Tag Archives: Unauthorized sentence

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 001063

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by not staying the sentence on the felon in possession conviction (count 3) in Case B because the offense was based on the same act or course of conduct underlying the defendant’s hotel burglary conviction (count 1) for which the court imposed a six-year term. As we are remanding for a full resentencing, the parties may address their issues in the trial court with the accuracy of the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

Section 1237.5 provides that an appeal may not be taken after a plea of guilty or no contest unless the defendant has filed a statement showing reasonable grounds for appeal and the trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause.

Courts have recognized two exceptions to this certificate requirement. A certificate is not required for: (1) issues involving a search and seizure, the validity of which was contested under section 1538.5, and (2) issues regarding proceedings held after the plea for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed.

Regarding this latter category, the the critical inquiry is whether a challenge to the sentence is in substance a challenge to the validity of the plea, thus rendering the appeal subject to the requirements of section 1237.5. The parties to a plea agreement are free to make any lawful bargain they choose, and the exact bargain they make affects whether a subsequent appeal, in substance, is an attack on the validity of the plea.

Authority:

PEN 1237.5

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780, 781-782, 785

Second Holding:

Where a defendant has agreed to a specified sentence in return for his or her plea, the defendant must obtain a certificate of probable cause to challenge the trial court’s imposition of that exact sentence on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 73, 78 [one who agreed to a specific sentence in return for his plea must obtain a certificate of probable cause in order to claim on appeal that the agreed sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment]

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295 [defendants are estopped from complaining of sentences to which they agreed]

Third Holding:

But where a defendant negotiates a plea term which provides for a maximum sentence, rather than a specified sentence, which necessarily contemplates further adversary proceedings in which the trial court must exercise its discretion to determine the appropriate sentence within the constraints of the bargain, a certificate of probable cause is not required because, in substance, the defendant’s appeal of the selected sentence is not an attack upon the plea itself.

Authority:

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 785

Fourth Holding:

The trial court erred by not staying the sentence on the felon in possession conviction (count 3) in Case B because the offense was based on the same act or course of conduct underlying the defendant’s hotel burglary conviction (count 1) for which the court imposed a six-year term.

The defendant was convicted of burglary by taking the firearm and then of possessing the firearm after she took it. Under these circumstances, there is a course of conduct pursuant to one criminal objective—to possess the firearm by stealing it from the hotel room—and based on that defendant cannot be punished for both offenses under section 654.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Atencio (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1239, 1239 [sec. 654 precluded punishment for both grand theft of a firearm and being a felon in possession of the same firearm]

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468 [recognizing § 654 has been held to preclude punishment for both burglary and theft where the burglary is based on an entry with intent to commit that theft]

Fifth Holding:

Section 654 provides that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. At its simplest, section 654 proscribes double punishment for multiple violations of the Penal Code based on the same act or omission.

Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one. Previously, trial courts were required to impose the longest possible term when section 654 applied. In January 2022, the statute was amended to provide courts with discretion to select either the greater or the lesser term and stay execution of the remaining term.

(Gary note, of marginal historical interest at best–noted also in my summary of case 000855: Prior to 1998, Penal Code section 654 had exactly the same language as it currently has, and a court was free to impose sentence on any one of the counts to which section 654 applied. See People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1. In response to that Supreme Court decision, the Legislature amended section 654 to require that the court impose sentence on the count containing the longest potential term. Through AB 518, effective 1/1/2022, the Legislature restored section 654 to its former language, thus restoring to the court the discretion to choose on which count punishment should be imposed and executed. Now you know.)

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

People v. Atencio (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1239, 1243

People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1208

Sixth Holding:

A sentence in violation of section 654 is an unauthorized sentence that generally may be corrected on appeal without an objection by the defendant in the trial court. This general rule, however, is subject to an exception. Where a defendant has pleaded guilty in return for a specified sentence, appellate courts will not find error even though the trial court acted in excess of jurisdiction in reaching that figure, so long as the trial court did not lack fundamental jurisdiction. The exception does not preclude defendant from raising section 654 on appeal where the plea does not have the defendant agreeing to a specific term.

Authority:

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.412(b) [By agreeing to a specified term in prison personally and by counsel, a defendant who is sentenced to that term or a shorter one abandons any claim that a component of the sentence violates section 654’s prohibition of double punishment, unless that claim is asserted at the time the agreement is recited on the record]

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295

Seventh Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing, a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances. Upon remand, the trial court may revisit all of its sentencing choices in formulating an aggregate term, and must impose a sentence for each of defendant’s convictions.

Authority:

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

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

Eighth Holding:

Both parties agree that the abstract of judgment contains errors. They do not necessarily agree on the errors. Because we are remanding the case for a full resentencing hearing, which will necessitate a new abstract of judgment, we need not address the parties’ contentions regarding alleged errors in the current abstract. The parties may address any arguments regarding the correct amount of the fees and fines to the trial court during the resentencing hearing.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [an abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction and does not control if it differs from the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment]

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

Case 001052

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

I apologize for the length of the summary.  

First Holding:

In assessing a claim of insufficient evidence, we examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

We do not reweigh the evidence or revisit credibility issues, but rather presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact that could reasonably be deduced from the evidence. We must accept all logical inferences that the jury may have drawn from circumstantial evidence. If the circumstances reasonably justify the findings made by the trier of fact, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.

Authority:

People v. Martinez (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1329

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

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

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

Second Holding:

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

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

Authority:

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

Third Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

Fourth Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

Fifth Holding:

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

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

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

Authority:

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

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

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

Sixth Holding:

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

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

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

Authority:

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

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

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

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

Seventh Holding:

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

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

Authority:

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

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

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

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

Eighth Holding:

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

Authority:

PEN 977(b)(1)

Ninth Holding:

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

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

Authority:

PEN 977

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

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

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

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

Tenth Holding:

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

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

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

Authority:

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

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

Eleventh Holding:

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

Authority:

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

Twelfth Holding:

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

Authority:

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

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

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

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

Thirteenth Holding:

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

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

Authority:

PEN 186.22(g)

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

Fourteenth Holding:

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

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


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

Authority:

PEN 1207

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

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

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

Fifteenth Holding:

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

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

Authority:

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

Sixteenth Holding:

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

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

Authority:

PEN 1465.8

GOV 70373

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

Seventeenth Holding:

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

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

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

Authority:

PEN 2933.1

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

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

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

Due process, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 001048

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in resentencing the defendant in his absence (without a valid waiver) in response to a letter from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) indicating an error in the sentencing.

First Holding:

CDCR notified the trial court of errors in sentencing. The court scheduled a resentencing hearing, but did not notify appellant in advance of this hearing. At the hearing, the court explained that the hearing to correct the errors in sentencing, that the prior abstract was incorrect, that the issue concerned improper imposition of sentence on multiple enhancements, and that it would resentence the defendant as if the court had never sentenced him before.

Defense counsel submitted without argument. The court then resentenced appellant to basically the same sentence as before, with the only change being that the indeterminate term of 15 years to life for the section 186.22 gang enhancement was stayed.

The defendant was not present at this hearing and had not properly waived his presence. A criminal defendant’s right to be personally present at trial is guaranteed under the federal Constitution by the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as by section 15 of article I of the California Constitution and by sections 977 and 1043.

Authority:

U.S. Const., Sixth Amend. and Fourteenth Amend.

Calif. Const., art. I

PEN 977

PEN 1043

People v. Concepcion (2008) 45 Cal.4th 77, 81

Second Holding:

This right to be present extends to all critical stages of the criminal prosecution and includes sentencing and resentencing. The right to be present may be waived. However, this waiver must be expressly authorized by the defendant, or the defendant’s counsel must represent to the court the defendant has so waived.

Authority:

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 347–348

Third Holding:

The trial court clearly stated at the start of the hearing that it would resentence appellant as if we never sentenced him before. In a full resentencing, the court would have the option to revisit other portions of the sentence, including the decision to strike the defendant’s other prior strike conviction or make findings in the sentencing triad based on the mitigating circumstances. As in Cutting, we find the court erred in sentencing the defendant in his absence and without a valid waiver of his right to be present.

Authority:

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 348

Fourth Holding:

On the limited record before us, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that his presence at the hearing would not have affected the outcome. The sentence is vacated, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 350 [reversing for a full resentencing under Chapman, noting that “the trial court may or may not have chosen to believe what [the defendant] might have said” regarding mitigating circumstances]

People v. Garcia (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 475, 484 [a defendant’s postconviction behavior and other possible developments are relevant to the trial court’s consideration upon resentencing], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 338, fn. 4

Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 001045

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to decline to award conduct credit on two of the counts, because their offenses were not ineligible for conduct credit at the time they were committed. Further, it was error to issue a no-visitation order on behalf of a person who is no longer a minor.

First Holding:

As a result of amendments to the One Strike Law in 2006 (section 667.61) persons serving an indeterminate sentence under that section are not entitled to credit for time served beyond the actual days they were in custody. There is no reduction for good behavior or performing work.

Although section 667.61 as amended makes no mention of conduct credit, the amendment deleted a previous reference that limited the conduct credit to 15% of the sentence imposed. The legislative history does make it abundantly clear that the intent was to eliminate conduct credit for such persons.

Authority:

Penal Code section 667.61

People v. Dearborne (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 250, 267-268

People v. Adams (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 170, 182

Second Holding:

The amendment cannot be applied retroactively. Both the federal and the California Constitutions prohibit ex post facto laws. The federal and California ex post facto clauses do not just bar retroactively increased prison terms. They also prohibit any law that retroactively disadvantages the offender by increasing the punishment for crimes committed before the law’s enactment.

Consequently, the ex post facto clauses prohibit any law that constricts the inmate’s opportunity to earn early release and thereby makes more onerous the punishment for crimes committed before its enactment. As it is unclear whether the offenses described in two of the counts were committed before or after the amendment’s effective z People (September 20, 2006, as urgency legislation), conduct credit cannot be denied on those counts.

Authority:

U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 10, cl. 1

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 9

People v. Rojas (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1306

Weaver v. Graham (1981) 450 U.S. 24, 35-36

People v. Flores (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1182 [agreeing that a change in law ending the defendant’s ability to earn good conduct credit violated the proscription against ex post facto laws]

Third Holding:

It is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove to the jury that the charged offenses occurred on or after the effective date of the statute providing for the defendant’s punishment. Consequently, when the evidence at trial does not establish that fact, the defendant is entitled to be sentenced under the formerly applicable statutes.

Authority:

People v. Hiscox (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 253, 256, 261 [Verdicts cannot be deemed sufficient to establish the z People of the offenses unless the evidence leaves no reasonable doubt that the underlying charges pertained to events occurred on or after the z People of the punishment’s enactment]

Fourth Holding:

Under section 1202.5, if a defendant is sentenced to prison for committing a lewd act under section 288, and the victim is a child under the age of 18 years, the court shall prohibit all visitation between the defendant and the child victim.

As this section authorizes prohibitions against visitation with a child victim, it has been interpreted to apply only to victims who are under the age of 18 at the time of the contemplated visitation. Here, the victim was in her 20s at the time of sentencing, and the court therefore lacked authority to include her in the no-visitation order.

Authority:

PEN 1202.05

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1323

Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Plea bargains, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 001044

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to impose a term of 16 months in jail as a condition of probation. The matter must be remanded for resentencing, and for the court to determine the issue of the amount of the restitution fine in light of Kopp.

First Holding:

The trial court imposed a jail term of 16 months as a condition of probation because he had missed his appointment with his probation officer and failed to appear at the sentencing hearing. However, section 19.2 provides that, except in situations not here relevant, in no case shall any person sentenced to confinement in a county or city jail, as a condition of probation upon conviction of either a felony or a misdemeanor, be committed for a period in excess of one year.

Authority:

PEN 19.2

Second Holding:

Although Bailey held that the one-year limit may be waived by the defendant, Bailey is distinguishable because the defendant Bailey entered a knowing and intelligent waiver. There is no evidence here that the defendant was informed of the 12-month limit under section 19.2, and his agreement to the longer term was therefore not a knowing and intelligent waiver.

Authority:

People v. Bailey (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 828, 831

People v. Arnold (2004) 33 Cal.4th 294, 308 [regarding waiver of credit for time served, the gravamen of whether such a waiver is knowing and intelligent is whether the defendant understood he was relinquishing or giving up custody credits to which he was otherwise entitled under section 2900.5]

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166 [criminal defendant’s waiver of right to jury trial may not be accepted by the court unless it is knowing and intelligent, that is, made with a full awareness both of the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it]

Third Holding:

On remand, the defendant may challenge the imposition of any fine as constitutionally excessive under the federal and state constitutions. As to ancillary costs, if requested by the defendat, the trial court shall consider his inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8(a)(1) or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1), allowing the parties to present any relevant evidence or argument on the matter.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 8th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 30-31

Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 001042

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in not staying the sentence under section 654 for one of the two counts. The defendant’s sentence is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing. On remand, the trial court shall select a sentence to stay execution of pursuant to section 654.

First Holding:

Where, as here, probation is revoked after imposition of sentence was previously suspended, a court must determine all matters necessary for sentencing, including whether section 654 applies.

Authority:

Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.435(b)(1), 4.433(c)(3), 4.424

Second Holding:

Section 654 precludes multiple punishment where an act or course of conduct violates more than one criminal statute but a defendant has only a single intent and objective. When section 654 applies, the trial court has the discretion to select which statute to punish the defendant under and must stay execution of the other, duplicative sentences.

Authority:

People v. McCoy (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s explicit or implicit factual findings on section 654 issues for substantial evidence. The failure of defendant to object on this basis in the trial court does not forfeit the issue on appeal.

Authority:

People v. McCoy (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338

Fourth Holding:

The record shows that the defendant removed an item from a business and was apprehended a short distance away from that business with the item still in his possession. At defendant’s sentencing hearing, the trial court indicated it was pretty obvious that defendant stole the item for the purpose of obtaining possession of it and then using it to support his drug habit. Under these circumstances, section 654 prohibits defendant from being punished for both theft and possession.

Authority:

People v. Allen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 846, 866-867

In re Adams (1975) 14 Cal.3d 629, 634

Fifth Holding:

Where, as here, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and the defendant who was granted probation as part of a plea bargain violates that probation, subsequent sentencing is not limited by the terms of the original plea.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 934

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Jury trial, Pleading, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 001032

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, it was error for the court to impose a term of prison under section 12022.53(d), an enhancement that was not pleaded or proved on the count for which it was imposed. It was also error for the court not to consider the impact of AB 333’s amendments on criminal gang activity laws on the defendant’s sentence.

First Holding:

Section 12022.53(d) provides that a person who, in the commission of a felony specified in section 246(a), or section 26100(c) or (d), personally and intentionally discharges a firearm and proximately causes great bodily injury, as defined in section 12022.7, or death, to a person other than an accomplice, shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to life.

Section 12022.53(e)(1) provides that the enhancements provided in this section shall apply to any person who is a principal in the commission of an offense if both of the following are pled and proved:

(A) The person violated subdivision (b) of Section 186.22.

(B) Any principal in the offense committed any act specified in subdivision (b), (c), or (d).

In other words, a firearm enhancement under section 12022.53(e)(1) imposes vicarious liability for another’s personal use of a firearm on aiders and abettors who commit crimes in participation with a criminal street gang.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53

People v. Garcia (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1166, 1171

Second Holding:

Here, the vicarious gang-related firearm enhancement under section 12022.53(d) and (e)(1) was alleged as to count 1. The jury found that enhancement true, but it made no finding defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm during the commission of the offense proximately causing GBI or death to a nonaccomplice as required under section 12022.53(d). The verdict form reflects the jury found true the vicarious gang-related firearm enhancement under section 12022.53(e)(1), but does not include a finding regarding the personal and intentional discharge firearm enhancement under section 12022.53(d). This is fatal to imposition of a firearm enhancement under section 12022.53(d).

Further, the trial court dismissed the gang enhancement that was charged, which resulted in section 12022.53(e) being inapplicable. The section 12022.53(d) firearm enhancement must be stricken.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53

Third Holding:

On resentencing, the prosecution asked that if the trial court was not going to reimpose the gang enhancement, that it dismiss the enhancement under AB 333, which would permit the prosecution to retry the gang enhancement to prove that it was valid under the AB 333 amendments. The court declined to decide the retroactivity of AB 333, and instead dismissed it in the interest of justice under section 1385.

By declining to make a decision about the retroactive application of AB 333, the trial court potentially deprived the People of their opportunity to retry the gang enhancement, and the court did not adequately consider whether AB 333 would affect the imposition of the gang-related vicarious firearm enhancement. Without considering the full effect of AB 333, the court exercised less than fully informed sentencing discretion. This was an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 [a court that is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no more exercise informed discretion than one whose sentence is or may have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant’s record]

Fourth Holding:

We remand for a full resentencing. As the firearm enhancement under section 12022.53(d) was not found true by the jury and was unlawfully imposed, it shall be stricken. Given this changed circumstance, resentencing is required to allow the trial court to exercise its sentencing discretion anew.

When a case is remanded for resentencing by an appellate court, the trial court is entitled to consider the entire sentencing scheme. Not limited to merely striking illegal portions, the trial court may reconsider all sentencing choices. This rule is justified because an aggregate prison term is not a series of separate independent terms, but one term made up of interdependent components. The invalidity of one component infects the entire scheme.

Moreover, because AB 333 applies retroactively, the trial court must apply these changes in the law and consider, in the first instance, whether the jury’s gang enhancement finding is viable, and, if not, the People may elect to retry the enhancement.

In the absence of the gang enhancement, the gang-related vicarious firearm enhancement under section 12022.53(d), (e)(1) cannot be imposed as it is predicated on a pled and proven section 186.22(b) gang enhancement.

(Gary note: I was a bit confused by the presence of this observation, because it appeared to me that the appellate court stated that the jury verdict failed to make a finding of personal use by a participant; I cite the principle here, but I was surprised to see it in this case. Is the court saying that the prosecution gets another opportunity to try the 12022.53(d) enhancement that was missing a vital component? I may have misread something–the opinion dealt with a very complicated set of circumstances, peculiar to this case, that arose in the resentencing)

Authority:

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

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

People v. Hill (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 831, 834

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 668, 669–670 [by requiring proof that benefit to gang was more than reputational, AB 333 added a new element to the enhancement; prosecution was entitled to an opportunity to retry the gang enhancement upon remand]

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 746–747 [where newly required elements were never tried to jury, remedy is to remand and give the People an opportunity to retry affected charges]

Fifth Holding:

Upon resentencing, subject to the principles articulated in Henderson and its progeny, the trial court may not impose a greater aggregate sentence than that imposed at the resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Henderson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 482, 495–497

People v. Ali (1967) 66 Cal.2d 277, 281

People v. Hanson (2000) 23 Cal.4th 355, 357

People v. Trammel (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 415, 434

People v. Serrato (1973) 9 Cal.3d 753, 763–764, [exception to Henderson applies only to unauthorized sentences that were unlawfully lenient to the detriment of the People]

Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 001019

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because their was no requisite relationship between the defendant and the victim, it was error for the court to impose a protective order.

First Holding:

Section 136.2(i)(1) and (i)(2) provide in relevant part that when a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence, as defined in Penal Code section 13700 or in Family Code section 6211, the court, at the time of sentencing, shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with a victim or percipient witness of the crime.

Authority:

PEN 136.2(i)

Second Holding:

Penal Code section 13700 defines domestic violence to mean, in relevant part, abuse committed against an adult or a minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the suspect has had a child or is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship.

Authority:

PEN 13700

Third Holding:

Family Code section 6211 defines domestic violence to mean, in relevant part, abuse perpetrated against:

(a) A spouse or former spouse;

(b) A cohabitant or former cohabitant;

(c) A person with whom the respondent is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship;

(d) A person with whom the respondent has had a child;

(e) A child of a party or a child who is the subject of an action under the Uniform Parentage Act, where the presumption applies that the male parent is the father of the child to be protected; or

(f) Any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree.

Authority:

FAM 6211

Fourth Holding:

The defendant did not have a relationship with the victim within the meaning of either Penal Code section 13700 or Family Code section 6211. Nor did the defendant’s crimes fall within any of the other offenses enumerated in section 136.2(i), which lists other qualifying offenses including human trafficking, specified sex offenses, and participation in criminal street gang.

Therefore, the post-conviction protective order was unauthorized under section 136.2(i). It must be vacated.

Authority:

People v. Beckemeyer (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 461, 466

People v. Delarosarauda (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 205, 212

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 001016

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to issue protective orders, because the defendant was not convicted of a qualifying offense, and the person for whose benefit order was issued was not a victim of the defendant’s crime.

First Holding:

Section 136.2(i)(1) provides authority for the imposition of postconviction protective orders where a defendant is convicted of a qualifying domestic violence offense.

Authority:

PEN 136.2(i)(1)

People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 901

Second Holding:

Domestic violence is abuse committed against, among other categories of victims, a person with whom the defendant had a dating relationship. Domestic violence is abuse perpetrated against (a) a spouse or former spouse[; (b) a cohabitant or former cohabitant; (c) a person with whom the respondent is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship; (d) a person with whom the respondent has had a child; (e) [a] child of a party; or (f) any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree.

“Abuse” is the intentional or reckless causing or attempting to cause bodily injury, or placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to himself or herself, or another. Section 136(3) defines “victim” as any natural person with respect to whom there is reason to believe that any crime as defined under the laws of this state or any other statute or of the United States is being or has been perpetrated or attempted to be perpetrated.

Thus, a postconviction protective order under section 136.2(i)(1) is authorized if: (1) the defendant has been convicted of one (or more) of the statutorily enumerated crimes; and (2) the protected person qualifies as a victim of said crime(s).

Authority:

PEN 13700

FAM 6211

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 139

People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 237

Third Holding:

Courts do not have inherent authority to issue a criminal protective order absent a statute authorizing such an order.

Authority:

People v. Corrales (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 283, 286-287

Fourth Holding:

The defendant was not convicted of a domestic violence or other offense that authorized the court to issue a protective order under section 136.2(i)(1). His conviction did not justify a protective order. Nor was the protected person a victim of his crime.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 901 [where the defendant’s convictions are not domestic violence offenses, the court does not have statutory authority to impose a postconviction protective order, and it must be stricken]

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 648 [the Legislature amended section 136.2(i)(1), in 2018 to specify that a victim is only a victim of the crime the defendant was convicted of committing]

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 143 [if there is no reason to believe that an enumerated section 136.2(i)(1) offense for which the defendant was convicted is being or has been perpetrated or attempted to be perpetrated against a particular person, that person is not a victim and may not seek, or be named as protected party by, a protective order under section 136.2(i)(1)]

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 001004

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal following remand from the defendant’s first appeal, the trial court failed to impose sentence on several counts whose punishment it stayed under section 654. It failed to impose a fine on a fifth count, and it improperly reimposed several other fines.

First Holding:

The court’s failure to pronounce sentence on some of the counts constitutes an unauthorized sentence. When a trial court determines that section 654 applies, the court must impose sentence on every count but stay execution as necessary to implement section 654. This procedure also applies when one of the sentences pertains to a misdemeanor conviction.

Authority:

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1472

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 380

Second Holding:

The defendant’s conviction under Vehicle Code section 23152(a) (driving under the influence) requires a fine, but the court failed to impose a fine.

Authority:

VEH 23536(a)

VEH 23600

People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 962 [defining an unauthorized sentence as one that cannot lawfully be imposed under any circumstances in a particular case]

Third Holding:

Having concluded that the trial court’s failure to impose sentences and to impose a fine resulted in an unauthorized sentence, we also conclude that remand is required to correct the errors. In other cases, we have exercised our authority under section 1260 to modify judgments in sentencing matters where remand would be futile or unnecessary because the record clearly indicated how the trial court would exercise its sentencing discretion.

Here, however, the trial court did not impose sentences on counts two, four, seven, and nine or the firearm enhancement associated with count two, or impose a fine on count six, either at the original sentencing or at the section 1172.75 resentencing. Given the range of sentencing options for the omitted counts and enhancement and the permissible range of the fine on count six, the record does not clearly indicate what sentences or fine the court would have imposed. Accordingly, remand is required.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1894, 1896

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473

Fourth Holding:

We disagree with the People that on remand, the defendant is entitled to a full resentencing. Section 1260 grants appellate courts the authority to order limited remands for further proceedings that may be appropriate under the circumstances. In resentencing the defendant in 2025, the trial court considered the relevant factors in formulating a sentence it deemed appropriate based on his culpability, criminal history, and his risk of future dangerousness.

The two limited tasks on remand (imposing and staying sentences on the omitted counts that the court had already indicated it intended to stay and imposing a fine on count six) will not alter the overall sentencing scheme the trial court deemed appropriate such that resentencing on all nine counts would be required.

For these reasons, we order a limited remand.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Wilson (2024) 16 Cal.5th 874, 948-949

People v. Stevens (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1452, 1456 [Correcting a sentencing error by excising only the flawed component of the sentence from the aggregate term may be appropriate in some contexts where the interests of justice and judicial economy do not require a restructuring of the entire sentencing format]

Fifth Holding:

The court erred in reimposing and staying several fees, despite making an implied finding that the defendant did not have an ability to pay. Equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8(a)(1) or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1).

Neither of the applicable statutes nor Kopp allows a trial court to impose then stay the court operations fee or the court facilities fee after it finds a defendant indigent. Once it found the defendant lacked the ability to pay, the court’s option was to not impose the fees.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1

Sixth Holding:

The statutes authorizing certain other fees that were previously imposed have since been repealed and are now unenforceable and uncollectible. Any portion of a judgment imposing those fees must be vacated.

Authority:

GOV 6111(a)

Fines and fees, Gary Musings, Sentencing

Case 001000

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The sentence on the defendant’s misdemeanor counts should have been stayed under section 654 as part of the same conduct as the felony.

First Holding:

Under rule 4.412(b), a defendant is estopped from challenging his or her sentence based on section 654’s prohibition of double punishment where the defendant agreed to a specified term in prison or county jail and is sentenced to that term or a shorter one. Rule 4.412(b) codifies one of the applications of the case law rule that defendants are estopped from complaining of sentences to which they agreed.

But in this case, the defendant did not expressly agree to any sentencing irregularity in exchange for a benefit. The record shows that it was an open plea, meaning that no promises were made as to his sentence. The defendant agreed that he could be sentenced to up to four years in one case and six years in the other, but those terms represented the maximum permitted for the offenses regardless of any plea agreementg. He faced anything up to and including the maximum term allowed.

Authority:

PEN 654

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.412(b)

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295

People v. Velasquez (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 503

People v. Superior Court (Sanchez) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 567, 574–575

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 156

People v. Henderson (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 785, 788 [an open plea is one under which there is no promise about the nature or duration of the defendant’s sentence]

Second Holding (and Gary Musings):

In Jones, the defendant agreed to plead no contest to all charges and admit the enhancement allegations in exchange for a lid below the maximum term in sentencing. The lid was not the maximum exposure Jones would otherwise face absent the plea agreement. Rather, it restricted the sentence the trial court could impose but to a term less than Jones’s maximum exposure. It was not an open plea.

In Cole, the defendant pleaded guilty on the condition that his sentence would not exceed 25 years to life, whereas he was exposed to a term of 75 years to life but for the agreed lid. It, too, was not an open plea.

Thus, in Jones and Cole, the estoppel principle described in Hester applied, because the defendants were not permitted to complain on appeal about sentences that were limited by the terms of their pleas to something lower than the maximum that could have been imposed in the absence of their agreements.

That is not the case here, as the agreement did not specify a lid. There was simply a recognition of the maximum possible sentence that could be imposed for each count, regardless of any agreement.

(Gary note: In Jones and Cole, as stated in Jones, had they a problem with their sentences, they should have attempted to withdraw their pleas in the trial court when the sentences were imposed. Though not expressed, implicit in the court’s reliance on Cole and Jones as examples where estoppel applies is the recognition that an appeal from a denied motion to withdraw a plea requires a certificate of probable cause. For a pretty good discussion of certificates of probable cause, I have included Buttram in the Authority listed below, but it was not cited by or discussed in the opinion.

(If your client wishes to appeal after entering a plea agreement of any sort, you need to research whether a certificate of probable cause is required. If there is any chance at all that the appeal would undermine any of the terms of the plea agreement, a certificate is likely required. A common myth is that a certificate is not required to appeal any errors alleged to have occurred after the plea. Don’t fall for it. Instead, the focus is on the plea agreement itself. And the requirement of a certificate of probable cause is separate from the doctrine of estoppel addressed in this opinion. In Jones, there was no disagreement that omission of the application of section 654 created an unauthorized sentence. The obstacle was that the defendant was estopped from raising the issue because of his agreement.

(Although they’re all important, one must-read case is People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, which I’ve listed below but was not cited by the court here. The defendant pleaded guilty with an agreement on the sentence. Unbeknownst to him at the time of his own sentencing, his co-defendants apparently received significantly lower sentences. He appealed, claiming his sentence was disproportionate. Because he had not sought and been issued a certificate of probable cause, the Supreme Court concluded his appeal should have been dismissed. His challenge to his sentence, even on constitutional grounds, was a challenge to his plea, and thus a certificate was required.

(Also note that, under section 1237.5(a), a certificate of probable cause can be issued only where the application for a certificate shows “reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings.”

(Although it is described as a certificate of probable cause, “it is not the trial court’s responsibility to determine if there was error in the proceedings. The trial court’s sole objective is to eliminate those appeals having no possible legal basis by refusing to issue a certificate of probable cause. See People v. Holland (1978) 23 Cal.3d 77, 84, quoting People v. Warburton (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 815, 819. Holland also reminds us (in footnote 6) that a petition for writ of mandate is the means by which one may challenge a denial of an application for certificate of probable cause. Neither Holland nor Warburton were cited in the opinion, because a certificate of probable cause was not even an issue in the case.

(Until 2022, if it appeared to the clerk of the superior court that a notice of appeal from a guilty plea required a certificate of probable cause, the clerk would mark the notice received but inoperable. To get past that hurdle, the notice would have to reflect that it is a challenge to the sentence and was not a challenge to the plea (or that it was an appeal from a guilty plea after a denial of a motion to suppress evidence on search and seizure grounds under section 1538.5. Rule 8.304(b) was amended effective 1/1/22, and now provides that “If the defendant does not file the written statement required by Penal Code section 1237.5 or the superior court denies a certificate of probable cause, the appeal will be limited to issues that do not require a certificate of probable cause.” That was a vast improvement, from our defense perspective, because at least the notice of appeal initiated an appeal, albeit only on grounds not requiring a certificate.

(All of this Gary note is triggered by the court’s comment in Jones, cited by this court as distinguishable, that a defendant facing a 654 problem on an agreed-upon sentence must deal with it at the trial court level by moving to withdraw his or her plea timely. So this Gary note is really dealing with sub-sub-nonissues that I think you should nonetheless be aware of. Think of this lengthy aside as getting more for your money. Money? We ain’t got no money! We don’t need no money. You don’t have to show me any stinking money. Oops, sorry, got carried away a bit there.)

Authority:

People v. Jones (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 735, 739

People v. Cole (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 850, 856-858

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290,

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773,

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68

People v. Holland (1978) 23 Cal.3d 77, 84

People v. Warburton (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 815, 819

Third Holding:

Section 654 precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one. If, on the other hand, defendant harbored multiple criminal objectives, which were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for each statutory violation committed in pursuit of each objective, “even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Assad (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 187, 200

People v. Rodriguez (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005

Fourth Holding:

As there was no discussion at sentencing of section 654, we must affirm the sentence if an implied finding that section 654 does not apply is supported by substantial evidence. The record demonstrate that the defendant committed the offenses the misdemeanor cases with the objective to steal the contents of his victims’ vehicles. There is no evidence to support a finding that he formed a separate intent and objective for each offense for which he was sentenced. Accordingly, the sentences on the misdemeanor counts must be stayed.

Authority:

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 730–731

People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 162

Fifth Holding:

Separate restitution fines may be imposed for each case that are not consolidated, even if resolved jointly by plea bargain. Defendants who commit multiple crimes, and are consequently before the court in multiple cases when their pleas are taken, are properly subject to multiple fines. This straightforward application of the requirement that fines be imposed in every case serves the purpose of the state Restitution Fund, as well as the rehabilitative and deterrent functions of restitution fines.

Authority:

People v. Soria (2010) 48 Cal.4th 58, 64-66

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000990

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court did not orally pronounce any fines or fees at sentencing, but the minute order and abstract of judgment reflect the imposition of a restitution fine, a stayed parole revocation fine, a court operations assessment, and a criminal conviction assessment. The abstract of judgment must be corrected.

First Holding:

Where there is a discrepancy between the oral imposition of sentence on the one hand and the minutes and abstract of judgment on the other, the oral judgment controls. An abstract of judgment must be corrected if it does not reflect the oral judgment accurately.

Authority:

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

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385, 387-389

Second Holding:

The court did not orally pronounce any fines or fees at sentencing, but the minute order and abstract of judgment reflect the imposition of a $300 restitution fine, a $300 stayed parole revocation fine, a $40 court operations assessment, and a $30 criminal conviction assessment.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4

PEN 1202.45

PEN 1465.8

GOV 70373

Third Holding:

We decline to remand the matter because no party objected to the trial court’s failure to impose fines and fees at sentencing. All claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices’ raised for the first time on appeal are not subject to review. Appellate courts may not correct a discretionary sentencing choice if the People failed to object at sentencing.

A restitution fine under section 1202.4 is a discretionary sentencing choice. And by waiving any objection to the restitution fine, the People also effectively waive any objection to the parole revocation fine, because the parole revocation fine must match the restitution fine as a matter of law.

As to the court operations assessment and the criminal conviction assessment, neither party asserts that the trial court’s failure to impose these fees was unauthorized or reflects an obvious legal error at sentencing that is correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings.

Absent such an argument, we decline to disturb the judgment.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852-853

People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1153

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

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [sentence is unauthorized if it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case]

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 30 [equal protection principles permit trial courts to waive fees under sec. 1465.8 and Gov. Code, sec. 70373, upon request, where defendant lacks ability to pay]

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE