Tag Archives: Statutory interpretation

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000247

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is not eligible to have a full resentencing under section 1172.75 because no now-invalid prior prison term enhancement had ever been imposed, a pre-condition for invocation of section 1172.75. The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it erroneously indicates that the enhancement for the prior prison term was stayed, when it is clear from the record that the court actually struck the enhancement rather than impose and stay it.

First Holding:

Appellate courts may exercise their authority to correct clerical errors, including correcting an abstract of judgment and may strike statements in the abstract to conform with the court’s oral pronouncement. Because the trial court explicitly stated, “The court is likewise going to strike the 667.5(b) prison prior,” the enhancement should not have been listed in the abstract of judgment, and we have the authority to order the abstract’s correction without requiring an accompanying resentencing. We order that correction accordingly.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts]

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 388

Second Holding:

The question in this case was left open by the Supreme Court in People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1066, footnote 2 and, as is discussed below, is factually distinguishable from the issue to be decided in People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 194 (Espino), review granted October 23, 2024, S286987, which hinges on the “imposition” of a stricken prison prior enhancement’s punishment. Pending briefing before the Supreme Court is limited to the following issue: “Is a defendant entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when the judgment in the defendant’s criminal case includes a prior-prison-term enhancement that was imposed but for which punishment was stricken?” (Espino, S286987, Supreme Ct. Mins., July 30, 2025.)

[Gary Note: Espino was decided by the Supreme Court on July 2, 2026. It did firmly hold that section 1172.75 applies when the punishment for a now-invalid prior prison term enhancement was stricken, not merely stayed as it was in Rhodius. Footnote 1 of the Supreme Court opinion in Espino seems to make it clear that it was not deciding the issue that arose in this Case 000247. Footnote 1: “Our decision in Rhodius also left open whether a prior prison term enhancement is “imposed” (sec. 1172.75(a)) “when an enhancement, not just its associated punishment, [is] stricken” (Rhodius, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1066, fn. 2). As that question is not at issue in this case, we do not address it.”

I can tell you that a petition for review in this case (the one for which this is the summary, 000247) was denied a few months ago, before Espino was decided. It seems it will take a different case to convince the Supreme Court to decide whether a person is eligible for relief under section 1172.75 in cases where the court struck the enhancement itself (and thus had nothing on which to impose and either stay or strike punishment.)]

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1066, footnote 2

People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 194 (review granted 10/23/24, S286987

People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987, decided July 2, 2026)

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000175

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred in considering grand jury testimony at the evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motion to recall his sentence under Penal Code section 1172.6.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 narrowed the scope of the felony-murder rule and eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a basis for murder liability. Among other things, the enactment amended section 188 to require that a principal convicted of murder act with malice aforethought. It further provided that malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime. It also added a procedure to permit individuals convicted of murder under prior law to seek vacatur of their convictions and resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448-450

Second Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature adopted SB 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) to expressly allow those convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or manslaughter to seek resentencing. The Legislature enacted the provision to clarify that persons who were convicted of attempted murder or manslaughter under a theory of felony murder and the natural and probable consequences doctrine are permitted the same relief as those persons convicted of murder under the same theories.

Authority:

People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 544, 548

Third Holding:

A trial court’s denial of a section 1172.6 petition following an evidentiary hearing is ordinarily reviewed for substantial evidence. Under this standard, an appellate court reviews the 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 defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The meaning of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo.

Authority:

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

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 885

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1032

Fourth Holding:

A panel of this court concluded that testimony from a grand jury proceeding is admissible in an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6(d)(3) as evidence previously admitted at any prior hearing or trial.

Authority:

People v. Robinson (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 854, 872, review granted February 26, 2025, S288606

Fifth Holding:

Pending our state high court’s decision, we conclude that testimony adduced at a grand jury proceeding is not admissible in a section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing. The context in which section 1172.6 uses the word “hearing,” precludes a broad reading of the term. With limited exception, the Legislature’s statutory scheme for grand jury proceedings does not label a grand jury proceeding a “hearing.” Instead, the Legislature provided that grand juries convene in “sessions” (Pen. Code, secs. 934, 935, 938, 939, 939.1) or “proceedings” (Pen. Code, secs. 891, 939.21; see Pen. Code, pt. 2, tit. 4, chs. 1-3, sec. 888 et seq. [entitled “Grand Jury Proceedings”]).

Authority:

Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1249 [looking to context to construe term “hearing”]

Sixth Holding:

Grand jury proceedings are different in kind from the hearings and trials that are undisputedly covered by section 1172.6(d)(3), such as preliminary hearings or criminal trials. A grand jury proceeding serves as part of the charging process of criminal procedure, not the adjudicative process that is the province of the courts or trial jury. The grand jury’s charge is to investigate and inquire. (Pen. Code, secs. 888, 917, 918, 939.6.) The proceeding is investigatory, not adversarial. Unlike a preliminary hearing or trial, a grand jury session is not the same proceeding as a subsequent criminal prosecution.

Authority:

People v. Davenport (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1158 [preliminary hearing testimony]

People v. Cody (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 87, 101-104 [testimony at jury trial]

Cummiskey v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1018, 1026

People v. Ocobachi (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1174, 1182

People v. Petrilli (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 814, 825

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000162

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Section 1172.75 does not apply to the defendant’s death sentence. However, because the defendant was also sentenced to an indeterminate term in addition to the death sentence, and because section 1172.75 applies by its terms to this aspect of his sentence, we conclude he is entitled to resentencing of the indeterminate term only.

First Holding:

Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5(b) required the court to impose a one-year enhancement for each prior prison term the defendant had served, unless the defendant had remained free of custody for the preceding five years. Effective January 1, 2020, SB 136 amended section 667.5 to limit the enhancement to prior prison terms for sexually violent offenses. After SB 136 took effect, courts applied the legislation retroactively to cases that were not yet final on January 1, 2020.

Authority:

PEN 667.5(b)

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 854

People v. Christianson (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 300, 309

People v. Jennings (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 664, 668

Second Holding:

After the superior court verifies a judgment includes an invalid enhancement, the court must recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(c)

People v. Dixon (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 236, 243, review granted Oct. 22, 2025, S292223

Third Holding:

By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 855

Fourth Holding:

Insofar as the defendant’s claims require us to interpret section 1172.75, they present questions of statutory interpretation and construction subject to de novo review. If the statutory language permits more than one reasonable interpretation, courts may consider other aids, such as the statute’s purpose, legislative history, and public policy.

Authority:

People v. Harring (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 483, 495

People v. Brown (2023) 14 Cal.5th 530, 536

Fifth Holding:

[Gary Note: the opinion contains footnotes on cases that have dealt with and disagreed on the impact of section 1172.75 on those serving death sentences. The issue is complex and is pending in the California Supreme Court. The cases are listed below. I have chosen not to include the discussion or debate on that point. In this instance, the appellate concluded that section 1172.75 does not affect the death sentence but a death sentence does not render a defendant ineligible for resentencing on the indeterminate portion of the sentence.]

Authority:

People v. Dixon (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 236, review granted Oct. 22, 2025, S292223

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

People v. Cain (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 917, review granted Feb. 18, 2026, S294810

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000156

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal from a resentencing, the defendant seeks a remand to make further requests to dismiss gang enhancements under recently amended Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (g), which now requires more than reputational benefit to a gang. We reverse the judgment and remand the matter for the trial court to rule on defendant’s motion to dismiss the gang enhancements, and to reconsider its determination declining to dismiss the firearm enhancements under section 1385.

First Holding:

At the resentencing hearing, the trial court erred in believed it had no jurisdiction under the remittitur from the previous appeal (which had remanded the matter for resentencing) to fully resentence the defendant. But the scope of the superior court’s jurisdiction as defined by a remittitur does not prevent the retroactive application of ameliorative laws.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 396

Second Holding:

Because the trial court determined it had no jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion to dismiss the gang enhancements, it did not reach the parties’ substantive arguments. Given the lack of a full record on appeal regarding the issues (including the absence of the complete preliminary hearing transcript and evidence), the appropriate course is to permit the trial court to assess, after full consideration of the issue on a proper record, whether changes to section 186.22 require dismissal of the gang enhancements.

We observe that if the trial court exercises its discretion to dismiss the gang enhancements, the prosecution will be entitled to the same remedy as the defense (i.e., withdrawal from the plea agreement) and the trial court may withdraw its approval of the plea agreement as well. If defendant elects and is permitted to withdraw from the plea agreement, the trial court must restore the parties to the status quo ante, including permitting the prosecution to request to reopen the preliminary hearing and present evidence on the new elements of the gang allegations or to proceed without those charges.

[Gary Note: This opinion was issued in December 2025. Effective 1/1/2025, Pen. Code, sec. 1171 was amended, and subdivision (c)(3) provides that, with respect to certain postconviction proceedings to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute, a modification of a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea bargain. Does this affect the Stamps solution of remanding for the possible setting aside of the plea bargain if the defendant chooses to pursue amelioration? Good question, Gary!]

Authority:

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 707-708

People v. Superior Court (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 256

Mendoza v. Superior Court (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 42, 58

Third Holding:

We review for abuse of discretion the trial court’s exercise of discretion under section 1385(c). We review associated questions of statutory construction de novo.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1033

People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 242

Fourth Holding:

Under Penal Code section 1385(c)(1), the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute. In exercising its discretion under this subdivision, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present. Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.

The trial court denied the defendant’s request to dismiss the firearm enhancment under Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c). But it decided the motion before Walker clarified how to exercise its authority. Accordingly, we will remand the matter to allow the trial court to determine that question and, if decided in the negative, to further determine whether there is substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors sufficient to neutralize the great weight of the recognized mitigating circumstances asserted by defendant (including mental illness, prior victimization, and childhood trauma). Notwithstanding the presence of a mitigating circumstance, trial courts retain their discretion to impose an enhancement based on circumstances long deemed essential to the furtherance of justice inquiry.

Authority:

PEN 1385(c)(1)

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024 [Specifically, absent a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, a court retains the discretion to impose or dismiss enhancements provided that it assigns significant value to the enumerated mitigating circumstances, when they are present. In other words, if the court does not find that dismissal would endanger public safety, the presence of an enumerated mitigating circumstance will generally result in the dismissal of an enhancement unless the sentencing court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.]

Fifth Holding:

On remand, the trial court shall consider defendant’s motion for relief under section 186.22 and reconsider defendant’s motion to dismiss the firearm enhancements under section 1385. If such relief is granted, defendant shall be entitled to full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024

Probation Parole PRCS, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000153

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

After petitioner admitted to parole violations, the superior court revoked petitioner’s parole and remanded him to the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) pursuant to section 3000.08(h). He should not have been remanded to state prison under section 3000.08(h), but instead confined to county jail for no more than 180 days pursuant to section 3000.08(f) and (g)

First Holding:

For all inmates released from prison on parole on or after July 1, 2020, notwithstanding any other law, any inmate sentenced to a life term shall be released on parole for a period of three years. Therefore, it is section 3000.01 and not section 3000.1 that applies to convicted murderers who, like petitioner, are paroled after July 1, 2020. Because section 3000.1 does not apply to petitioner, he is not subject to section 3000.08(h), remanding him to the custody of CDCR. The trial court is directed to vacate its order remanding petitioner to the custody of the CDCR and hold further proceedings to determine what penalties to impose for petitioner’s parole violation, as provided by section 3000.08(f) and (g

Authority:

PEN 3000.01(b)(2) [subject to two exceptions not relevant here, under subdivision (d)]

Second Holding:

By using the phrase “notwithstanding any other law,” the Legislature signaled its intent for the later-enacted statute–section 3000.01–to preempt the conflicting, preexisting statute in section 3000.1

Authority:

APeople v. Reed (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 43, 53

Discretion, Juveniles, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000133

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2000, appellant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after being tried as an adult for two murders he committed when he was 17. In 2021, his sentence was recalled under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). The prosecution filed a motion to again transfer appellant’s case from juvenile court to criminal court. The court granted the motion, and appellant challenges that ruling on appeal. We conclude that the court misapprehended one aspect of its discretion, reverse the order transferring appellant to criminal court, and remand for reconsideration of the issue.

First Holding:

In determining at a transfer hearing whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult, the court must consider five statutory factors, one of which is whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. The court stated that juvenile jurisdiction would have ended when appellant turned 25 years old. The court was quite clear that its consideration of the relevant factor was always directed at determining whether appellant would have been rehabilitated by the age of 25.

However, the court was incorrect. The 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 subdivision (b) of Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 707. In this instance, the defendant would have been in his 40s two years after disposition hearing held in this case.

Authority:

WIC 707(d)

Second Holding:

When the appellant presents an issue of statutory interpretation, we review it de novo.

Authority:

In re Noah S. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 410, 414

Third Holding:

Reversal is required unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion. Here, the court did not express how it would have ruled had it known juvenile jurisdiction could have lasted longer. One of the few comments the court made about the defendant’s post-age 25 conduct cuts against a finding of harmlessness. Paraphrased, the court stated that there was no question before it that the defendant has grown as an adult, but that the question was whether or not that growth would have occurred before age 25. It stated that the evidence it considered at the hearing indicates his growth occurred well past the age of 25.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 139

Fourth Holding:

In order to transfer a minor from juvenile court to criminal court, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(3)

Amelioration, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000119

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because punishments on his prison priors were stricken, the trial court ruled that the defendant was ineligible for relief under section 1172.75. We reverse and remand for resentencing.

Holding:

A pre-Rhodius case on point convincingly concluded that section 1172.75 applies to enhancements that were stricken at sentencing, not just those that are imposed but stayed at sentencing. We agree with the Espino majority that there is no sound reason to differentiate between section 667.5 enhancements that have been stayed and those that have been stricken for purposes of sentencing. In each of these cases, the judgment still contains a now-invalid enhancement for a prior prison term.

Authority:

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

People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 193, review granted Oct. 23, 2024, S286987 [Gary note: The case on review in the Supreme Court was argued and deemed submitted on May 6, 2026. The opinion will likely be rendered within 90 days of that date, or by August 4, 2026]

People v. Cota (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1133

Amelioration, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000116

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant petitioned for recall and resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75. The question before us is whether section 1172.75 entitles the defendant to a resentencing hearing even though the prior prison term enhancements were stricken for the purposes of sentencing. We agree with defendant that he is entitled to resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 applies to enhancements that were stricken at sentencing, not just those that are imposed but stayed at sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

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

People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 193, review granted Oct. 23, 2024, S286987 [Gary note: The case on review in the Supreme Court was argued and deemed submitted on May 6, 2026. The opinion will likely be rendered within 90 days of that date, or by August 4, 2026]

People v. Cota (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1133

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

Case: 000106

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court modified the defendant’s sentence only to the extent required under sections 1172.75 and 1170.18, but otherwise left the balance intact, finding that the defendant remained a danger to the public. The case is remanded for the trial court to calculate the days of actual custody and to correct the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

Because the sentence was modified under PC 1172.75, the trial court erred in not calculating the actual days in custody.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

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

Second Holding:

We review the trial court’s finding that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety under the clear and convincing evidence standard.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(1)

Third Holding:

The clear and convincing evidence standard requires the party with the burden of proof to convince the trier of fact that it is highly probable the facts which he asserts are true.

Authority:

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998

Fourth Holding:

The narrow definition of danger to public safety under PC 1170.18 does not apply to the undefined term of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. [GARY NOTE: after the opinion in this case 000106 was filed, the Supreme Court ruled in Guevara that it was constitutionally necessary to apply the Three Strikes Reform Act’s understanding of the term “unreasonable risk to public safety” within the meaning of section 1170.126 (enacted by initiative) in order to reconcile the application of section 1172.75 (enacted by the Legislature) to those who would otherwise qualify but are serving a sentence under the Three Strikes Law (an initiative provision).]

Authority:

People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 374, 374-375

[People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838]

Fifth Holding:

The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects a determinate term of 14 years instead of 10 years, and it must be corrected. [GARY NOTE: The court did not cite authority, most likely because the error and solution are obvious. There are many relevant cases supporting this holding, some of which I have set out below.]

Authority:

People v. Hamed (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 928, 937–938

People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 242

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

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000095

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the superior court applied an incorrect legal standard in deciding whether to dismiss the five-year enhancement, we reverse the judgment and direct the court to exercise its discretion whether to strike that enhancement and to resentence the defendant.

First Holding:

By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements.

Authority:

People v. Dixon (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 236, 243, review granted Oct. 22, 2025, S292223

Second Holding:

We conclude the superior court erred by applying an incorrect legal standard in denying the defendant’s request to dismiss the five-year enhancement for the prior serious felony. Section 1385 provides that the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so. It also provides that, in exercising its discretion, the court must consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove any of nine listed mitigating factors, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. If the court does not find dismissing an enhancement would endanger public safety, the court must consider whether the defendant has presented evidence of one or more of the mitigating factors listed in section 1385. If so, the court must engage in a holistic balancing with special emphasis on the [nine] enumerated mitigating factors and must dismiss the enhancement unless the court finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that may nonetheless neutralize even the great weight of the mitigating circumstance, such that dismissal of the enhancement is not in furtherance of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1385

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1033, 1036

Third Holding:

Without the benefit of Walker, decided several months after the resentencing, the superior court did not apply the correct legal standard. It did not find that reducing the sentence by five years would endanger public safety. Nor did it consider dismissing the prior conviction that was more than five years old, instead relying on the fact that the original court found the prior conviction to be true. By deferring to the original trial court on whether to strike the serious felony conviction enhancement, the superior court ignored section 1172.75’s mandate to apply changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion. In 2015 the trial court had to impose the five-year prior serious felony enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), but effective 2019, SB 1393 gave trial courts discretion to strike that enhancement under section 1385. In addition, section 1172.75 authorized the superior court to consider postconviction factors, such as the defendant’s disciplinary record and rehabilitation while in prison, his age, and his physical condition—factors not available to the trial court in 2015.

Authority:

People v. Carter (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 960, 968 [simply striking the one-year enhancement imposed under the repealed portion of former section 667.5(b) deprived the defendant of his right to full resentencing under the changes in the law]

People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562, 567 [court erred by failing to provide the defendant with a full resentencing hearing, meaning a hearing in which he could have sought further sentencing relief under at least two other statutes that were enacted after his conviction]

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 361

Fourth Holding:

The superior court’s error was prejudicial because the record does not clearly indicate the court would have reached the same conclusion had it applied the correct legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424 [where the trial court fails to exercise informed discretion, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion]

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

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402 [remand was required where the defendant was entitled to, but did not receive, a full resentencing under the terms of section 1172.75, including the application of any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion]

Fifth Holding:

On remand, the superior court should consider whether dismissing the prior serious felony enhancement and reducing the defendant’s sentence from 25 years six months to 20 years six months would endanger public safety. If the court does not make that finding, it should dismiss the enhancement, unless it finds substantial, credible evidence of countervailing factors that neutralize the great weight of any applicable mitigating circumstance enumerated in section 1385(c)(2), including that the enhancement was based on a prior conviction that was more than five years old.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 230-231 [in assessing whether dismissing an enhancement would endanger public safety, the trial court should have considered the date on which the defendant could be released if the enhancement was dismissed, not only whether the defendant currently posed a danger to the public]

Sixth Holding:

We review a trial court’s sentencing decisions in a section 1172.75 resentencing proceeding for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Moseley (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 870, 874

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 855-856

Seventh Holding:

In reviewing matters of statutory interpretation we review the trial court’s decision de novo.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 323

People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 804 [The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law that this court reviews de novo]

Eighth Amendment, Sentencing

Case: 000091

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2023, the defendant filed a petition for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170(d). He was serving a sentence of more than 50 years to life for offenses committed when he was 14 and tried as an adult. We agree with the defendant that he adequately demonstrated he did not have prior juvenile felony adjudications for assault or other disqualifying felonies, contrary to the finding of the trial court. We agree that the prior offense was not adjudicated as a felony. Section 1170(d) requires that he satisfy at least one of the specified criteria, which he has. On that basis, we are compelled to reverse the order denying his petition for recall and resentencing.

First Holding:

In light of the ban against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, in 2013 the Legislature created a procedure for a juvenile offender sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) to petition for a recall of the offender’s sentence and resentencing after the offender has served at least 15 years of the sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)

In re Kirchner (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1040, 1049

Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 622–626

Second Holding:

There is a conflict. Some courts have held that it violates the constitutional promise of equal protection of the laws to deny relief under the statute to juvenile offenders sentenced to lengthy terms of years amounting to the functional equivalent of LWOP. Other courts have concluded that section 3051 moots a juvenile defendant’s constitutional claim that he is serving a sentence that is the functional equivalent of LWOP.

Authority:

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 450–454

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1054–1061

People v. Cabrera (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 650, 653

People v. Ortega (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1252, 1260

People v. Isayev (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1117, 1123

Third Holding:

We apply the substantial evidence standard of review when considering disputed findings of fact made by trial courts. Under that standard of review, we review the record in the light most favorable to the order to determine whether the order is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is evidence that is of ponderable legal significance, reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value, and substantial proof of the essentials which the law requires in a particular case.

Authority:

People v. Munoz (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 499, 506–507

People v. Harring (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 483, 495

People v. James (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 795, 798

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1006

Fourth Holding:

Insofar as the defendant’s claims require us to interpret section 1170(d), they present questions of statutory construction subject to de novo review. Statutory construction begins with the plain, commonsense meaning of the words in the statute, because it is generally the most reliable indicator of legislative intent and purpose. A statute is not to be read in isolation, but construed in context and with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part so that all may be harmonized and have effect. If there is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the language, the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said, and we need not resort to legislative history to determine the statute’s true meaning.

Authority:

People v. Munoz (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 499, 506

People v. Harring (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 483, 495

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 622–623

Fifth Holding:

Penal Code section 1170(d) states that, when the defendant seeks relief under that section, the petition shall include the defendant’s statement that the defendant was under 18 years of age at the time of the crime and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, the defendant’s statement describing their remorse and work towards rehabilitation, and the defendant’s statement that one of the following is true: (A) The defendant was convicted pursuant to felony murder or aiding and abetting murder provisions of law; (B) The defendant does not have juvenile felony adjudications for assault or other felony crimes with a significant potential for personal harm to victims prior to the offense for which the sentence is being considered for recall; (C) The defendant committed the offense with at least one adult codefendant; (D) The defendant has performed acts that tend to indicate rehabilitation or the potential for rehabilitation, including, but not limited to, availing themselves of rehabilitative, educational, or vocational programs, if those programs have been available at their classification level and facility, using self-study for self-improvement, or showing evidence of remorse.

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Evidence, Jury trial, Racial Justice Act, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000081

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

[Gary note: Grabba cuppa. This case rivaled Fort Knox for gold.]

We agree with the parties that the gang offense must be reversed and the gang-related allegations must be vacated, and that the sentences on several witness dissuasion counts may be readdressed upon remand. We further agree with the defendant that the prosecution should not have been permitted to play and introduce two rap music videos under Evidence Code section 352, although we conclude that the error was harmless given our reversal of the gang offense and the vacation of the gang-related allegations. In addition, we find that the defendant has established a prima facie case that the prosecution violated the California Racial Justice Act by playing and using the rap music videos at trial, and we remand this matter to the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine if a violation of the California Racial Justice Act has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

First Holding:

AB 333 made the following changes: First, it narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

Second Holding:

Second, whereas section 186.22, former subdivision (f) required only that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang, AB 333 requires that any such pattern have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

Third Holding:

AB 333 also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

Fourth Holding:

Fourth, AB 333 narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

Fifth Holding:

We determine whether substantial evidence supports a jury’s finding by inquiring whether evidence was presented from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the prosecution sustained its burden of proof. Although we assess whether the evidence is inherently credible and of solid value, we must also view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict and presume the existence of every fact that the jury could reasonably have deduced from that evidence.

Authority:

People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 488

Sixth Holding:

Speculative testimony by a gang expert does not constitute substantial evidence to support a gang enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Soriano (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 278, 288

People v. Renteria (2022) 13 Cal.5th 951, 964 [Where there is no proof the defendant acted in association with or at the direction of the gang, the prosecution cannot rely on the joint nature of the offense to establish either the requisite benefit to the gang or the specific intent to promote the criminal activity of gang members]

Seventh Holding:

We also will vacate the gang-related firearm allegations under section 12022.53(b) and (e)(1).

Authority:

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 746 [reversing affirmance of firearm enhancement because the firearm enhancement alleged under section 12022.53(e)(1) is contingent on a true finding on the gang enhancement under section 186.22]

People v. Campbell (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 350, 376 [the amendments AB 333 made apply retroactively to the gang-related gun use enhancement under section 12022.53(e)]

Eighth Holding:

Because we conclude that substantial evidence does not support the conviction on the gang offense and the true findings on the gang-related allegations under the law at the time of the defendant’s trial, the defendant may not be retried concerning these matters.

Authority:

United States v. DiFrancesco (1980) 449 U.S. 117, 131

Ninth Holding:

The California Supreme Court recently held that Evidence Code section 352.2 [rap video evidence] does not apply retroactively to cases not yet final on appeal. Evidence Code section 352.2 has at best an attenuated and inconsistent connection to reduced punishment and there is good reason why the Legislature might not have intended for its approach toward the admissibility of creative expressions to apply retroactively, and thus the inference of retroactive application does not attach to the statute. However, the court noted that Evidence Code section 352.2, by providing additional direction for evaluating the admissibility of creative expressions, sets forth several factors that trial courts already might have folded into an evaluation of whether this type of material was admissible under Evidence Code sections 352 and 1101.

Authority:

People v. Aguirre (2025) 18 Cal.5th 629, 692, 693

Tenth Holding:

While the Supreme Court’s decision in Aguirre dictates that Evidence Code section 352.2 does not apply retroactively to the defendant’s case, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 by permitting the prosecutor to play the videos in his opening statement and by admitting evidence of the videos. A Racial Justice Act [RJA] violation occurs when an attorney in the case exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, among other circumstances. A central premise of the RJA is that bias can be unconscious and implied as well as conscious and express.

Authority:

PEN 745

Bonds v. Superior Court (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 821, 824

Eleventh Holding:

To forestall the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits of his’s RJA claim. This approach is particularly appropriate here, where we can discern no rational tactical reason for the defendant’s counsel not raising the RJA issue when counsel already filed a motion for a new trial concerning the playing and use of the rap music videos.

Authority:

People v. Torres (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 88, 92 [reviewing court may reach forfeited claim where ineffective assistance of counsel claimed]

People v. Quintero (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1060, 1074 [addressing merits of forfeited RJA claim because defendant alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object]

Twelfth Holding:

The fact that the prosecutor did not utter the words in the video does not foreclose an RJA claim. The RJA expressly includes in its description of qualifying acts an attorney using racially discriminatory language, but it also includes an attorney otherwise exhibiting bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful.

Authority:

PEN 745(a)(2)

Thirteenth Holding:

The RJA does not define racial bias or animus, but it specifies that the moving party is not required to prove intentional discrimination. Indeed, the statement of Legislative intent behind the RJA’s enactment states that the act was aimed at addressing the use of racially incendiary or racially coded language, images, and racial stereotypes in criminal trials. Based on the lack of probative value the videos had, the danger of racial bias that the “A Day in the Life” video particularly presented, and the manner in which the prosecutor used the videos at trial, we conclude that the defendant has satisfied his initial minimal burden to produce facts that, if true, establish that there is more than a mere possibility of an RJA violation.

Authority:

PEN 745(c)(2)

People v. Howard (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 625, 656

Fourteenth Holding:

Challenges for cause are constitutionally guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. Our state Constitution provides the same general right to a fair trial and an impartial jury. In California, criminal defendants are allowed an unlimited number of challenges to prospective jurors for cause, which the defendants must use before exercising any peremptory challenges.

Authority:

People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 916

Fifteenth Holding:

On forfeiture of jury challenge because defendant still had peremptory challenges available, the defense was afforded 30 total peremptory challenges, with 20 of the challenges being joint challenges and the remaining 10 split between the two defendants. The defense had peremptory challenges available when it accepted the jury as seated. The California Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected requests to abandon the forfeiture rule concerning denials of juror challenges for cause in analogous situations where the three requirements to preserve the issue for appeal were not met.

Authority:

People v. Suarez (2020) 10 Cal.5th 116, 143

People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 425-426

People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1209-1210

People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 61

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 45-46

People v. Mills (2010) 48 Cal.4th 158, 186

People v. Carasi (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1263, 1290

Sixteenth Holding:

Evidence is substantially more prejudicial than probative if, broadly stated, it poses an intolerable risk to the fairness of the proceedings or the reliability of the outcome. In applying this statute we evaluate the risk of undue prejudice, that is, evidence that uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues, not the prejudice that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.

Authority:

People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 724

People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 148

Seventeenth Holding:

A trial court’s discretionary ruling under Evidence Code section 352 will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Under Evidence Code section 352, the trial court enjoys broad discretion in assessing whether the probative value of particular evidence is outweighed by concerns of undue prejudice, confusion or consumption of time.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 372-373

People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1124

Eighteenth Holding:

The weighing process under Evidence Code section 352 depends upon the trial court’s consideration of the unique facts and issues of each case, rather than upon the mechanical application of automatic rules. The record must affirmatively show that the trial judge did in fact weigh prejudice against probative value, but no more is required. We review the trial court’s exercise of discretion in admitting evidence under Evidence Code section 352 for abuse and will not disturb the court’s ruling except on a showing the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.

Authority:

People v. Megown (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 157, 164

Nineteenth Holding:

A trial court’s admission of evidence, including gang testimony, is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Coneal (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 951, 964

Twentieth Holding:

When evaluating the admission of rap music, courts have recognized it has minimal probative value to the extent that it depends on construing the lyrics as literal statements of fact or intent without a persuasive basis to do so. We have also held that the relevance of rap lyrics is further diminished when they lack foundation. These foundational components include whether the defendant authored the lyrics. Thus, absent some meaningful method to determine which lyrics represent real versus made up events, or some persuasive basis to construe specific lyrics literally, the probative value of lyrics as evidence of their literal truth is minimal.

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 477, 478

Twenty-first Holding:

We do not mean to suggest that lyrics are never probative of their literal truth. For example, where lyrics are written within a reasonable period of time before or after the charged crime and bear a sufficient level of similarity to the charged crime, their probative value as a statement of fact is increased. It may also be that lyrics with sufficient corroboration from other evidence will have increased probative value. However, corroborating evidence may also render the lyrics cumulative.

Authority:

People v. Coneal (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 951, 96

Twenty-second Holding:

Section 29800(a)(1) states that any person who has been convicted of a felony, who has been convicted of an enumerated offense, or who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony. As relevant here: This offense has three elements: (1) the defendant possessed a firearm, (2) the defendant knew that he possessed the firearm, and (3) the defendant had previously been convicted of a felony.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 939, 958

Twenty-third Holding:

Where a defendant will stipulate to ex-felon status, evidence of the nature of his prior convictions still may and should be withheld from the jury, since such evidence is irrelevant to the ex-felon issue. Thus, to prove the third element of a violation of section 29800(a)(1), one of two alternatives may be used: (1) The prosecution can prove the conviction in open court, and that proof can include both the fact that the defendant has previously been convicted of a felony offense as well as the nature of the felony involved; or (2) the defendant can stipulate to having a felony conviction and thereby keep from the jury the nature of the particular felony. When the defendant stipulates to a prior conviction, “the court ‘sanitizes’ the prior by telling the jury that the defendant has a prior felony conviction, without specifying the nature of the felony committed.

Authority:

People v. Valentine (1986) 42 Cal.3d 170, 173

People v. Sapp (2003) 31 Cal.4th 240, 261, 262