Tag Archives: Standard of review

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000903

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A defendant sentenced to LWOP is not rendered ineligible for relief under section 1172.75 unless the person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense.

First Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature declared legally invalid all prior-prison-term sentencing enhancements imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5(b) before January 1, 2020, except in cases involving terms for sexually violent offenses. Section 1172.75 established a procedure for resentencing individuals serving a term for a judgment that includes such enhancements.

Three years later, the Legislature amended the statute to preclude resentencing for an individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense as defined section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code and sentenced to death or a life term without the possibility of parole (LWOP).

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(f)

Second Holding:

The defendant was sentenced to LWOP, but has not been convicted of any sexually violent offense. Having examined the text and the legislative history of section 1172.75(f), we conclude the Legislature intended to exclude from resentencing only those individuals who were convicted of a sexually violent offense and sentenced to death or LWOP.

We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. When interpreting any statute, our goal is to determine the Legislature’s intent and give effect to the statute’s purpose. We begin by examining the statute’s words, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning. We do not, however, consider the statutory language in isolation.

We construe the words in question in context, keeping in mind the nature and obvious purpose of the statute. We also construe every statute with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part, so that all may be harmonized and anomalies avoided.

The statute’s plain meaning controls the court’s interpretation unless its words are ambiguous. If the statutory language is unclear, we may look to legislative history and public policy as aids in determining how best to give effect to Legislative intent.

Authority:

People v. Cornett (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1261, 1265

Iloff v. LaPaille (2025) 18 Cal.5th 551, 560-561

Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310, 330

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1057

People v. Robinson (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 516, 522, review granted July 15, 2026, S297048

Third Holding:

Our colleagues in the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Robinson,recently considered how to interpret section 1172.75(f). The court first observed that the ordinary and usual usage of ‘and’ is as a conjunctive, meaning an additional thing, also, or plus.

Further, the Legislature had used the term “and” and “or” in different parts of subdivision (f), which suggested that the Legislature understood the difference between the typically conjunctive “and” and the typically disjunctive “or.” It therefore appeared the challenged portion of subdivision (f) was intended to be construed conjunctively to exclude an individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense and sentenced to death or a life term without the possibility of parole.

The Robinson court further noted that even if it were to assume the plain language of section 1172,75(f) was ambiguous as to whether it should be read conjunctively or disjunctively, the legislative history supported a conjunctive interpretation.

As the plain meaning of the text and the legislative history both support a narrow reading of section 1172.75(f), we agree with the court’s holding in Robinson and find that section 1172.75(f) applies only to individuals serving a sentence of death or LWOP who are also convicted of a sexually violent offense as defined by Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600(b). Because petitioner was not convicted of a sexually violent offense, he is eligible for recall and resentencing under section 1172.75.

Authority:

People v. Robinson (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 516, 524-526, review granted July 15, 2026, S297048

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000900

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in failing to award pretrial credit for time served on several of the counts for which a determinate sentence was imposed. The abstract of judgment must be corrected as it incorrectly describes findings by the jury as enhancements.

First Holding:

We review de novo the application of section 2900.5 to the defendant’s sentence. We first examine the statutory language, giving it a plain and commonsense meaning. If the language is clear, courts must generally follow its plain meaning unless a literal interpretation would result in absurd consequences the Legislature did not intend.

Authority:

People v. Cofer (2026) 20 Cal.5th 1, 12

Second Holding:

Under section 2900.5, defendants who serve time in custody prior to their sentencing “receive credit against their prison terms for all of those days spent in custody prior to sentencing, so long as the presentence custody is attributable to the conduct that led to the conviction.

Section 2900.5(b) states in relevant part, that for the purposes of this section credit shall be given only once for a single period of custody attributable to multiple offenses for which a consecutive sentence is imposed.

That language does no more than clarify that when consecutive terms are imposed for multiple offenses in a single proceeding, only one of the terms shall receive credit for presentence custody. Thus, if sentences are imposed consecutively in a single proceeding, dual credits are expressly prohibited by statute.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 793

People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178, 1192, fn. 9

Third Holding:

Section 669(a) provides that whenever a person is committed to prison on a life sentence that is ordered to run consecutive to any determinate term of imprisonment, the determinate term of imprisonment shall be served first.

Authority:

PEN 669(a)

Fourth Holding:

Three separate sentencing schemes governed the defendant’s sentencing. For his conviction for murder (count 1), his indeterminate sentence was dictated by sections 190 and 190.2(a).

For his convictions for rape in concert (count 3) and oral copulation in concert (count 4), his indeterminate sentences were supplied by the One Strike law.

His determinate sentences for counts 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 were governed by sections 1170 and 1170.1. As the determinate sentences must be served first, the credit for time served should have been applied against the total term imposed for all seven of the determinate components of the sentence, and the court erred in failing to award credits against that part of the determinate sentence that applied to three of the counts.

He is entitled to no presentence custody against the remaining indeterminate sentences, as they were imposed consecutively.

Authority:

PEN 190

PEN 190.2

PEN 667.61(c)

PEN 669(a)

PEN 1170.1

PEN 2900.5

In re Vaquera (2024) 15 Cal.5th 706, 724 [The trial court must impose a One Strike sentence when a One Strike allegation is properly pled and proved.]

Fifth Holding:

The abstract of judgment is in error in describing the jury’s true findings under sections 190.2(d) and 667.61 as sentencing “enhancements.” The jury’s true findings pursuant to sections 190.2(d) and 667.61 are penalty provisions that exposed the defendant to greater punishment than would be authorized by a verdict on the underlying offense alone; they were not sentencing enhancements. They should not be so described in the abstract of judgment.

We will direct the trial court to delete the entries under “enhancements” in part 2 of the defendant’s indeterminate abstract of judgment.

(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for its directive that the abstract of judgment be corrected. I have listed several below (beginning with Mitchell) on which the court could have relied.)

Authority:

People v. Boswell (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 55, 60


People v. Acosta (2002) 29 Cal.4th 105, 117
.

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Discretion, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000899

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The electronic-data conditions are unreasonable under People v. Lent. We therefore strike them and remand for the juvenile court to consider whether to impose revised conditions. We also agree with the parties that the association condition should be modified to include a knowledge requirement.

First Holding:

When a ward of the juvenile court is placed on probation, the court may make any and all reasonable orders for the conduct of the ward, including conditions of probation that (1) are individually tailored, developmentally appropriate, and reasonable; (2) impose a burden that is proportional to the legitimate interests served by the conditions; and (3) are determined by the court to be fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced. A condition of probation that is impermissible for an adult criminal defendant is not necessarily unreasonable for a juvenile receiving guidance and supervision from the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 730(b)

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118

Second Holding:

We review conditions of probation for an abuse of discretion, which occurs only if the condition is arbitrary or capricious or otherwise exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances. To determine whether a probation condition is reasonable, we apply a three-part test under Lent.

A condition cannot be held invalid under Lent unless it meets all three of the following prongs: it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not related to future criminality.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118-1119

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486

Third Holding:

In addition to being reasonable, a probation condition must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated, or else it is void for vagueness. And when a probation condition imposes limitations on a probationer’s constitutional rights, it must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition—the person’s reformation and rehabilitation—to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890

Fourth Holding:

Whether a term of probation is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad presents a question of law, which we review de novo.

Authority:

In re David C. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 657, 661

Fifth Holding:

We conclude that the conditions are invalid under Lent. As to the first prong of Lent, there is no question that restricting the use of electronics The minor’s conduct involved asking the victim for her phone number, and asked the victim to put his number in her phone contacts list–which she did, but later deleted it. These acts do not establish the requisite relationship between the challenged probation conditions and the minor’s offense (sexual battery by restraint). Generally, decisions finding a sufficient connection between electronics search conditions and an offense rely on the probationer’s use of electronic devices to facilitate the offense.

In Appleton, the defendant met the minor victim online and later sexually assaulted him. The Court of Appeal held that the nexus between the offense and the probation condition at issue was sufficient even though it was somewhat attenuated. In Flores, the Court held that there was a reasonable relationship between the condition at issue and the defendant’s drug offense because the defendant used a website and an online program to arrange drug sales through a disguised phone number. Here, in contrast, there is no evidence that electronic devices played any role in facilitating the offense.

Here, in contrast, there is no indication that the minor ever actually contacted the victim through an electronic device. Indeed, he did not even have the ability to do so, as he never obtained her contact information. Nor is there any evidence that the victim attempted to communicate with the minor after the offense. The first two prongs of Lent have been met–the condition has no relation to the criminal conduct, and it restrains otherwise lawful conduct.

Authority:

People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717, 719-720

People v. Flores (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 563, 565-566, 573

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486

Sixth Holding:

The third prong contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition. Thus, the mere fact that monitoring a probationer’s electronic devices and social media might deter or prevent future criminal conduct is insufficient to justify a broad electronics search condition. The electronic-data conditions burden the minor’s privacy in a manner substantially disproportionate to the claimed purposes of ensuring compliance with two of his other probation conditions (a no-contact order and prohibition from possessing sexual materials).

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1122

In re David C. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 657, 665 and fn 4

In re Amber K. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 559, 567-568

Seventh Holding:

The court ordered the following probation condition: “The Minor shall not associate with minors under the age of 14, unless it is his own child, unless in the presence of a responsible adult, or associated person is approved by the Probation Department.”

A probation condition is unconstitutionally overbroad if it (1) impinges on constitutional rights, and (2) is not tailored carefully and reasonably related to the compelling state interest in reformation and rehabilitation. The essential question in an overbreadth challenge is the closeness of the fit between the legitimate purpose of the restriction and the burden it imposes on the probationer’s constitutional rights—bearing in mind, of course, that perfection in such matters is impossible, and that practical necessity will justify some infringement.

The restriction is not unreasonable, but it must be tailored to require the minor’s express knowledge that the minor is under the age of 14. Generally speaking, if a probation condition prohibits a probationer from associating with a certain group of people, the condition is unconstitutionally vague unless it also requires that the probationer know a given person is in that group. Here, the minor may not reasonably know that an individual is under 14 years of age.

Thus, we modify the association condition to read: “The Minor shall not associate with minors whom he knows or reasonably should know are under the age of 14, unless it is his own child, unless he is in the presence of a responsible adult, or unless the associated person is approved by the Probation Department.”

Authority:

People v. Gonsalves (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1, 8–9

People v. Bray (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 494, 503

People v. Turner (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1436 [modifying condition prohibiting association with people under age 18].

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000890

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in imposing the upper term based on aggravating factors that were not presented to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

Section 1170(b)(1) provides that when a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the statute specifies three possible terms, the court shall, in its sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2).

Section 1170(b)(2) provides that the trial court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when circumstances in aggravation of the crime justify imposition of an upper term sentence, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury or court trial.

Rule 4.421 of the California Rules of Court provides a list of aggravating circumstances that must be stipulated to by the defendant or determined beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

Notwithstanding section 1170(b)(1) and (2), the court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(2) and (3)

Rules of Court, rule 4.421

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 748, 759-760

Second Holding:

These provisions are subject to constitutional limitations under the Sixth Amendment. Specifically, a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.

For example, the Wiley court held that the defendant was entitled to have a jury determine whether his prior convictions were of increasing seriousness and whether he had performed unsatisfactorily on probation, before the court could rely on those aggravating facts to find justification for an upper term sentence.

Under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the federal Constitution, a judge may do no more than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.

The burden is on the People to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the facts relied on to justify an upper term sentence. If those facts are properly proven, the court may take them into account and exercise its discretion under section 1170(b) to determine what sentence to impose

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1076, 1085-1086

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

Third Holding:

A defendant may waive his right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors, provided he does so personally and expressly. To be valid, the record must show the defendant’s waivers of the right to a jury are knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. In making such a determination, we examine the totality of the circumstances unique to each case.

In this case, we determine that the colloquy between the court and the defendant did not adequately inform him of what the aggravating factors were. Without a clear explanation that defendant was entitled to have a jury decide the truth of the specific aggravating factors that the court intended to use against him, or even notice of those aggravating factors, it cannot be said that he knowingly or intelligently waived his right to have a jury decide the truth of those specific aggravating factors, of which he was never made aware.

Authority:

People v. Collins (2001) 26 Cal.4th 297, 308

People v. Morelos (2022) 13 Cal.5th 722, 753

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166

People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 990, 991 [a reviewing court satisfies itself of a legitimate waiver only when the record affirmatively demonstrates it was knowing and intelligent]

Fourth Holding:

Because defendant was deprived of a jury trial on the aggravating facts used to justify imposition of the upper term sentence, and there was no knowing or intelligent waiver, we must determine whether he was prejudiced by that error under the Chapman standard.

(Gary note: the court then reviewed the specific facts of the defendant’s criminal record and performance on probation or parole, details of which are case specific and would not add to this summary of an unpublished opinion that cannot be cited.)

Since we cannot conclude the lack of a jury trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to every aggravating fact the trial court used to justify the upper term sentence, defendant is entitled to a reversal and remand for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

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

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 775

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000888

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. There could be no rational tactical reason for defense counsel to concede that the defendant was ineligible.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature amended the definition of felony murder in section 189 to restrict culpability for murder to actual killers, aiders and abettors, and anyone who was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life unless the victim was a peace officer.

At the same time, the Legislature added section 1170.95, later renumbered to section 1172.6, which allows a person convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, to file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts, if, among other things, the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder because of the changes to the law wrought by SB 1437. I

f the petition makes a prima facie case for relief the court must hold an evidentiary hearing. At this hearing, the People have the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is guilty of murder under the law as it exists now, with the trial judge sitting as factfinder.

Authority:

PEN 189

PEN 1172.6

Second Holding:

When conducting a prima facie review, the court takes the 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 the record of conviction does not conclusively demonstrate that the defendant engaged in the requisite acts and had the requisite intent to be convicted on a theory of murder that remains valid, denying relief at the prima facie stage is improper.

A preliminary hearing transcript is part of the record of conviction for these purposes, and courts may rely on them when reviewing petitions at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

People v. Eynon (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 967, 975

People v. Barboza (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 955, 965-966

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 568 [there is no dispute that the record of conviction the parties may consult at the prima facie stage includes a preliminary hearing transcript preceding a guilty plea.]

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s decision at the prima facie stage de novo. Reviewing de novo, we therefore find that the defendant established a prima facie case for relief, and the trial court should not have denied his petition for failing to do so.

Authority:

People v. Bodely (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1193, 1200

Fourth Holding:

At the hearing, the defendant’s counsel stated that he was appointed to determine eligibility pursuant to 1172.6, and concluded the defendant was not eligible.

The defendant’s counsel cited cases involving defendants who made a prima facie showing for the proposition that a guilty plea is a judicial admission. That it’s an admission that he was, in fact, the killer, and therefore the defendant could not state a prima facie case for relief. Based on this, the court summarily denied the defndant’s petition.

Contrary to the court’s and counsel’s understanding below, a guilty plea (without more) is not an admission to any particular theory of guilt, and therefore cannot render a defendant ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

Moreover, the record of conviction, including the preliminary hearing transcript, does not contain any facts definitively foreclosing the defendant’s eligibility for relief. It is undisputed that the defendant was not the sole participant in either the burglary or murder of the victim.

Nor is there any clear evidence the defendant was the actual killer—indeed, the only evidence presented suggests that the co-defendant, not not the defendant, was the actual killer.

Authority:

People v. Eynon (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 967, 977 [By pleading guilty, the defendant admitted every element of the charged offense but the defendant did not admit facts supporting liability on any particular theory. Accordingly, the guilty plea did not constitute an admission that the defendant acted with malice.]

Fifth Holding:

The People assert the doctrine of invited error. The doctrine of invited error is an application of the estoppel principle and applies when a party invites the court or the jury to commit error.

Under the doctrine of invited error, when a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on appeal that the judgment should be reversed because of that error. It is designed to prevent an accused from gaining a reversal on appeal because of an error made by the trial court at his behest.

However, for the doctrine to apply, it must be clear that counsel acted for tactical reasons and not out of ignorance or mistake. In order to apply the doctrine, the record must show only that counsel made a conscious, deliberate tactical choice, it need not additionally show counsel correctly understood all the legal implications of the tactical choice.

In other words, the invited error doctrine applies so long as counsel made a conscious, tactical choice even if such choice was based on a misunderstanding of the law.  We conclude that on this record defense counsel’s decision to concede that the defendant is ineligible for relief was not a deliberate tactical choice.

Put simply, there was no possible tactical purpose for counsel’s decision to concede the matter. The defendant did not stand to receive any possible benefit from this concession, and therefore the decision to concede could only have been a genuine mistake.

Authority:

People v. Midell (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1060, 1072

Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 212

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

People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 83

People v. Duncan (1991) 53 Cal.3d 955, 970

People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 658

Sixth Holding:

Even if the invited error doctrine did apply, we would still reach the merits.

Because a deliberate tactical choice by counsel may be an incompetent one, courts have recognized that defendants barred from raising error under the invited error doctrine may instead claim they received ineffective assistance of counsel.

However, courts may also address the merits of an otherwise procedurally barred claim in order to avert any claim of inadequate assistance of counsel. T

hus, even if we concluded the defendant had invited the error he now complains of, we would exercise our discretion to reach the merits anyway to avoid the same result obtaining through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

We reverse the order denying the defendant’s section 1172.6 petition and remand. On remand, we direct the trial court to issue an order to show cause and to conduct further proceedings as required under section 1172.6.

Authority:

People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610,

People v. Yarbrough (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 303, 310

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000886

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

1n 1991, for a crime committed in 1989, the defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). When his case came up for resentencing under section 1172.75 in 2025, the court believed its only discretion was to impose less than the upper term on the determinate portion of his sentence. Defense counsel agreed. This was error. The court also erred in its calculation of credit for time served. And the restitution fine must be struck.

First Holding:

Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5(b) required trial courts to impose a sentence enhancement of one additional year for each of a defendant’s prior prison or jail terms. Section 1172.75(a) now provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, under section 667.5(b) is legally invalid.

Section 1172.75(b) and (c) mandate that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identify eligible individuals whose sentences include now-invalidated section 667.5 enhancements, and that the trial court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

While conducting the resentencing, section 1172.75(d)(2), provides the express instruction that the court shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

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

Second Holding:

Section 190.2(a) provides that where there has been a finding of certain enumerated special circumstances in connection with a defendant who has been found guilty of first degree murder, the penalty is death or LWOP. Section 1385 previously provided the trial court with the discretion to strike or dismiss the special circumstances.

Although the statute only authorizes such relief upon motion of the court or application of the prosecution, the defendant nevertheless has the right to invite the court to exercise its power by an application to strike a count.

Failure by a defendant to make such a request under section 1385 results in forfeiture of the issue. In the interests of justice, and in consideration of defendant’s alternative argument of ineffective assistance of counsel, we exercise our discretion to reach a question that has not been preserved for review by a party.

Authority:

PEN 190.2(a)

PEN 1385

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141, 1144

People v. Coleman (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 709, 724

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6

Third Holding:

Contrary to Section 1385, however, section 1385.1 provides that a judge shall not strike or dismiss any special circumstance which is admitted by a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or is found by a jury or court as provided in Sections 190.1 to 190.5, inclusive. The section was enacted as of June 6, 1990, via voter initiative Proposition 115. The dispute here centers around whether section 1385.1 serves as a bar to the trial court’s discretion to strike section 190.2 special circumstances when the court is resentencing a defendant pursuant to section 1172.75 for a pre-June 6, 1990, crime.

Authority:

PEN 1385.1

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141

Fourth Holding:

Ordinarily, we review the trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. However, defendant argues pursuant to McDavid that the trial court necessarily abused its discretion when it failed to strike his special circumstances because it was unaware that it had any discretion to do so.

We therefore examine whether the trial court had any discretion in this regard, which is a question of statutory interpretation to be reviewed de novo.

Authority:

People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 757

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1023

Fifth Holding:

The Nguyen court noted that section 1385.1 operates only prospectively, therefore, a trial court may dismiss a special circumstance allegation attached to any murders committed before June 6, 1990, the date that section 1385.1 became effective. Nguyen specifically relied upon Tapia.

In Tapia, Proposition 115 took effect while the defendant was in the process of being prosecuted for first degree murder. The defendant challenged the trial court’s decision to conduct voir dire pursuant to the new Proposition 115 procedures.

In examining whether Proposition 115’s provisions could be applied to crimes committed prior to its effective date after consideration of ex post facto concerns, the Supreme Court separated the provisions into four separate categories depending on their impact upon defendants.

Relevant to this inquiry, the high court expressly categorized section 1385.1 as falling within the category of provisions that change the legal consequences of criminal behavior to the detriment of defendants and therefore cannot be applied to crimes committed before the measure’s effective date.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1141

Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 286-287, 297

Sixth Holding:

The mandate in section 1172.75(d)(2), that the trial court apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion” evidences a legislative intent that defendants are to be treated with more leniency, not less, when being resentenced pursuant to this statute. Because the trial court clearly expressed more than once its belief that it did not have any discretion with respect to the LWOP sentence on Count 1, we deem the court to have abused its discretion and reverse.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(2)

People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1023 [A court acting while unaware of the full scope of its discretion is deemed to have abused it.]

Seventh Holding:

The court court failed to award the defendant 2 days of credit for time served, and we modify the judgment accordingly.

(Gary note: The court did not cite any authority, but it seems obvious that the court has the power to modify the credit for time served to the correct number. I have cited authority the court could have relied on. The issue does not seem so much a matter of the trial court refusing to award credit; rather, it was a mathematical error. I speculate that perhaps the court did not award credit for the first day in custody. Counting days is different than determining the number of days between dates. From January 1 through January 31 is 31 days, counting. But if you subtract January 1 from January 31, you will realize only 30 days.  For credit for time served, the correct number is the counting number–31 in my example.)

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

Eighth Holding:

As part of defendant’s original 1991 sentencing, the court ordered him to pay $10,000 to the state Restitution Fund pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4 (formerly Govt. Code sec. 13967(a).) In light of section 1465.9, which compels that restitution fines older than 10 years be vacated, we vacate that fine. In Salstrom, the court determined that the reference to 10 years is from the date the restitution fine was originally ordered.

Resentencing does not reset the 10-year limitation. Applying section 1465.9 to reduce defendant’s sentence as part of a section 1172.75 resentencing hearing gives effect to both statutes.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 652-653 [detailing the history of the restitution statutes]

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 599-601, review granted on unrelated issues, March 11, 2026, S295038

Mejia v. Reed (2000) 31 Cal.4th 657, 663 [when two codes are to be construed, they must be read together and so construed as to give effect, when possible, to all the provisions thereof]

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case 000884

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court denied the defendant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage on the ground that the record of conviction showed the defendant is ineligible for resentencing. The trial court exceeded the limited scope of review permitted at the prima facie stage under section 1172.6 and engaged in fact finding that should have been reserved for the evidentiary stage.

First Holding:

Under section 1172.6 the prima facie inquiry is limited. While a court may consider whether the record of conviction refutes eligibility allegations at this stage, a trial court should not engage in fact finding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion. Indeed, at the prima facie stage, the strength of the evidence in the record is not material.

Instead, at the prima facie stage the question in applying section 1172.6 is not whether it is likely that the defendant was convicted of murder on a now-invalid grounds but whether the court’s jury instructions or other aspect of the record of conviction foreclose that possibility that possibility as a matter of law.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 562, 564, 567 fn. 10

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

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 470

Second Holding:

Although the verdict and jury instructions on the special circumstance found true by the jury showed that two of the three requirements for direct aiding and abetting liability were satisfied, the record of conviction did not show that the final requirement was satisfied and, thus, did not establish direct aiding and abetting liability as a matter of law.

In addition, while the special circumstance finding suggests that the jury found the defendant guilty of murder based on direct aiding and abetting, which remains a valid theory, it is possible that the jury found him guilty based on conspiracy and a natural and probable consequences theory, which is now invalid.

Under the strict test that the Supreme Court has interpreted section 1172.6 to impose, the record of conviction does not conclusively refute the defendant’s allegations that he was convicted of a now-invalid theory of murder, and the trial court should have proceeded beyond the prima facie stage to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether in fact he was convicted based on a now-invalid theory.

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 470

Third Holding:

We review trial court orders at the prima facie stage de novo.

Authority:

People v. Bodely (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1193, 1200

Fourth Holding:

in determining whether a prima facie case has been shown, trial courts may examine jury instructions, the verdict, and other parts of the record of conviction to determine whether that record refutes the petition’s allegations. But at the prima facia stage, hearing transcripts may not be used to prove disputed facts. If the record of conviction contains facts refuting the allegations in the petition, then the court is justified in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner. However, the record of conviction must establish conclusively such facts.

Authority:

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

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

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

Fifth Holding:

To establish liability for murder under the theory of direct aiding and abetting, the prosecution must show that the defendant [1] aided or encouraged the commission of the murder [2] with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator and [3] with the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating its commission. The trial court’s special circumstance finding established only two of these requirements.

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 466

Due process, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000882

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though the defendant was convicted of section 243.4(a), the correct code section for the pleaded and proved crime was section 243.4(d), and we modify the judgment accordingly. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.

(Gary note: I stretch to count this as a win, because it did not really provide any relief. But it contains some important principles on what happens when the allegation describes conduct but lists the incorrect code section for it. So I decided to include it. Yep. My bar for inclusion is very low.)

First Holding:

Adequate notice to the defendant of the offense with which he is charged is not determined solely by the charging statute. A reference to an incorrect penal statute can be overcome by factual allegations adequate to inform the defendant of the crime charged.

The defendant was amply acquainted with the basis for count 3 and argues no prejudice from being charged under the wrong subdivision of section 243.4. The victim testified to the conduct underlying count 3 at the preliminary hearing and then again at trial. There is no dispute the evidence supports a conviction under subdivision (d).

Authority:

People v. Haskin (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1439

People v. Thomas (1987) 43 Cal.3d 818, 826–827, 832

People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 427–428

(Gary note: the court did not cite it, but section 1260 provides that the appellate court may modify a judgment, among several other actions. While it does not specifically say that the court can modify the judgment by having it reflect a different code section than was alleged, the above cases make it clear that specification of a code section does not necessarily control whether the defendant has been placed on adequate notice of the conduct he is accused of.)

Second Holding:

We review de novo whether the trial court’s instructions on the law were correct. When instructions are claimed to be erroneous, conflicting, or ambiguous, we ask whether jurors were reasonably likely to have construed them in a manner that violates the defendant’s rights. We look to the instructions as a whole and the entire record of trial, including the arguments of counsel.

We assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions given. Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.

Authority:

People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088

People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028

People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 873

People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 720

Third Holding:

The defendant argues the trial evidence does not support the conclusion that the victim was particularly vulnerable. We review an aggravating factor finding for substantial evidence. The court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence — that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value — such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt. We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Mendez-Torres (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1020

People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 806

People v. Alvarado (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 178, 195 [inability to speak English can be a factor suggesting particular vulnerability]

People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 413 [noting vulnerability from victim being alone]

People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 638 [noting vulnerability from victim being told a false story to get the victim into a private space]

People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 203 [noting a vulnerable position arises from exploiting a false sense of security]

Discretion, Jurisdiction, Juveniles, Standard of review

Case 000881

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The juvenile court abused its discretion because its decision to transfer the minor to adult criminal court was not supported by substantial evidence. We vacate the transfer order and remand.

First Holding:

In California, a juvenile court is a superior court that exercises limited jurisdiction arising under juvenile law. The initial jurisdiction of a juvenile court is based on the age of the person when he violates a criminal law or ordinance, it is not based on the age when he is actually apprehended.

After a juvenile court has initial jurisdiction over a minor, the juvenile court generally retains jurisdiction until he turns 21 years old. However, if a person is alleged to have committed one of 30 serious offenses under section 707(b), then the juvenile court may continue to exercise jurisdiction over that person for a limited period after he turns 21.

Relevant to this case, a juvenile court may retain jurisdiction over a person who is 25 years of age or older for a period not to exceed two years from the date of disposition if the person is found to be a person described in section 602 by reason of the commission of an offense listed in section 707(b). The court shall exercise jurisdiction in conformance with the objectives of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 607(a), (d)

WIC 707(b)

In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 200

M.E. v. Superior Court (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1199, 1205 [explaining initial jurisdiction and noting that it is theoretically possible for a person to commit a crime at the age of 17, be arrested 50 years later, and be subject to the initial jurisdiction of the juvenile court at age 67]

In re Keith C. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 151, 155

Second Holding:

If a minor was 16 years or older when he committed a felony or one of 30 serious offenses under section 707(b), the district attorney may file a motion to transfer the minor from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction. In order to transfer a minor to a criminal court, the prosecutor must show by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

To resolve a transfer motion, section 707 requires the juvenile court to consider five factors: (1) the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited; (2) whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction; (3) prior delinquent history; (4) the success of prior attempts by a juvenile court at rehabilitation; and (5) the circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged.

While the juvenile court must consider these five factors, the weight each factor receives is within the juvenile court’s discretion.

Thus, the juvenile court has the discretion to conclude that one or more of the five factors predominate so as to determine the result, even though some or all of the other factors might point to a different result. If a juvenile court grants a transfer motion, section 707(a)(3) requires the juvenile court to recite the basis for its decision in an order entered upon the minutes, which shall include the reasons supporting the court’s finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Section 707 also provides additional nonexhaustive considerations for assessing each of the five factors.

As relevant to this case, with respect to the second factor, section 707 directs the juvenile court to give weight to any relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the minor’s potential to grow and mature. The second factor is not the same as the ultimate determination of whether the minor is amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Rather, the focus of the second factor is whether there is enough time to rehabilitate the minor while he is still eligible to remain under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.

Therefore, the prosecution should produce evidence that the juvenile court will have insufficient time to rehabilitate the minor.

Authority:

WIC 707

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 158-160

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 164, 166-167

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 186

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 417

Third Holding:

A juvenile court’s decision to transfer a minor to the jurisdiction of a criminal court is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. A court abuses its discretion by issuing an order that exceeds the bounds of reason. A court may also abuse its discretion if its understanding of the applicable law is incorrect, it is unaware of the full scope of its discretion, or it relies on impermissible criteria.

The juvenile court’s findings on the five section 707(a)(3) factors, as well as its ultimate finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under its jurisdiction, are reviewed for substantial evidence. Because the clear and convincing evidence standard applies to a motion to transfer, we determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability demanded by that standard.

Authority:

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

People v. K.D. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1, 18

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 156

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 187

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165

Fourth Holding:

It is clear from the record that the court was not aware that it had jurisdiction for at least two years from the date the disposition was ordered, regardless of the person’s age (which, in this case was the mid 30s). Because the juvenile court found that it had lost jurisdiction based on the minor’s age alone, its finding is contrary to section 607(d) and thus, rests on an incorrect understanding of the law. Therefore, the court abused its discretion in its assessment of the second factor of section 707(a)(3).

Authority:

Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540 [An order that implicitly or explicitly rests on an erroneous reading of the law necessarily is an abuse of discretion.]

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 156

People v. K.D. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1, 18-19

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 187

Fifth Holding:

All defendants are entitled to decisions made in the exercise of the trial court’s informed discretion. A court does not exercise informed discretion when its decision is based on a misunderstanding of applicable law.

Because there has been a misunderstanding of applicable law by the juvenile court, we must determine whether the record clearly indicates that the juvenile court still would have ordered the minor transferred to the criminal court if it had correctly understood the applicability of section 607(d).

Given the apparent importance of the second factor, and that the record does not clearly indicate how the juvenile court would have assessed the second factor under the applicable law, we must remand this matter for the court to make further findings.

Authority:

People v. Murphy (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 249, 256

Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000879

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse the jury’s true finding on the enhancement alleged under section 12022.7(b). We vacate the sentence and remand the matter for resentencing.

First Holding:

In assessing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Reversal on insufficiency of the evidence is unwarranted unless it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conviction.

Authority:

People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 66

People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755

Second Holding:

Section 12022.7(b) provides that any person who personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice in the commission of a felony or attempted felony which causes the victim to become comatose due to brain injury or to suffer paralysis of a permanent nature shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for five years.

Authority:

PEN 12022.7(b)

Third Holding:

A victim is comatose, for purposes of the enhancement, if he is in a state resembling a coma characterized by profound unconsciousness. Here, the evidence established that the victim was rendered unresponsive as a result of the attack and died from injuries to his brain. Respondent concedes that the evidence fails to prove that the victim was ever comatose.

Authority:

People v. Cunningham (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1054

Fourth Holding:

The parties agree that appellant is entitled to resentencing, at which the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

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

Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case 000878

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court’s use of the kill zone instruction was factually unsupported and should not have been given and the court’s instruction identified a primary target not supported by the evidence.

First Holding:

To prove the crime of attempted murder, the prosecution must establish ‘the specific intent to kill and the commission of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing. To be guilty of attempted murder, the defendant must intend to kill the alleged victim, not someone else. The defendant’s mental state must be examined as to each alleged attempted murder victim.

Authority:

People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591, 602

People v. Bland (2002) 28 Cal.4th 313, 328

Second Holding:

To be guilty of attempted murder under an aiding and abetting theory, the defendant must share the specific intent of the direct perpetrator, that is to say, the person must know the full extent of the direct perpetrator’s criminal purpose and must give aid or encouragement with the intent or purpose of facilitating the direct perpetrator’s commission of the crime. In short, to be guilty of attempted murder as an aider and abettor, the defendant must intend to kill.

Authority:

People v. Lee (2003) 31 Cal.4th 613, 624, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in People v. Rodriguez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 816, 823–824

People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1118

Third Holding:

The Supreme Court has expressly embraced the concept of a concurrent intent to kill as a permissible theory for establishing the specific intent requirement of attempted murder. This concurrent intent theory is referred to as the “kill zone.” Under the kill zone theory, a defendant may be convicted of the attempted murder of an individual who was not the defendant’s primary target.

The kill zone theory permits a jury to infer a defendant’s intent to kill an alleged attempted murder victim from circumstantial evidence (the circumstances of the defendant’s attack on a primary target).

Authority:

People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591, 596-597, 602

People v. Mumin (2023) 15 Cal.5th 176, 193

Fourth Holding:

The kill zone theory may properly be applied only when a jury concludes:

(1) the circumstances of the defendant’s attack on a primary target, including the type and extent of force the defendant used, are such that the only reasonable inference is that the defendant intended to create a zone of fatal harm—that is, an area in which the defendant intended to kill everyone present to ensure the primary target’s death—around the primary target, and (2) the alleged attempted murder victim who was not the primary target was located within that zone of harm.

Relevant factors in determining whether defendant intended to create a kill zone are (1) number of shots fired, (2) nature of the zoned area, (3) distance between primary target and others, (4) distance between defendant and others, (5) type of weapon used, and (6) whether anyone was hit.

Authority:

People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591, 607

Fifth Holding:

Our inquiry on appeal is whether substantial evidence was presented to support a reasonable inference by the jury that defendant intended to create a zone of fatal harm around a primary target.

Justification for instructing on the kill zone theory requires substantial evidence that: (1) the defendant intended to kill a primary target; (2) he concurrently intended to achieve that goal by killing all others in the fatal zone he creates; and (3) the alleged attempted murder victim was in that zone.

These requirements must be strictly adhered to in order to protect against an improper attempted murder conviction based only on a conscious disregard for life because the kill zone theory does not apply where the defendant merely subjected persons near the primary target to lethal risk.

Because use or attempted use of force that merely endangered everyone in the area is insufficient to support a kill zone instruction, trial courts must exercise caution when determining whether to permit the jury to rely upon the kill zone theory.

Indeed, as stated in Canizales, we anticipate there will be relatively few cases in which the theory will be applicable and an instruction appropriate.

Authority:

People v. Mumin (2023) 15 Cal.5th 176, 203

People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591, 607-608

Sixth Holding:

Fundamental to the kill zone theory is a particular relationship between the primary target, the means of the attack, and the secondary target. Specifically, the would-be secondary targets must be endangered not because they were specifically targeted by defendant but because the defendant has a primary target and reasons that he cannot miss that intended target if he kills everyone in the area in which the target is located.

Authority:

People v. Mumin (2023) 15 Cal.5th 176, 203

(Gary note: The opinion goes on to analyze the facts in the case against the above principles to determine whether it was proper to instruct on the kill zone doctrine and whether the court correctly identified the specific target. It also analyzed the impact of the prosecutor’s summation on the matter. Because this is an unpublished opinion, and the importance lies only in its legal principles and the published authority in support of those principles, I am omitting the balance of the court’s discussion applying those principles in support of its conclusions that it was improper to instruct on kill zone in this case.)

Amelioration, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000877

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s petition under section 1172.6 by construing the jury’s verdicts on two firearm enhancements as reflecting a finding that the defendant killed the victim by personally discharging a firearm.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature enacted SB 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) and altered the substantive law of murder in two areas.

First, with certain exceptions, it narrowed the application of the felony-murder rule by adding section 189(e) to the Penal Code. Under that provision, A participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a specified felony in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven: (1) The person was the actual killer. (2) The person was not the actual killer, but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree. (3) The person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in section 190.2(d).

Second, SB 1437 imposed a new requirement that, except in cases of felony murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought to be convicted of murder. Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.

Authority:

SB 1437

PEN 189

PEN 188

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448

People v. Morris (2026) 19 Cal.5th 671, 682 [discussing narrowed scope of the felony-murder rule]

Second Holding:

SB 1437 also created a mechanism for defendants convicted under now-invalid theories of murder to seek resentencing. Upon receipt of a petition containing the required information, the trial court must appoint counsel for the defendant if requested, hold a hearing, and determine if the petition has made a prima facie case for relief.

If a petitioner demonstrates a prima facie entitlement to relief, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing at which the prosecution bears the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioning defendant is guilty of murder under a still-valid theory.

In deciding whether a petitioner has demonstrated a prima facie case, the court takes the 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.

At this stage, a court should not reject the petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 556, 558, 563

Third Holding:

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.

Where facts from the record of conviction are undisputed, accepting them over contrary legal allegations that are merely conclusory is not factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.

At this preliminary stage, denial of a section 1172.6 petition is proper only if the petition and record in the case establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief.

Whether the record of conviction shows the petitioner is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law is a legal question that we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 563, 565-566

People v. Lopez (2026) 19 Cal.5th 639, 658

People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, 14

Fourth Holding:

The People concede that the trial court erred in relying on the true findings on the firearm enhancements as a basis to deny relief at the prima facie stage.

We accept this concession because, contrary to the trial court’s reasoning, the verdicts on the firearm enhancements do not establish that the jury found the defendant guilty as the actual killer. The trial court instructed the jury that it could find the enhancements true if the defendant intentionally displayed a firearm in a menacing manner, intentionally fired it or intentionally struck or hit a human being with it.

Nothing in this instruction thus required the jury to find that the defendant himself shot and killed the victim.

The People contend that the trial court’s error was harmless in light of a record of conviction that shows the defendant was prosecuted and found guilty as the actual killer. They nevertheless concede that the defendant is entitled to an opportunity to amend his petition. We agree that remand is appropriate.

Patton held that a petitioner who offers only conclusory allegations of entitlement to relief under section 1172.6, in response to a record of conviction that demonstrates the petitioner’s conviction was under a still-valid theory, has not, thereby, made a prima facie showing. The Patton court remanded the matter to allow that defendant to plead additional facts in support of a prima facie case for relief.

We remand to give the defendant an opportunity to plead facts he believes will demonstrate a prima facie case for relief.

Authority:

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