Tag Archives: Standard of review

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001067

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief:

There is not sufficient nexus with the current offense or with future criminality to justify the imposition of the gang conditions of probation. In addition, payment for counseling cannot be ordered as a condition of probation. We direct the trial court to strike the gang conditions and to modify the counseling provision to clarify that payment of costs is not a condition of probation.

First Holding:

When a trial court grants probation, section 1203.1(j) states that the court may impose and require any or all of the terms of imprisonment, fine, and conditions specified in that section, and other reasonable conditions, as it may determine are fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done, that amends may be made to society for the breach of the law, for any injury done to any person resulting from that breach, and generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer.

Accordingly, courts have broad discretion to impose conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1(j)

People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120

Second Holding:

There are limits to the conditions a court may impose. Under Lent, a condition of probation will be invalid if it:

(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted,

(2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and

(3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality.

This test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term.

Authority:

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

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s decision to impose a given probation condition for an abuse of discretion, considering the facts of the underlying offense and the defendant’s background. (Olguin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 379; People v. Patillo (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1576, 1579.) We review constitutional challenges to specific conditions of probation—including assertions that a condition improperly delegates the trial court’s authority—de novo.

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

People v. Patillo (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1576, 1579

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902

Fourth Holding:

The defendant complains that the court should not have reviewed his juvenile record, as juvenile proceedings are confidential.

In general, juvenile court records are confidential. Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 governs the release of juvenile court records. It enumerates a list of persons who may inspect a juvenile case file without a court order, which includes, among others, court personnel, the district attorney, a city attorney, or city prosecutor authorized to prosecute criminal or juvenile cases under state law, attorneys for the parties, judges, referees, other hearing officers, probation officers, and law enforcement officers who are actively participating in criminal or juvenile proceedings involving the minor, and any other person who may be designated by court order of the judge or the juvenile court upon filing a petition.

Authority:

WIC 827

City of Eureka v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 755, 761

Fifth Holding:

Welfare and Institutions Code section 828(a)(2) states that a court shall consider any information relating to the taking of a minor into custody, if the information is not contained in a record that has been sealed, for purposes of determining whether adjudications of commission of crimes as a juvenile warrant a finding that there are circumstances in aggravation pursuant to Section 1170 of the Penal Code or to deny probation.

The defendant’s juvenile record has not been sealed. Thus, court personnel, the prosecutor, and the probation department were permitted to inspect the records without court order. Moreover, the court was permitted to consider information related to the taking of Reeves into custody for the purpose of determining whether to grant or deny probation.

Authority:

WIC(a)(2)

Sixth Holding:

Probation conditions need not relate directly to the underlying conviction, and may, instead, be reasonably related to future criminality. But here we cannot conclude that the gang conditions are reasonably related to future criminality. As discussed, even if appropriately considered, the defendant’s juvenile record is 10 years old, and in the intervening 10 years, there is no indication that the defendant has engaged in any criminal activity related to gangs.

Authority:

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

Seventh Holding:

Courts may properly base probation conditions upon information in a probation report that raises concerns about future criminality unrelated to a prior offense. Yet Lent’s requirement that a probation condition must be reasonably related to future criminality contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition. Thus, not every probation condition bearing a remote, attenuated, tangential, or diaphanous connection to future criminal conduct can be considered reasonable.

Courts are not authorized to impose “conditions to shield probationers from exposure to people and circumstances that are less than ideal but are nonetheless unrelated to defendant’s current or prior offenses or any factor suggesting a risk of future criminal conduct. Accordingly, we conclude that the gang conditions are not reasonable under Lent and must be stricken.

Authority:

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

People v. Brandão (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 568, 574, 577

Eighth Holding:

The trial court may order a defendant to pay for reasonable costs of probation; however, such costs are collateral and their payment cannot be made a condition of probation.

Accordingly, we will direct the trial court to modify the condition with this clarification.

Authority:

Brown v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 313, 321

Ninth Holding:

The defendant’s remaining arguments about the propriety of the order directing that all costs are to be borne by the defendant are forfeited for lack of objection at the time they were ordered.

Authority:

People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 858–859 [defendant waived arguments regarding ability to pay probation costs by failing to raise them in the trial court]

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 001054

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by relying on an aggravating factor—namely that the defendant’s prior convictions are numerous or of increasing seriousness (rule 4.421(b)(2))—that was not found true by a jury nor did the defendant stipulate to its truth.

First Holding:

A sentencing court may not impose a determinate upper term sentence unless there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify its imposition, and the aggravating circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

Other than stipulated facts or the fact of a prior conviction, aggravating facts relied upon to justify an upper term must be resolved by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This jury trial right is not merely a state law entitlement, but is constitutionally required for all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction. A Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(1), (b)(2)

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 755, 768

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

Second Holding:

The aggravating circumstance described in rule 4.421(b)(2) of the Rules of Court (prior convictions are numerous or of increasing seriousness), though related to the facts of prior convictions, must be submitted to a jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt, in the absence of a stipulation or jury trial waiver.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1085 [a defendant is 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]

Third Holding:

While the evidence may have been sufficient to support a finding of increasing seriousness, that is not the proper inquiry when assessing prejudice under Chapman. Instead, we must ask whether any rational fact finder could have come to the opposite conclusion. A rational juror could have reached the opposite conclusion here based on the totality of the defendant’s criminal conduct and the applicable sentences for those transgressions.

Accordingly, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a properly instructed jury would have found the defendant’s criminal convictions were of increasing seriousness. The judgment is reversed, the sentence is vacated, and the matter is remanded for a full resentencing under current law. The prosecution may retry the factors in aggravation, if it wishes to.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090

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

Discretion, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001053

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the defendant’s request for mental health diversion because the court failed to explain its reasons for denying the motion and, in doing so, may have applied the law incorrectly.

First Holding:

Mental health diversion allows the trial court to suspend criminal proceedings and potentially dismiss the charges if the defendant successfully completes mental health treatment. To grant diversion, the trial court must find that the defendant is both eligible for diversion and suitable for a mental health program.

Defendants are eligible if they have been diagnosed with a recognized mental disorder that was a significant factor in the commission of the criminal offense with which they are charged. The trial 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.

Authority:

People v. Flareau (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 681, 689

Second Holding:

A defendant is suitable for diversion if:

(1) in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s mental disorder would respond to treatment;

(2) the defendant agrees to waive their speedy trial rights;

(3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment requirements; and

(4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as defined.

Authority:

People v. Flareau (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 681, 689

Third Holding:

But even if the trial court finds that a defendant is eligible and suitable for diversion, the court retains discretion to deny diversion. This has been deemed residual discretion.

Authority:

People v. Flareau (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 681, 689

Fourth Holding:

When a trial court considers public safety concerns in its suitability analysis, it is limited to assessing whether the defendant is likely to commit a “super strike” offense if released on mental health diversion. The trial court did not consider that likelihood.

(Gary note: section 1001.36 was amended by AB 46, signed into law June 29, 2026, effective January 1, 2027. Among other changes, the “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” will no longer use the standard set forth as “super strikes” in section 1170.18.

(Until January 1, 2027, the relevant portion of section 1001.36(c)(4) reads, in part, “The defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in section 1170.18, if treated in the community.”

(But as of January 1, 2027, that aspect of the new section (1001.36(c)(1)(D)) reads, in part, “The defendant will not pose a substantial and undue risk to the physical safety of another person, if treated in the community.”

(If you have a client who seems ripe for mental health diversion, I suggest you hasten while the disqualifying factor remains at its high bar. Section 1170.18 defines specifically what a judge must consider the defendant is likely to do–commit a super strike as defined. Once AB 46 goes into effect, the standard gives far less precision on what constitutes undue risk to the physical safety of another person.)

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896

Fifth Holding:

The trial court’s comments about a lack of accountability and oversight if defendant were granted mental health diversion reflects a misunderstanding of the mental health diversion process. A person granted mental health diversion will be undergoing inpatient or outpatient treatment, and the statute requires the provider of the mental health treatment program in which the defendant is placed to provide regular reports to the court, the defense, and the prosecutor on the defendant’s progress in treatment

In addition, if the person is performing unsatisfactorily in the assigned program, or is charged with an additional offense or is engaging in criminal conduct during diversion, the court must hold a hearing to determine whether to, inter alia, modify treatment or reinstate criminal proceedings.

Authority:

People v. Calabar (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 41, 58

Sixth Holding:

We must reverse unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court still would have denied defendant’s motion for mental health diversion even if the court had applied the law correctly.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 891-892

Seventh Holding:

When, as here, we conditionally vacate a defendant’s plea agreement and remand for further mental health diversion proceedings, we necessarily must conditionally reverse the defendant’s sentence. Our reversal of the defendant’s sentence thus moots his other challenges to his sentence.

Authority:

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

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 452

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 640-641

People v. Rojas (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1301-1302 [appellant’s argument that trial court made sentencing errors held moot given remand for resentencing]

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Fines and fees, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 001052

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Gary note:  This case had a ton of issues.  The wins consisted of striking two of the four counts of being a felon in possession of ammunition; because he did not waive his presence at the court trial, reversal of the findings on his prior convictions and aggravating circumstance in aggravation made in his absence; remand for a hearing on his strikes that were based on the pre-AB 333 amendments to the criminal gang activity statute; correction of the abstract of judgment that reflected fines and fees that were not orally pronounced; and correction of his credit for time served.  In the course of deciding the case, however, the court announced several principles that I feel are important, even though in this instance they were resolved against the defendant. 

I apologize for the length of the summary.  

First Holding:

In assessing a claim of insufficient evidence, 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 the evidence of each element of the offense was sufficient, and defendant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating otherwise. To meet this burden, defendant must do more than just recite his own evidence or portray the available evidence in a light favorable to him.

We do not reweigh the evidence or revisit credibility issues, but rather presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact that could reasonably be deduced from the evidence. We must accept all logical inferences that the jury may have drawn from circumstantial evidence. If 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. Martinez (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1329

People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573-1574

People v. Pham (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 919, 924-925

People v. Lucero (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 370, 411

Second Holding:

It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. Stated otherwise, a litigant may not change his or her position on appeal and assert a new theory. To permit this change in strategy would be unfair to the trial court and the opposing litigant. To be sure, we have discretion to consider a new theory on appeal when it is purely a matter of applying the law to undisputed facts.

But the defendant cannot now, for the first time, claim that insufficient evidence supports his convictions based on new evidence and and a new theory. Accordingly, we decline to consider defendant’s new theory on appeal.

Authority:

Brown v. Boren (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1316

Third Holding:

A trial court must give an instruction on every theory of the case that is supported by substantial evidence. But the court must not give an instruction that is not correct or pertinent, nor is it required to give an instruction that is not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1047

People v. Larsen (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 810, 823

Fourth Holding:

We note that defendant forfeited his challenge to (a particular jury instruction) because he did not raise the same instructional error issue in the trial court as he raises on appeal. We nonetheless address the merits because defendant maintains that (the jury instruction) as given was not a correct statement of the law.

Authority:

People v. Rios (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1139 [Generally, an issue is forfeited on appeal if the defendant failed to make a timely and specific objection on the ground asserted on appeal]

People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 719 [The rule of forfeiture does not apply, however, if the instruction was an incorrect statement of the law, or if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights]

Fifth Holding:

We review claims of instructional error de novo. We must review the wording of the jury instruction and assess whether it accurately states the law. We must also consider whether a reasonable likelihood exists that the challenged instruction caused the jury to misapply the law in violation of the Constitution.

The challenged instruction is viewed in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner. There is no error in a trial court’s failing or refusing to instruct on one matter, unless the remaining instructions, considered as a whole, fail to cover the material issues raised at trial.

As long as the trial court has correctly instructed the jury on all matters pertinent to the case, there is no error. We interpret the instructions so as to support the judgment if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579

People v. Dieguez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 266, 277

People v. Vang (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1129

Sixth Holding:

On appeal, we review independently the question whether the trial court improperly failed to instruct on a lesser included offense.

Trial courts have a sua sponte duty to instruct juries on all lesser included offenses where there is substantial evidence raising a question as to whether all the elements of the charged offense are present. Under the substantial evidence standard, the trial court has no obligation to instruct on theories not supported, or only weakly supported by the evidence.

However, instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is substantial enough to merit consideration by the jury. Substantial evidence in this context is evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed.

Authority:

People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 113

People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 645

People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 155, 162

People v. Reeves (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 14, 51

Seventh Holding:

The defendant cannot be convicted of multiple counts of being a felon in possession of different types of ammunition. Multiple items of contraband that are classified within a single statutory category or subdivision will support only a single violation of a possession statute. This includes possession of different types of ammunition.

There is, however, an exception when contraband is possessed by a defendant at different times or at different locations.

Authority:

In re Carleisha P. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 912, 923

De La Cerda v. Superior Court (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 40

People v. Sample (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1253

People v. Von Latta (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 329

Eighth Holding:

Defendant was not present for the bifurcated bench trial on his prior convictions and aggravating factors allegations. The parties agree that this was error because defendant did not expressly waive his right to be present for the bench trial in writing as required by section 977(b)(1).

Authority:

PEN 977(b)(1)

Ninth Holding:

A defendant has a right to be present at critical stages of a criminal prosecution, a right protected by both the federal Constitution and the state Constitution. California has also guaranteed the right by statute, under section 977. The defendant may waive that right.

The waiver of a defendant’s right to be present may be in writing and filed with the court or, with the court’s consent, may be entered personally by the defendant or by the defendant’s counsel of record. Although the defendant submitted a writing under which he waived his right to a jury trial on prior convictions and aggravating factors allegations, the waiver extended only to his right to a jury, not to his right to be present.

Authority:

PEN 977

U.S. Const., 6th and 14th Amends.

Cal. Const., art. I, secs. 15, 16

Kentucky v. Stincer (1987) 482 U.S. 730, 745

People v. Perry (2006) 38 Cal.4th 302, 311

Tenth Holding:

Absent a valid waiver, constitutional error concerning a defendant’s right of presence is subject to harmless error review under Chapman. We must therefore assess whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not contribute to the outcome of the proceeding.

Here, defense counsel did not call any witnesses and submitted on the prosecution’s exhibits at the bifurcated trial. Had defendant been present at the trial, he could have assisted in his defense and/or exercised his constitutional right to testify on his own behalf regarding any number of the aggravating factors that were alleged against him.

Thus, we cannot say that the exclusion of defendant at the bifurcated bench trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we will remand the matter for a new bifurcated trial on the prior convictions and aggravating factors.

Authority:

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23

People v. Millsap (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 368, 384

Eleventh Holding:

The trial court found true that defendant had been convicted in 1999 of unlawful possession of a firearm committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Based upon the recent decision in Fletcher, both parties request that the true finding on the prior gang-related enhancement be vacated and that the matter be remanded for a retrial in conformance with the changes to the law on criminal street gangs after AB 333.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576

Twelfth Holding:

The Three Strikes law doubles a felony sentence if the defendant has a prior conviction for a serious felony, which includes any felony offense that would also constitute a felony violation of section 186.22. A prior felony firearm conviction constitutes a strike if committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang” pursuant to section 186.22(b)(1).

Authority:

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

PEN 667(d)(1), (e)(1)

PEN 1170.12(b)(1)(c)(1)

People v. Briceno (2004) 34 Cal.4th 451, 45

Thirteenth Holding:

AB 333, effective January 1, 2022, amended section 186.22 to narrow the definition of benefit to mean to provide a common benefit to members of a gang where the common benefit is more than reputational. Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational may include, but are not limited to, financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting a perceived or actual gang rival, or intimidation or silencing of a potential current or previous witness or informant.

This provision applies retroactively to cases that are not final on appeal to determine whether a prior violation of section 186.22 constitutes a strike. With regard to prior convictions that are premised on violations of section 186.22, current law applies in determining whether they qualify as prior serious felony convictions under section 1192.7(c)(28). The appropriate remedy is to remand to permit the prosecution the opportunity to establish that the prior conviction constitutes a strike under current law.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(g)

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 586-587, 607-608

Fourteenth Holding:

The trial court did not mention any fines or fees at the sentencing hearing and the minute order is also silent on this subject. However, the abstract of judgment reflects the following fines and fees were imposed: $300 for restitution (sec. 1202.4(b)); $400 for the court security fee (sec. 1465.8); and $300 for the criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373). The $300 parole revocation restitution fine (sec. 1202.45) was conditionally suspended.

Rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement. Entering the judgment in the minutes being a clerical function, a discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as entered in the minutes is presumably the result of clerical error. Nor is the abstract of judgment controlling. The abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction. By its very nature, definition and terms it cannot add to or modify the judgment which it purports to digest or summarize.


If there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minutes or abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.

Authority:

PEN 1207

People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471

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

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186

Fifteenth Holding:

The trial court did not orally impose restitution fines or fees, nor were any included in the Minute Order from the sentencing hearing. The People did not object to the court’s failure to orally impose the fines or fees.

Because the restitution fine and matching parole revocation fine are discretionary given the court’s ability to not impose them if it makes certain findings on the record, the People forfeited the imposition of the fines by not objecting. Accordingly, we decline the People’s request for a remand on the restitution fines and instead, direct those fines to be stricken.

Authority:

People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 303

Sixteenth Holding:

However, the same is not true for the two mandatory ancillary costs including the court operations assessment and the court facilities assessment. Indeed, the trial court was required to impose these fees but did not do so, nor did it state any reasons for declining to do so.

Accordingly, on remand, the trial court is directed to either impose these fees or state its reasons for declining to do so

Authority:

PEN 1465.8

GOV 70373

People v. El (2021) 65 Cal.App5th 963, 967

Seventeenth Holding:

The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects the credit for time served. Although there was no oral pronouncement of credit for time served at the sentencing hearing, the probation officer’s report shows that she calculated the total credit for time served based on defendant’s presentencing time in jail. We agree with the parties that this is a miscalculation, and any miscalculation of credits results in an unauthorized sentence, which may be corrected upon discovery.

Credits for presentence custody are calculated from the day of arrest through the day of sentencing. The defendant was sentenced 11 days later than reported by the probation officer. Accordingly, the correct number of actual days of presentencing time served is (a number greater than 900 days).

Because he was convicted of violent felonies, the defendant cannot earn conduct credit in excess of 15%.

Authority:

PEN 2933.1

People v. Taylor (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 628, 647

People v. Ramos (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 810, 816 [explaining proper method of calculation for conduct credits under section 2933.1]

People v. Bravo (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 729, 735

Immigration, Plea bargains, Standard of review

Case 001051

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This is an appeal from a denial of a motion under section 1473.7 to vacate the defendant’s conviction because he did not adequately understand the immigration consequences of his plea more than 15 years ago. As neither the court nor the defendant had the benefit of Hernandez when the court ruled on the motion, we remand for the court to hold a proper hearing.

First Holding:

The defendant pleaded no contest to petty theft with prior convictions in violation of section 666. A conviction under section 666 is a crime involving moral turpitude, which is a ground of deportability and inadmissibility. The conviction also renders a noncitizen ineligible to apply for permanent residency, despite his strong ties to U.S. citizens. A crime involving moral turpitude is also a ground of mandatory immigration detention.

Authority:

8 U.S.C. sec. 1227(a)(2)(i)(I)

8 U.S.C. sec. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)

8 U.S.C. sec. 1255(a)

8 U.S.C. sec. 1226(c)(l)(A)

Second Holding:

Section 1473.7 allows a person who is no longer in criminal custody to file a motion to vacate a conviction or sentence. To establish eligibility to withdraw a guilty plea under section 1473.7(a)(1), a defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) error damaging the defendant’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence and (2) that the damage resulted in prejudice.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2026) 20 Cal.5th 598, 613

Third Holding:

On appeal from a denial of a motion under section 1473.7, we independently review the evidence in the record. When the trial court’s findings are based on written materials rather than the court’s observations of the defendant, we do not defer to those findings because we are similarly situated to the trial court when interpreting a cold record.

We may reach a different conclusion from the trial court on an independent examination of the evidence even where the evidence is conflicting and the trial court’s conclusions are based in part on its assessment of the credibility of witnesses it heard and observed.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2026) 20 Cal.5th 598, 613

Fourth Holding:

Hernandez has clarified the analysis courts must apply when evaluating whether there was error damaging the defendant’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence. In determining whether a defendant has established error for purposes of section 1473.7(a)(1), we focus on the defendant’s subjective understanding at the time they entered their guilty plea. The key is the mindset of the defendant and not what an objectively reasonable person would have understood under the circumstances.

Because the error inquiry focuses on the defendant’s subjective understanding, courts evaluating section 1473.7(a)(1) motions must look beyond the record of the plea and consider the totality of the circumstances bearing on the inquiry. Courts must engage in a case-specific examination that involves assessing credibility and weighing circumstantial evidence.

The most direct evidence of a defendant’s subjective understanding consists of the defendant’s own statements to the court when entering the plea and in declarations or testimony given in support of their section 1473.7(a)(1) motion. However, while the focus of the error inquiry is on the defendant’s subjective understanding, a defendant’s bare assertion that they did not understand the immigration consequences or the options available to them to defend against those consequences is insufficient to establish error; the assertion must be corroborated by objective evidence.

(Gary note: The opinion goes on to cite several examples contained in the Hernandez opinion that may corroborate the defendant’s assertions. If you have such a case, Hernandez is a must-read.)

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2026) 20 Cal.5th 598, 614-617