Tag Archives: Statutory interpretation

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Plea bargains, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000532

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(You might need a cuppajoe or demitasse of tea or mug o’cocoa for this Error and/or relief, because Gary has a few words to share.  If THAT doesn’t put you to sleep, then you’re safe to move on to the 11 items I’ve listed as Holdings.  I happen to be quite interested in the impact of section 1171 on the application of the Stamps remedy that involves setting aside the plea if the prosecution doesn’t like effect that application of ameliorative provisions have where the upper term had been stipulated to in the original plea bargain.  This opinion alludes to that in what I have labeled as the Eleventh Holding.)

Upon recall of the sentence under section 1172.75, the trial court should have addressed whether the changes in the gang criminal activity law effected by AB 333 applied to the defendant’s judgment. The trial court’s resentencing order is vacated. The gang conviction (sec. 186.22(a)) on count 3 is reversed and the true finding on the gang enhancement (sec. 186.22(b)(1)) on count 4 is vacated. The prosecution shall have the opportunity to establish the gang conviction and enhancement under the current version of section 186.22. The matter is remanded for further proceedings.

(Gary note: This unpublished opinion recognizes that section 1171, effective 1/1/2025, provides that a resentencing under any ameliorative provisions cannot result in an order to set aside a plea bargain in which the sentence was specified. In other words, section 1171 appears to have overturned the Stamps decision with respect to allowing the lower court or the prosecution to set aside a plea bargain if the ameliorative provisions apply to change the sentence in a way that the prosecutor or court do not like.

(This question was granted review in a published opinion in 2024 (100 Cal.App.5th 768), where it defined the issue as “Is the prosecution entitled to rescind a plea agreement when a defendant receives a full resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728) and the trial court intends to reduce the sentence beyond eliminating the prior prison term enhancements?” On 12/18/2024, the Supreme Court transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal on the People’s motion for the Court of Appeal to vacate its earlier decision [which, in fact, concluded that the prosecutor could NOT rescind the agreement] and reconsider its opinion in light of the passage of AB 2483, which enacted section 1171. It also ordered the Court of Appeal’s original opinion to be depublished.

(On remand, the Court of Appeal set aside its earlier opinion and issued a new opinion in which it said, “At the hearing, Montgomery may seek relief under any provision of section 1172.75, and neither the prosecutor nor the court may rescind the plea agreement due to a resulting sentence reduction.” The original Court of Appeal opinion was published, and it provides an analysis of why a review of the legislative history of AB 483 (which enacted section 1172.75)–including uncodified portions of AB 483– compelled it to conclude that Stamps did not apply. But the subsequent opinion following the Supreme Court’s transfer relied solely on section 1171, and the opinion was not published.

(But Wait! There’s More!

(On May 18, 2026, the Supreme Court decided People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729. It was an appeal directly from the original sentencing under section 1170, and did not arise out of a ruling on the application of any other ameliorative statutes. The question was “Does Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731), which limits a trial court’s discretion to impose upper term sentences, apply retroactively to defendants sentenced pursuant to stipulated plea agreements?”

(The court concluded that it does apply (section 1170 as amended by SB 567), but it remanded with the Stamps remedy–that if the defendant opts to claim the benefits of section 1170 and the resulting sentence is something the DA or the court are not happy with, the plea will be set aside and the parties restored to their pre-plea bargain status.

(But it contained a very important footnote:

(“Shortly before oral argument, counsel for Mitchell filed a letter with this court identifying section 1171 as a new authority. Section 1171, effective January 1, 2025 (Stats. 2024, ch. 964, § 2) sets forth procedures governing a “ ‘postconviction proceeding,’ ” which the statute defines as “a proceeding to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute. Ameliorative statutes include, but are not limited to, Sections 1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75.” (§ 1171, subd. (a).) At oral argument, counsel for Mitchell urged that this statutory definition broadly encompasses a remand to the trial court in the context of a direct appeal under the authority of section 1170(b) and Estrada. We decline to consider this argument because we have concluded that Mitchell is entitled to a remand under our established precedent in Stamps. We express no view on the applicability of section 1171 to this case or how it might affect the options described above. Mitchell may raise this issue in the Court of Appeal or the trial court in the first instance.”

(On remand, the Court of Appeal issued its new opinion–this time unpublished–in which it further remanded the case to the trial court for resolution in light of the Supreme Court decision. And in that unpublished opinion, it stated, “We now find that Mitchell’s section 1171 arguments should be resolved first by the trial court. Accordingly, we remand this action to that court for further proceedings consistent with Mitchell II [the Supreme Court decision]. On remand, Mitchell may raise her contentions regarding section 1171.”)

First Holding:

Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5(b) required trial courts to impose a one-year sentence enhancement for each true finding on an allegation the defendant had served a separate prior prison term and had not remained free of custody for at least five years. Section 667.5(b) was amended effective January 1, 2020, to eliminate prior prison term enhancements for all crimes except certain sexually violent offenses. Effective January 1, 2022, (renumbered) section 1172.75 made this change retroactive.

Authority:

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 379–380

Second Holding:

A defendant serving a term for a judgment that includes a now-invalid enhancement is entitled to resentencing. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements. A defendant is entitled to a full resentencing under section 1172.75 even when the original sentence was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1055

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402

People v. Carter (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 960, 972

Third Holding:

Section 1172.75(d) sets forth detailed instructions for resentencing once a sentence has been recalled. Resentencing shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety. Resentencing pursuant to this section shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1055

Fourth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, Assembly Bill 333 [AB 333] made several changes to the criminal street gang laws.

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.

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.

Third, 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.

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:

PEN 186.22

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

Fifth Holding:

Previously, a defendant who had committed an offense to benefit the reputation of a criminal street gang, but with no other benefit, was subject to the enhancement. Amended section 186.22(g) now requires the prosecution to show that the common benefit to the gang is more than reputational. Additionally, to prove a pattern of gang activity was collectively engaged in by members of the gang under amended section 186.22(f), the prosecution must show a nexus between the individual predicate offenses and the gang as an organized, collective enterprise.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 667

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 749

Sixth Holding:

Under Estrada, ameliorative changes to criminal statutes apply to all cases not final on appeal absent contrary legislative intent. The rule in Estrada has been applied to statutes governing penalty enhancements, as well as to statutes governing substantive offenses. The changes to the elements of a section 186.22 gang enhancement apply retroactively pursuant to Estrada. Estrada applies to statutory amendments which redefine, to the benefit of defendants, conduct subject to criminal sanctions. Assembly Bill 333 added new elements to the substantive offense and enhancements in section 186.22, and thus its substantive changes apply retroactively to all nonfinal cases under Estrada.

Authority:

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744–745

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

People v. Nasalga (1996) 12 Cal.4th 784, 792

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 394–395

Seventh Holding:

The defendant’s sentence was vacated when the trial court recalled his sentence under section 1172.75. Once his sentence was vacated, the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence him to a new sentence. The defendant regained the right to appeal whatever new sentence was imposed, and his judgment became nonfinal for Estrada purposes.

Authority:

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 161-162, 163 [once a court has determined that a defendant is entitled to resentencing, the result is vacatur of the original sentence, whereupon the trial court may impose any appropriate sentence]

People v. Arias (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 213, 219 [recall of the defendant’s sentence effectively vacates his original sentence and commitment]

Eighth Holding:

Courts that have applied AB 333 retroactively have permitted retrial of the gang charges on remand when the defendant was convicted following a jury trial. As one court explained, the proper remedy for this type of failure of proof —where newly required elements under amended section 186.22 were never tried to the jury—is to remand and give the People an opportunity to retry the affected charges. We see no reason the prosecution should be precluded from establishing the elements of section 186.22 as amended by AB 333 because the defendant’s sentence resulted from a plea agreement.

Case law has recognized the prosecution must have an opportunity to establish an element of an offense subsequently added by statute even if the defendant was convicted pursuant to a plea agreement. When a statutory amendment adds an additional element to an offense, the prosecution must be afforded the opportunity to establish the additional element upon remand. Such a retrial is not barred by the double jeopardy clause or ex post facto principles. Fairness dictates that the prosecution be given the opportunity to establish the additional element on remand when a conviction based on a plea bargain is vacated due to a statutory amendment adding an element the prosecution previously had no reason to prove.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 764

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 746–747

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

People v. E.H. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 467, 480

People v. Lopez (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 409, 416

People v. Eagle (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 275

People v. Figueroa (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 65, 71–72 and fn. 2

Ninth Holding:

Requiring the parties’ compliance with changes in the law made retroactive to them does not violate the terms of the plea agreement, nor does the failure of a plea agreement to reference the possibility the law might change translate into an implied promise the defendant will be unaffected by a change in the statutory consequences attending his or her conviction. To that extent, then, the terms of the plea agreement can be affected by changes in the law. Because a plea agreement is, in essence, a contract between the defendant and the prosecutor to which the court consents to be bound, a trial court may not violate the agreement by modifying it. Under Doe, however, the terms of the plea bargain include future changes in the law. By implementing such changes, the trial court is not altering the terms of the plea bargain.

Authority:

PEN 1016.8

PEN 1192.7(b)

Doe v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 64, 73–74

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 701

People v. Harrell (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 161, 168

Tenth Holding:

Pursuant to Doe, the defendant’s plea agreement is deemed to incorporate the Legislature’s subsequent enactment of AB 333, and we agree with the parties that AB 333 applies retroactively to the defendant’s case. Requiring the parties’ compliance with changes to section 186.22 made retroactive to the defendant does not violate the terms of the plea agreement. For these reasons, the prosecution must be given an opportunity on remand to establish the elements of the substantive gang offense charged on count 3 and the gang enhancement on count 4 pursuant to amended section 186.22. Following any proceeding to establish those elements or if the prosecution chooses to forego its opportunity to comply with AB 333, the trial court must conduct a full resentencing.

Authority:

Doe v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 64, 73

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

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 425

Eleventh Holding:

As a general rule, we do not issue advisory opinions indicating what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. We note though for the benefit of the parties and the trial court that the defendant’s resentencing under section 1172.75 remains subject to section 1171, which provides (effective 1/1/2025) that any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement. Section 1171 was further amended effective 1/1/2026 to provide that this section does not diminish the ability of the prosecution to oppose relief requested in a postconviction proceeding. On remand, the trial court must comply with the current version of section 1171 when resentencing the defendant.

Authority:

PEN 1171(c)(3) and (e)

People v. Slayton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1076, 1084

Elements of crime, Statutory interpretation

Case 000530

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A person may be ineligible for a concealed weapon permit if the person has been subject to any restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order issued pursuant to specified statutory provisions. There are exceptions, however, and the defendant fell within those exceptions. The emergency protective order expired, and he had not been given notice and was not given an opportunity to be heard before the emergency protective order was issued.

[Gary note: This is not exactly a criminal case. It was an appeal from a denial of application for a concealed weapons permit. I decided to include it, as it highlights the elements of time since the disqualifying event AND the requirement that the permitted person be notified of the expiry or termination of the permit. You may someday have a client facing a concealed weapons charge because of an expired or vacated permit, and it may be useful to be familiar with section 26202, so here it is.]

Holding:

Penal Code section 26202 provides that an applicant for a permit to carry a concealed weapon shall be deemed ineligible under various specified circumstances, including where the person has been subject to any restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order issued pursuant to specified statutory provisions.

However, that ineligibility does not apply if that order expired or was vacated or otherwise canceled more than five years prior to the licensing authority receiving the completed application, or that order expired or was vacated or otherwise canceled and the applicant did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. The applicant defendant in this case falls under the latter exception–lack of notice and opportunity to challenge the order before the expired order was issued.

Authority:

PEN 26202

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

Case 000516

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

For section 136.1 (dissuasion of witness) to apply [prior to its amendment effective 1/1/26], the attempt at dissuading must be performed prior to the commencement of the parole revocation proceedings. There was insufficient evidence to prove that parole revocation proceedings had commenced after the alleged attempt to dissuage.

(GARY NOTE: Effective 1/1/2026, section 136.1 was amended to eliminate the ambiguity under which Reynoza concluded that section 136.1 applies only if the alleging document has not yet been filed. The original language (by the use of the word “and”) ambiguously implied that, to constitute a violation, the defendant had to attempt to dissuade not only the filing of the charges, but also assistance in the prosecution once filed.

(Under that interpretation, if the only attempt at dissuasion took place after charges were filed, then the evidence was not sufficient to show that there was an attempt to dissuade from the filing of the charges. In direct response to Reynoza, section 136.1 now has changed the “and” to an “or,” the effect of which makes section 136.1 applicable to attempted dissuasion occurring on or after 1/1/2026, whether the attempt at dissuasion took place before or after charges were filed. I have included this summary because there may still be some defendants whose alleged misconduct occurred prior to 1/1/26 and must be prosecuted under the law in effect at the time of the crime.)

First Holding:

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains 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. A reviewing court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. Reversal is unwarranted unless it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conviction.

Authority:

People v. Powell (2018) 5 Cal.5th 921, 944

People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053

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

Second Holding:

Under Reynoza, where criminal charges have already been filed, postcharging dissuasion alone does not constitute an offense under section 136.1(b)(2). In Reynoza, all evidence of the defendant’s dissuasive conduct occurred after the underlying charging document had been filed. Therefore, since there was no substantial evidence that the dissuasive conduct occurred before charges were filed, the court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s reversal of the conviction.

Authority:

People v. Reynoza (2024) 15 Cal.5th 982, 1013

Third Holding:

There is no substantial evidence that satisfies the required element that defendant’s dissuading conduct occurred before proceedings were initiated in order to support defendant’s section 136.1(b)(2) convictions. Absent substantial evidence to support the convictions, the judgment must be reversed. A reversal based on insufficient evidence shields defendant from retrial because it means that no rational factfinder could have voted to convict the defendant. As such, defendant cannot be retried on counts 2 and 3

Authority:

People v. Tripp (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 951, 959

Tibbs v. Florida (1982) 457 U.S. 31, 41

[Gary Reminder:

[Reread what I wrote as a Gary note  in the Error and/or relief secrion above about the law having changed effective 1/1/26 for those whose crimes occurred on or after that date.  It demonstrates how critical it is for you to always check on exactly WHAT the language was for the crime on the date your client was alleged to have committed it.]
Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000495

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On recalling the sentence under section 1172.75, the court should have stricken the balance due on the restitution fine ordered more than 10 years previously.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, Assembly Bill No. 1186 amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), which provides: “Upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to Section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.” Here, the trial court imposed a restitution fine of $10,000 when it sentenced defendant in 2001. Because more than 10 years have elapsed since the date of imposition, we order the restitution fine vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Second Holding:

Section 1465.9 does not contemplate vacating parole revocation fines under section 1202.45. Section 1465.9(d) does not mention section 1202.45. When a statute is silent on a point, the courts resort to statutory interpretation. The proper interpretation of a statute is a question of law we review de novo. When interpreting a statute, our fundamental task is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose. To determine the Legislature’s intent, we must look to the statute’s words and give them their usual and ordinary meaning. If there is no ambiguity in the language, we presume the Legislature meant what it said and the plain meaning of the statute governs.

There is no support in the plain language of the statute for the premise that the Legislature intended section 1465.9 to provide relief from parole revocation fines. If the Legislature intended such a result, it could have so specified. It did not. As such, we conclude that a section 1202.45 parole revocation fine cannot be vacated under section 1465.9.

Authority:

Waterman Convalescent Hospital Inc. v. State Dept. of Health Services (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1439

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961

People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1215

People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1126

People v. Guzman (2005) 35 Cal.4th 577, 587 [inserting additional language into a statute violates the cardinal rule of statutory construction that courts must not add provisions to statutes]

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000318

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was sentenced to prison terms of 60-to-life plus 13 years under both the Three Strikes law (section 667) and the Habitual Offender provisions of section 667.7. The sentence included 13 years for enhancements. The judgment is modified to strike the great bodily injury enhancement imposed under section 12022.7(a) and the two prior serious felony enhancements imposed under section 667(a). On the amended abstract of judgment form, the court should indicate in section No. 8 that the defendant was sentenced pursuant to both section 667.7 and the Three Strikes law.

First Holding:

As relevant here, section 667.7 defines a habitual offender as any person convicted of a felony in which the person inflicted great bodily injury as provided in section 12022.53 or 12022.7, or personally used force which was likely to produce great bodily injury, who has served two or more prior separate prison terms as defined in section 667.5 for the crime of assault with a deadly weapon. A habitual offender with two prior separate prison terms shall be sentenced to life in prison and shall be ineligible for parole for a period of time calculated as the longest of three options: (1) 20 years; (2) the determinate term that would be imposed under section 1170, including any enhancements; or (3) any period prescribed by Section 190 or 3046. In other words, a habitual offender is not eligible for parole for a minimum of 20 years and for at least the duration of the sentence that would otherwise be imposed for the crime, including applicable enhancements.

[Gary note: The minimum term was set at 60 years, which was arrived at by tripling the minimum 20 years to life set by section 667.7 in keeping with section 667(e)(2)(A)(i), which sets the minimum term for Three Strikes sentences at “three times the term otherwise provided as punishment for each current felony conviction” if that produces the greatest Three Strikes sentence. The third option listed above–the reference to section 3046–is what makes that the applicable minimum term under section 667.7.]

Authority:

PEN 667.7

PEN 3046(a)(2) [(a) An inmate imprisoned under a life sentence shall not be paroled until he or she has served the greater of the following: … (2) A term as established pursuant to any other law that establishes a minimum term or minimum period of confinement under a life sentence before eligibility for parole.]

Second Holding:

Section 667.7 is a self-contained sentencing scheme for habitual violent offenders. Because section 667.7 ensures that a habitual offender’s parole ineligibility lasts at least as long as the corresponding determinate sentence would, including enhancements, a sentencing court may not impose determinate sentence enhancements to further lengthen this period of parole ineligibility.

Authority:

People v. Jenkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 234, 241

People v. Victor (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 518, 524-526

People v. Tuggle (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 147, 157-158, disapproved on another ground in Jenkins, at p. 252

Third Holding:

Permitting determinate enhancements to be imposed on top of a habitual offender life sentence would lead to absurd, anomalous, results. Section 667.7 expressly authorizes courts to use applicable enhancements to calculate the offender’s hypothetical determinate sentence. If the total exceeds 20 years, the determinate sentence defines the offender’s minimum parole eligibility. Thus, if the determinate sentence, including enhancements, for habitual offender A equaled 21 years, this would become his minimum term. Since the enhancements were used to calculate this actual minimum term, the court could not recycle the enhancements to add another five or ten years. If the determinate sentence, including enhancements, for habitual offender B, a less serious offender, did not exceed 20 years, then B would be hit twice. First, as the Legislature intended, his minimum term would be the statutory floor, 20 years. Second, the same enhancements, which were not enough to put his determinate term over 20 years, would then be added on top of the statutory floor. This is not what the Legislature intended.

Authority:

People v. Victor (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 518, 524-525

People v. Jenkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 234, 253 [noting that engrafting a term of enhancement onto the life term would lead to a result inconsistent with the statute’s methodology for setting the minimum period of required imprisonment, and nothing in the statute suggests that the Legislature intended that those same enhancements be used again to add an additional term of imprisonment onto the life term]

Fourth Holding:

An appellate court may correct a sentence that is not authorized by law. Accordingly, we will strike the unauthorized enhancements from the defendant’s sentence.

Authority:

In re Ricky H. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 176, 191

In re Sandel (1966) 64 Cal.2d 412, 417-419

People v. Skeirik (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 444, 468-469

Fifth Holding:

On the amended abstract of judgment form, the court should indicate in section No. 8 that the defendant was sentenced pursuant to both section 667.7 and the Three Strikes law.

[Gary note: The court cited no authority for its directive for the correction of the abstract of judgment. It isn’t entirely clear that the abstract was incorrect, but a fair reading led me to that conclusion. In any event, there is much authority supporting the court’s ability to order correction of abstracts of judgment and minute orders, and I have set out some below.]

Authority:

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

Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000287

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We modify the judgment to vacate the balance of the $200 restitution fine pursuant to section 1465.9(d).

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, the Legislature amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), which provides that upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Second Holding:

We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. If the language of the statute contains no ambiguity, we presume the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute governs. The 10-year period starts with the original imposition of the fine and does not restart on resentencing. We modify the judgment to vacate the balance of the restitution fine.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 354

People v. The North River Ins. Co. (2025) 18 Cal.5th 1, 13

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 601 review granted 3/11/2026 (S295038)

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000275

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the two counts of driving a vehicle while under the influence, as he was also changed with operating a motor scooter while under the influence of alcohol. The latter is a more specific statute than the former, and the defendant must therefore be prosecuted under the more specific statute.

First Holding:

A criminal defendant may not be prosecuted under a general statute if the conduct at issue is covered under a more specific statute.

Authority:

In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651

Second Holding:

A motorized scooter is a vehicle under the definition of vehicle under Vehicle Code section 670: A vehicle is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

Authority:

VEH 670

Third Holding:

Under the Williamson rule, if a general statute includes the same conduct as a special statute, the court infers that the Legislature intended that conduct to be prosecuted exclusively under the special statute. In effect, the special statute is interpreted as creating an exception to the general statute for conduct that otherwise could be prosecuted under either statute. Absent some indication of legislative intent to the contrary, the Williamson rule applies when (1) each element of the general statute corresponds to an element on the face of the special statute or (2) when it appears from the statutory context that a violation of the special statute will necessarily or commonly result in a violation of the general statute.

Authority:

People v. Murphy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 81, 86

People v. Henry (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 786, 791-792

Fourth Holding:

It is not correct to assume that the Williamson rule is inapplicable whenever the general statute contains an element not found within the four corners of the special law. Rather, the courts must consider the context in which the statutes are placed. If it appears from the entire context that a violation of the special statute will commonly result in a violation of the general statute, the Williamson rule may apply even though the elements of the general statute are not mirrored on the face of the special statute.

Authority:

People v. Murphy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 81, 8

Discretion, Racial Justice Act, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000271

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The petition for writ of habeas corpus, construed as a petition for mandate, is granted. The defendant filed a petition under the Racial Justice Act (RJA) to challenge his conviction of 25 years earlier. He petition contained statistical data showing that the prosecution charged far more Black defendants for specified offenses than White defendants in that same three-year period. He sought counsel in his petition. The trial court denied it in its entirety.

The trial court erred in ruling that the defendant had to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief to secure appointment of counsel. Rather, to obtain counsel, the Racial Justice Act requires habeas petitioners to plead a plausible allegation of a violation of the Act. Second, the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request for counsel was erroneous because regardless of whether he satisfied the minimal pleading standard governing that request, the court was unaware of its discretion to grant him leave to amend the petition to plead a plausible allegation of a Racial Justice Act violation. Lastly, the trial court erred in invoking the prohibition on successive habeas petitions because the defendant was not required to address procedural bars to relief at this initial stage of the proceedings.

First Holding:

When the issue on review is purely legal, such as the proper interpretation and application of a statute or constitutional provision, our review is de novo. Our fundamental task in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate its purpose. We begin with the text of the statute and give the words their usual meaning while construing them in light of the statutory framework as a whole. If the statutory language is unambiguous, then its plain meaning controls. If the language permits more than one reasonable interpretation, courts may consider other aids, such as the statute’s purpose, legislative history, and public policy. Discretionary decisions by the trial court are generally subject to appellate review under the abuse of discretion standard to determine if they were within the bounds of some applicable legal criteria.

Authority:

In re Lugo (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1535

People v. Carter (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 960, 967

People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 998

Second Holding:

In 2020, the Legislature enacted the Racial Justice Act. The purpose of the Act is to purge racial discrimination from our criminal justice system, and to ensure that race plays no role at all in seeking or obtaining convictions or in sentencing’. In passing the Act, the Legislature recognized that racial bias persists in our criminal justice system because courts generally only address racial bias in its most extreme and blatant forms. The Act acknowledges that all persons possess implicit biases that impact the criminal justice system, and these biases tend to disfavor people of color. The RJA added section 745, which sets forth legal standards governing a claim for relief under the Act. The Act also amended section 1473, which identifies bases for prosecuting a petition for writ of habeas corpus, to add a subdivision governing the litigation of RJA claims.

Authority:

PEN 745

PEN 1473

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 39, 43

People v. Lawson (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 990, 993

Third Holding:

In the legislation amending section 1473(e) effective January 1, 2026, the Legislature emphasized the extremely low showing a petitioner must make to obtain counsel:  “The Act’s threshold to secure counsel is extremely low, and yet courts have denied counsel to litigants raising Racial Justice Act claims far more than they have appointed counsel The Legislature reaffirms that the threshold showing for appointment of counsel does not require a prima facie showing, as correctly held by McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, and should be construed as a minimal pleading requirement.”

Authority:

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33

Fourth Holding:

If the Legislature amends or reenacts the statute without changing the interpretation placed on that statute by the courts, the Legislature is presumed to have been aware of, and acquiesced in, the courts’ construction of that statute.

Authority:

People v. Brown (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1436

Fifth Holding:

The statute now requires the appointment of counsel for an indigent habeas petitioner if the petition pleads a plausible allegation of a violation of RJA, and obligates the court to determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing, instead of a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief.

Authority:

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 39, 44

Sixth Holding:

The trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request for appointment of counsel was erroneous because the court was unaware of its discretion to permit him to amend his petition to satisfy the minimal pleading burden governing his request for counsel. If the court’s decision is influenced by an erroneous understanding of applicable law or reflects an unawareness of the full scope of its discretion, the court has not properly exercised its discretion under the law. Therefore, a discretionary order based on an application of improper criteria or incorrect legal assumptions is not an exercise of informed discretion and is subject to reversal. Simply stated, an abuse of discretion arises if the trial court based its decision on impermissible factors or on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

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

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000266

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing on the defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.75, the trial court struck some of the enhancements, but resentenced him to a life term on the balance under the Three Strikes Law as before. Under subsequently decided case law, the trial court should have considered imposing a sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. The matter must be remanded for resentencing. In addition, the abstract of judgment must be corrected to including the correct custody credits.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 provides that once the trial court has confirmed that a defendant’s current judgment includes a prior prison term enhancement that is now legally invalid, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. In so doing, the trial court is directed to follow specific instructions while resentencing. For example, it provides that resentencing pursuant to this section shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety. Resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75 shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed. In addition, when resentencing, the court shall 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

Second Holding:

The court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the defendant’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Third Holding:

In 2012, the electorate passed the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36), which amended the law to reduce the punishment prescribed for certain third strike defendants. The electorate additionally authorized persons presently serving an indeterminate term of life imprisonment imposed under the prior version of the Three Strikes law to seek resentencing under the amended penalty scheme by filing a petition for recall of sentence. If the petitioner would have qualified for a shorter sentence under the Reform Act version of the law, taking into consideration the disqualifying factors, section 1170.126 provides that he or she shall be resentenced pursuant to the Reform Act unless the court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The Act, therefore, enacted two kinds of reforms: prospective, by exempting some newly-charged defendants from an indeterminate term, and retrospective, by permitting resentencing for some already convicted

Authority:

PEN 1170.126

People v. Frierson (2017) 4 Cal.5th 225, 231

Fourth Holding:

In Guevara, the California Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a full resentencing under section 1172.75 also permitted the trial court to consider resentencing in accordance with the Reform Act. It held that, as a matter of constitutional avoidance, section 1172.75 must be construed as incorporating the public safety determination under section 1172.126 as a condition for nonserious, nonviolent felony offenders to obtain the benefit of the Reform Act during resentencing.

The court noted that the voters’ intention in passing the Reform Act, particularly by including the requirement of whether resentencing poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, was to strike a balance between reform and safety, and such an intention would be honored by interpreting section 1172.75 as incorporating section 1170.126’s public safety override. Therefore, if a defendant demonstrates eligibility under the Reform Act at a section 1172.75 resentencing, the trial court must first determine whether resentencing the defendant under the revised provisions of the Reform Act would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. If no such risk is demonstrated, the court shall resentence the defendant pursuant to the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act.

[GARY NOTE: Proposition 47 in 2014 included a definition of “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” that was much more specific and more restrictive on what qualified as such than the undefined same language contained in the Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. Because Proposition 36 was an initiative, it cannot be amended by the Legislature except as state in Proposition 36. Section 1172.75’s enactment does not qualify to amend Proposition 36. Therefore, the more restrictive definition in PC 1170.18, enacted by Proposition 47, is not the measure for determining whether relief would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Instead, the standard arising from Proposition 36 applies. Although not in conjunction with section 1172.75, the Supreme Court has previously determined that the more restrictive definition enacted in Proposition 47 did not change the broader standard enacted by Proposition 36 two years earlier. See People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347]

Authority:

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

People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347

Fifth Holding:

At the conclusion of the resentencing proceedings, the trial court indicated that it did not need credits; as a result, the number of credits on the abstract of judgment was left blank with a note indicating that “CDCR to recalculate credits.” When a trial court resentences a defendant who is currently in custody, it must calculate and credit him with all actual days spent in custody up to that time, including time in custody after the original sentencing, as well as the conduct credits ordered at the original sentencing.

Authority:

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

People v. Dean (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 391, 397

Elements of crime, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000265

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of attempted dissuasion of a witness. We reverse the attempted dissuasion of a witness conviction, and remand for resentencing. In this case, the indictment was filed in 2012, and the dissuading charge pertained to conduct that occured in 2016.

[GARY NOTE: THE STATUTE WAS AMENDED EFFECTIVE 1/1/2026, AND POST-COMPLAINT-FILING DISSUASION BY ITSELF IS NOW PUNISHABLE. I have chosen to post this victory anyway, because there are likely still cases in which the conduct occurred prior to 1/1/2026, and ex post facto prohibitions would preclude application of the amended law.]

First Holding:

Section 136.1(b)(2) makes it a crime to attempt to dissuade a victim or witness from causing a complaint to be sought and prosecuted, and assisting in the prosecution thereof.

Authority:

People v. Reynoza (2024) 15 Cal.5th 982, 986

[Gary note: remember that the statute has since been amended to outlaw the conduct that was not previously covered under section 136.1(b)(2).]

Second Holding:

The issue before the Supreme Court in Reynoza was whether section 136.1(b)(2) [Gary note: referring to the version in effect prior to the 1/1/26 amendment] required proof of an attempt to dissuade a witness from causing a charging document to be sought and prosecuted or whether the statute also independently applies where a defendant dissuades a witness only from assisting in the prosecution of a case after the charging document has already been filed.

Put another way, can the statute support a disjunctive interpretation—in which the statute independently applies where a defendant dissuades a witness from assisting in the prosecution of a case after the charging document has already been filed—or whether a conjunctive interpretation precludes a conviction under such circumstances.

The court concluded that because section 136.1(b)(2) is equally susceptible to both the conjunctive and disjunctive constructions, the rule of lenity points to an interpretation more favorable to the defendant. As a result, the statute must be read in the conjunctive construction, which does not permit a conviction to be based solely on proof of dissuasion from assisting in the prosecution of an already-filed charging document.

Consequently, because the defendant’s conduct in Reynoza amounted to, at most, dissuasion after a complaint was filed, the conviction had to be reversed. Therefore, where criminal charges have already been filed, postcharging dissuasion alone does not constitute an offense under section 136.1(b)(2).

[Gary note: Did I adequately mention that the ambiguity has been cleared up by the Legislature, effective 1/1/26, and now it is clear that section 136.1(b)(2) applies even if the only attempted dissuasion occurred after the charging document has been filed? Thus, Reynoza’s conclusion applies to only those cases in which the attempt at dissuasion occurred prior to 1/1/26.]

Authority:

People v. Reynoza (2024) 15 Cal.5th 982, 986, 987, 989, 1013

Third Holding:

[Gary note: to demonstrate the significance of choice of words, I have set forth the original language that was interpreted in Reynoza and the amended version. The only difference is the change from “and” to “or.” I have added *** on both sides of the affected word to highlight it better. Goes to show sometimes it’s just all in the wrist.]

Authority:

PEN 136.1(b)(2) PRIOR TO AMENDMENT 1/1/26: “Causing a complaint, indictment, information, or probation or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, *** and *** assisting in the prosecution thereof.”

PEN 136.1(b)(2) AS AMENDED EFFECTIVE 1/1/26: “Causing a complaint, indictment, information, or probation or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, *** or *** assisting in the prosecution thereof.”

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000253

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Insufficient evidence supported the defendant’s perjury conviction. We reverse the perjury conviction. His excess presentence custody credits must be applied to reduce his parole period. The record does not permit a determination of the precise number of excess custody credits. Because we are remanding for resentencing, we direct the trial court to calculate and determine the appropriate application of those credits.

First Holding:

A conviction under section 118(a) requires proof that the challenged statement was made under penalty of perjury, and that the sex offender registration form signed by the defendant did not contain such a declaration. Because the statutory element was not established, reversal is required.

Authority:

PEN 118(a)

Second Holding:

When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In conducting that review, we presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence. Reversal for insufficient evidence is warranted only where it appears that, under no hypothesis whatsoever, is there sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

Authority:

People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053

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

Third Holding:

Section 118(a) provides that a person commits perjury when he or she certifies under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter that he or she knows to be false. Proof that the false statement was made under penalty of perjury is therefore an essential element of the offense. Here, the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) Form 8102S signed by the defendant states: “I certify the information provided is true and accurate. I understand failure to comply with the registration requirements, providing false information on the form, or failing to provide accurate information is punishable as a criminal offense.” The form does not state that the certification is made under penalty of perjury. Because the prosecution failed to establish this essential statutory element, the evidence is insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for perjury under section 118(a). Accordingly, the conviction on that count must be reversed, and the matter remanded for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Tafoya (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 868, 902

Fourth Holding:

Section 2900.5 requires that all days a defendant spends in custody—including time in jail or a rehabilitation facility—be credited against the defendant’s term of imprisonment, which expressly includes any period of parole prior to discharge. By the time the defendant was sentenced, he had already served enough days in custody to qualify for release on parole.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

In re Ballard (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 647, 650

Fifth Holding:

The parties and trial court disagreed on how to calculate the time expected to complete a 16-month term against which the known number of days in custody would apply, but approaches proposed are flawed. Section 7(b)(13) defines a “month” as a “calendar month.” A calendar month is not a fixed number of days, but rather the space of time from any day of any such month to the corresponding day of the next, and may therefore vary in length. Consequently, a sentence expressed in months cannot be converted into a predetermined number of days by multiplying months by 30, nor by fractionalizing a year into parts. Instead, the proper calculation depends on the defendant’s actual dates of incarceration and release. Because the record does not disclose the precise date of the defendant’s incarceration, we cannot determine the exact number of days constituting his 16-month term. Accordingly, this issue must be remanded for the trial court to calculate his sentence based on his actual custodial dates and to apply any excess custody credits to reduce his parole period as required by section 2900.5

Authority:

PEN 7(b)(13)

In re Kemper (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 434, 439, fn. 2

People v. Superior Court (J.C. Penney Corp., Inc.) (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 376, 414, fn. 23 [a three-month statutory period may range from 89 to 92 days depending on the specific dates involved]

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)