial court that the conviction may have immigration consequences and the defendant’s own error in not knowing that her plea would subject her to mandatory deportation and permanent exclusion from the United States. There was no indication her attorney considered the immigration consequences of her plea even though a social worker had expressed concern and the defendant had expressed concern to probation. This failure impeded the defendant’s ability to understand the consequences of her plea.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7(a)(1)

People v. Mejia (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 859, 871

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 960–961

Eighth Holding:

Defense counsel has a duty to advise criminal defendant clients of the immigration consequences.

Authority:

PEN 1016.2

PEN 1016.3

Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356, 371

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 17-18

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

Case: 000232

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion because substantial evidence did not support the court’s conclusion that his mental illnesses were not a significant factor in the commission of the underlying offenses.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature enacted provisions to create a pretrial diversion program for defendants with certain mental health disorders. Pretrial diversion allows for the suspension of criminal proceedings and potential dismissal of charges upon successful completion of mental health treatment. The statute expressly promotes increased diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety.

Authority:

PEN 1001.35

PEN 1001.36

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 133

Second Holding:

Section 1001.36 provides that a defendant is eligible for pretrial diversion if the defendant has been diagnosed with a specified mental disorder within the last five years by a qualified mental health expert, and the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense. If the defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, the court shall find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.

If the defendant is eligible, the court also must determine whether the defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion based on satisfaction of the following criteria: (1) In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder causing, contributing to, or motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment; (2) The defendant consents to diversion and waives the defendant’s right to a speedy trial; (3) The defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and (4) The defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in Section 1170.18, if treated in the community.

Authority:

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795

Third Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on a petition for pretrial mental health diversion for abuse of discretion. 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. Therefore, we review a trial court’s factual findings in support of its ruling for substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

Fourth Holding:

The trial court failed to apply the presumption that, given the timely diagnoses of mental health disorders, the mental condition contributed to his behavior. The burden then was on the prosecution to rebut the presumption by producing clear and convincing evidence tha there was no causal connection.

Authority:

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

Fifth Holding:

However, while eligibility and suitability are preconditions, mental health diversion remains discretionary even if they are met. Because of the existence of this residual discretion, the proper remedy is to remand with instructions for the trial court to consider both eligibility and suitability, along with making relevant findings, in accordance with the current law.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882

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

Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000230

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the defendant’s hearing on the recall of his sentence under section 1172.75, the court failed to recalculate his custody credits upon resentencing. We direct the trial court to correct the custody credits in the resentencing minute order and the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

Everyone sentenced to prison for criminal conduct is entitled to credit against his term for all actual days of confinement solely attributable to the same conduct. When a defendant is imprisoned and later resentenced, the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served, whether in jail or prison, and whether before or since he was originally committed and delivered to prison custody.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29-30, 37

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision not to strike a prior felony conviction for abuse of discretion. It is the defendant’s burden on appeal to show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. Absent such a showing, the trial court is presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on review. In addition, we will not reverse a trial court’s sentencing decision merely because reasonable people might disagree. An appellate tribunal is neither authorized nor warranted in substituting its judgment for the judgment of the trial judge.

Authority:

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 371, 376-377

Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Standard of review

Case: 000219

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in instructing the jury that implied malice murder can be based on an act that was reasonably foreseeable to cause death rather than highly likely to cause death. The prosecutor erred by making arguments to the jury on the same point. The defendant’s convictions on the counts of murder are reversed. The charges may be retried on remand. [The defendant was convicted as a result of the death of three occupants of a vehicle he crashed into while he was driving under the influence.]

First Holding:

Malice may be implied when a defendant does an act with a high probability that it will result in death and does it with a base antisocial motive and with a wanton disregard for human life. The trial court erred here by requiring only that death be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of appellant’s act, rather than a highly probable one. Similarly, the prosecutor erred by arguing to the jury that it need not find that appellant’s act of driving impaired created a strong probability of death.

Authority:

People v. Dellinger (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1212, 1219

Second Holding:

When the trial court misinstructs the jury on an element of a charged crime, we consider prejudice under the standard of Chapman. Under that standard, we reverse the judgment unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

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

People v. Hendrix (2022) 13 Cal.5th 933, 942

Amelioration, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case: 000211

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Earlier, the defendant pleaded guilty to the first degree murder and admitted a firearm enhancement, admitting that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and proximately caused great bodily injury and death to another person, who is not an accomplice. The trial court denied his petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage. He has not, at this juncture, made a prima facie case for relief under section 1172.6 in light of the record of conviction. Out of an abundance of caution, we remand the matter to the trial court with directions for that court to consider an amended petition should the defendant, within 30 days of that remand, seek to file one.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature enacted SB 1437 to modify accomplice liability for murder and the felony-murder rule. It eliminated natural and probable consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting, and limited the scope of the felony-murder rule. Section 1172.6 is the new law’s procedure allowing people convicted of murder under the old law to petition for an order vacating their convictions and resentencing them on remaining counts if they could not now be convicted because of the changes made to sections 188 and 189 by SB 1437.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 563, 569–570

People v. Mares (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1158, 1164

Second Holding:

Regarding 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 the 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. However, if the record, including the court’s own documents, contains facts refuting the allegations made in the petition, then the court is justified in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 563

Third Holding:

In reviewing any part of the record of conviction at this preliminary juncture, a trial court should not engage in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion. The preliminary hearing transcript preceding a guilty plea is part of the record of conviction that may be consulted at the prima facie stage. When, as here, the petitioner’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. It also includes the petitioner’s express admissions at the plea colloquy.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 564, 568-569

People v. Glass (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 922, 927

Fourth Holding:

We review the denial of a petition at the prima facie stage de novo.

Authority:

People v. Saavedra (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 444, 447

Fifth Holding:

As in Patton, and out of an abundance of caution, we will grant the defendant’s request to remand the matter to permit him to plead additional facts. We therefore will order a remand to the trial court with directions for that court to consider an amended petition should the defendant, within 30 days of that remand, seek to file one.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 569-570

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000210

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for full resentencing. The trial court abused its discretion when declining to fully strike the firearm enhancement or strike it and impose a lesser firearm enhancement. The trial court errantly focused only on the defendant’s past and present danger to public safety, and not whether striking the enhancement would endanger public safety in the future. The trial court erred in deciding whether striking the enhancement would endanger public safety because, as the record of the sentencing hearing indicates, it focused solely on defendant’s past conduct and the circumstances of the murder. In the context of section 1385, the key question is forward looking—whether striking the enhancement would likely endanger public safety. Thus, even if the trial court struck the enhancement, the defendant would still be serving an indeterminate 15-to-life term with parole eligibility subject to the Parole Board and Governor’s review. The trial court must consider this future-looking issue for purposes of public safety.

First Holding:

A trial court’s decision not to dismiss an enhancement pursuant to section 1385 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion arises if the trial court based its decision on impermissible factors or on an incorrect legal standard. A court acting while unaware of the scope of its discretion is understood to have abused it.

Authority:

People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 298

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 225

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 694 [reminding that a defendant is entitled to sentencing decisions made by a court exercising informed discretion]

Second Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022,Penal Code section 1385 was amended to specify factors that the trial court must consider when deciding whether to strike enhancements from a defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice. It reads, in part, “Notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so …. In exercising its discretion under this subdivision, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present. Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. Endanger public safety means there is a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others.” Subparagraphs (A) to (I) list nine distinct mitigating circumstances, including, as is relevant here, subparagraph (C) where the application of an enhancement could result in a sentence of over 20 years. Subparagraph (C) states in this instance, the enhancement shall be dismissed.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 674

Third Holding:

Although the current dangerousness of the defendant is an appropriate factor to consider, as it will have some bearing on whether dismissing the enhancement would endanger the public, a crucial part of the inquiry is how the dismissal of the enhancement will impact the length of the defendant’s sentence. For a defendant facing a lengthy indeterminate sentence, the inquiry should also take into account that the defendant’s release from prison is contingent on review by the Board of Parole Hearings (and for murder convictions, by the Governor), who will have the opportunity to assess the defendant’s dangerousness at that time. This future review will act as a safety valve against a release that would endanger the public and is relevant to a trial court’s analysis of whether the dismissal of an enhancement imposed on a defendant serving an indeterminate prison term will endanger public safety.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 228

 

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Fifth Amendment, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000206

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The true findings on the gang enhancements and gang-related firearm enhancements are vacated. The sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded. On remand, the People may retry the enhancement allegations under the law as amended by AB 333. If the People do not retry the enhancements, or at the conclusion of a retrial, the trial court shall conduct a full resentencing.

First Holding:

Several years after the defendant was sentenced, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) recommended recall and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.1(a)(1), based on the defendant’s exceptional conduct while incarcerated. The trial court recalled the sentence and resentenced him to 40 years to life, despite the recommendation by both parties that the sentence be reduced to a determinate term less than half that 40-year minimum. The trial court erred in not examining the impact of AB 333, which amended the gang activity statutes significantly. When the defendant’s sentence was recalled, the trial court regained the jurisdiction and duty to consider what punishment was appropriate for him, and the defendant regained the right to appeal whatever new sentence was imposed. His judgment thus became nonfinal, and it remains nonfinal in its present posture. The defendant is entitled to the benefits of AB 333’s ameliorative changes to section 186.22.

Authority:

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 161–162

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 312 [the application of law to undisputed facts is a question of law subject to de novo review]

Second Holding:

The evidence adduced at the defendant’s trial was insufficient to establish that the predicate offenses benefitted the gang beyond enhancing its reputation. Accordingly, we must vacate the true findings on the gang enhancements under section 186.22(b)(1), as well as the true findings on the gang-related firearm enhancements under section 12022.53(b), (c), (d), and (e)(1).

Authority:

People v. Lee (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 232, 239–240

People v. Perez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 192, 206, fn. 11

Third Holding:

Because we do not reverse based on the insufficiency of the evidence required to prove a violation of the statute as it read at the time of trial, the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution will not bar a retrial. Where, as here, evidence is not introduced at trial because the law at that time would have rendered it irrelevant, the remand to prove that element is proper and the reviewing court does not treat the issue as one of sufficiency of the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 669-670

Fourth Holding:

Whether the People decide not to retry the enhancements, or at the conclusion of such a retrial, the defendant is entitled to a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [when part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances]

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424–425 [the full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant]

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000202

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court’s finding that the People provided clear and convincing evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in his commission of the offenses was not supported by substantial evidence. We remand to the trial court for a new diversion eligibility hearing under section 1001.36. If the court determines that defendant is eligible for diversion, it may grant his application. If the court determines defendant is ineligible, defendant’s convictions and sentence shall be reinstated.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted sections 1001.35 and 1001.36 to authorize trial courts to grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendants with qualifying mental disorders. To be eligible for mental health diversion, a defendant must have been diagnosed within the past five years with a mental disorder identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the defendant’s mental disorder must be a significant factor in the commission of the offense. There is a presumption that a defendant’s mental disorder diagnosis, if the diagnosis occurred within the past five years, was a significant factor in the commission of the offense. Once a presumption is established, it is the People’s burden to provide clear and convincing evidence that defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to overcome it.

Authority:

PEN 1001.35

PEN 1001.36

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 678

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on an application for mental health diversion for an abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. A court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. By definition, ‘substantial evidence’ requires evidence and not mere speculation.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401

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

People v. Ramon (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 843, 851

Third Holding:

In reviewing a trial court’s finding that a fact has been proven by clear and convincing evidence, the question before us is whether the record contains evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the disputed fact was true. We view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence. Those inferences must be drawn from evidence rather than speculation

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401-402

People v. Ramon (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 843, 851

Fourth Holding:

The absence of evidence proving that defendant’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses is not substantial evidence supporting a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s mental disorder was not a factor in the commission of the offenses.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 404

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000201

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred when it sentenced the defendant to an upper term sentence without affording him a jury trial on aggravating factors. The trial court did not obtain defendant’s personal waiver of his right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors. Defendant’s trial counsel stipulated to a court trial on defendant’s behalf, but defendant did not personally stipulate to a court trial or waive the jury trial right. The court found the pleaded aggravating circumstances to be true after a court trial, in violation of defendant’s constitutional right to a jury. We cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt the jury would have found true that the defendant’s prior performance on post release community supervision was unsatisfactory. Because defendant was entitled to a jury trial at a minimum on this aggravating factor, we must remand the matter for a full resentencing to afford defendant that right.

First Holding:

A criminal defendant has a constitutional and statutory right to have a jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt the truthfulness of every aggravating circumstance used to increase the penalty for the crime. Any fact, beyond the bare fact of a prior conviction, that exposes a defendant to harsher punishment, must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, unless the defendant stipulates to its truth or waives a jury trial. Any waiver of this jury trial right must be an express waiver by the defendant and counsel in open court.

Authority:

PEN 1170

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 16

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 288-289

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 757

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1084

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 838-840, 842

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

Second Holding:

The error is prejudicial unless we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court to justify an upper term sentence, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statutory requirements. Lack of a jury trial is not harmless if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding’ with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768

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

Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000200

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant’s sentence on two firearm enhancements and one possession of an explosive device should have been imposed and stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. We modify the judgment accordingly.

First Holding:

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.

Authority:

PEN 654

Second Holding:

Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an act or omission may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective. 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. Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor.

Authority:

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

People v. Dowdell (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1414

Third Holding:

When a trial court sentences a defendant to separate terms without making an express finding the defendant entertained separate objectives, the trial court is deemed to have made an implied finding each offense had a separate objective. We review for substantial evidence a trial court’s implied finding that a defendant had separate intents and objectives for different offenses.

Authority:

People v. Islas (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 116, 129

People v. Dowdell (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1414

In re L.J. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 37, 43

Fourth Holding:

The sentences on each of three counts were based on his simultaneous possession of two completed assault rifles, and we assume that such possession can constitute two physical acts for the purposes of section 654. Even so, multiple punishment can be imposed consistent with section 654—on two of the three counts —only if substantial evidence in the record supports an implied finding that he had a separate objective in possessing one firearm versus the other. Our review of the record reveals no such evidence. Section 654 also prohibits multiple punishment for both possession of an explosive device and possession of ingredients to make an explosive device, because the explosives the defendant possessed were not actually capable of exploding, and thus identical evidence supported both counts. Both counts were based on the defendant’s possession of the ingredients in the box truck, at the same time and place, and under the same circumstances. Both counts were based on, essentially, the same course of conduct.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 358 [suggesting simultaneous possession of different items of contraband’ are separate acts for purposes of section 654]

In re L.J. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 37, 43

Fifth Holding:

Because it is apparent from the sentence imposed that the sentence would be little changed as a result of remand, in the interests of judicial economy, and given that the parties agree on this remedy, we will modify the judgment to stay the sentences on counts 5 and 6 rather than remand for resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1260 [authority to modify unauthorized sentence]

People v. Burns (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 1178, 1184 [staying execution of the penalty imposed is the preferred remedy for section 654 error where the reduction in sentence would be relatively minor because in such cases, it would not serve the interests of justice or judicial economy to require remand]

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473 [exercising authority to modify judgment to impose and stay sentence under section 654 rather than remand for resentencing that will not change defendant’s actual prison time]

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

Case: 000188

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court denied the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion under section 1001.36, and placed him on probation. The evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that his undisputed mental health disorders were not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor in his involvement in the crime. We will reverse the probation order due to insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s finding of ineligibility for mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36(b)(2). We will remand the matter for the trial court to exercise its discretion under Penal Code section 1001.36(c) regarding defendant’s suitability for mental health diversion.

First Holding:

Since 2018, Penal Code section 1001.36 has afforded trial courts discretion to grant criminal defendants suffering from certain recognized mental disorders pretrial diversion to receive mental health treatment. Diversion allows for the suspension of criminal proceedings and potential dismissal of charges upon successful completion of mental health treatment. The express purpose of the legislation was to increase diversion of eligible individuals, and later amendments have only confirmed the Legislature’s desire to expand mental health treatment through diversion. As currently enacted, a defendant accused of a qualifying offense is eligible for mental health diversion if the defendant has been diagnosed with a qualifying mental health disorder which was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense. A qualifying diagnosis creates a rebuttable presumption that the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense. The presumption can be overcome if there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113, 119

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

Second Holding:

We review for substantial evidence a decision that a qualifying mental health disorder (which the trial court found to exist here) was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor in the charged conduct—a finding that must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Given that standard, on appeal we must determine 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. We also must view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.

Even considering the record in the light most favorable to the challenged ruling, we conclude it does not contain substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found it highly probable that defendant’s mental disorders were not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor in his involvement in the crime. A qualifying diagnosis creates a presumption that the defendant’s mental condition contributed to his criminal behavior. And the prosecution can only rebut this presumption by producing clear and convincing evidence that there was no causal connection. he statutory presumption is not overcome simply by the absence of evidence that the mental disorder was a motivating factor, or the absence of evidence that the defendant was actively experiencing symptoms while committing the crime. The statutory presumption is not overcome simply by the absence of evidence that the mental disorder was a motivating factor, or the absence of evidence that the defendant was actively experiencing symptoms while committing the crime.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401, 404

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 995–996

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

Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

000184

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A jury found the defendant guilty of felony reckless evasion of a police officer. There were evidentiary conflicts. Under the highly deferential substantial evidence review standard, we conclude the conflicting trial evidence nonetheless supports his conviction. These evidentiary conflicts were sufficient, however, to raise a substantial question about whether all the elements of reckless evasion were present, warranting an instruction on the lesser included offense of simple evasion. We conclude failure to give this instruction was prejudicial error.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment with the direction that if the People do not timely elect to retry the defendant for reckless evasion, then the judgment shall be modified to reflect a conviction for simple evasion and the trial court shall resentence the defendant.

First Holding:

It is undisputed that misdemeanor simple evasion (Veh. Code, sec. 2800.1) is a lesser included offense of felony reckless evasion (Veh. Code, sec. 2800.2) and that the only distinction between the two crimes is that the greater offense requires proof of the additional element that the defendant drove the pursued vehicle in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. The greater offense’s additional element can be established by proving that during the evasion the defendant committed three or more violations that are assigned a traffic violation point count under section 12810.

Authority:

VEH 2800.1

VEH 2800.2

People v. Springfield (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1674, 1680

People v. Diaz (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1486

Second Holding:

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not determine the facts ourselves. Rather, we examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence — evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value — such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact. Moreover, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a convictionIf the circumstances reasonably justify the findings made by the trier of fact, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.

Authority:

People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1215

People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756, 819–820

People v. Ramirez (2022) 13 Cal.5th 997, 1118

People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 638, 639

Third Holding:

California law has long provided that even absent a request, and over any party’s objection, a trial court must instruct a criminal jury on any lesser offense necessarily included in the charged offense, if there is substantial evidence that only the lesser crime was committed. This venerable instructional rule ensures that the jury may consider all supportable crimes necessarily included within the charge itself, thus encouraging the most accurate verdict permitted by the pleadings and the evidence. The rule prevents either party, whether by design or inadvertence, from forcing an all-or-nothing choice between conviction of the stated offense on the one hand, or complete acquittal on the other.

Thus, a trial court errs if it fails to instruct, sua sponte, on all theories of a lesser included offense which find substantial support in the evidence. On the other hand, the court is not obliged to instruct on theories that have no such evidentiary support. In this context, substantial evidence is not any evidence, no matter how weak; it is evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive. If there is no proof, other than an unexplainable rejection of the prosecution’s evidence, that the offense was less than that charged, such instructions shall not be given. Although we concluded above that substantial evidence supports the finding that the defendant committed at least three qualifying Vehicle Code violations during the pursuit, there is also substantial evidence that he did not commit at least three qualifying violations. Accordingly, the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte regarding this lesser included offense.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 239–240

People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154

People v. Williams (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1244, 1263

People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1063

Fourth Holding:

We apply the generally applicable California test for harmless error under which we deem an error harmless unless it is reasonably probable the outcome would have been different in the absence of the error. Other than in cases involving the unique relationship between murder and voluntary manslaughter, the general rule is that the failure to instruct on other forms of lesser included offenses in noncapital cases is an error of state law. A reasonable probability in this context does not mean more likely than not, but merely a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility. In assessing prejudice, we consider both the magnitude of the error and the closeness of the case. Applying this standard, we find the error here prejudicial.

Authority:

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 251

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

People v. Hendrix (2022) 13 Cal.5th 933, 944

People v. Vasquez (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 786, 798