Tag Archives: Unauthorized sentence

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case 000978

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to impose the normal base term for several of his offenses in addition to the life terms under the Three Strikes law for those same offenses. The court failed to update the credit for time served. And the abstract of judgment misidentifies a second degree robbery as in the first degree, and must be corrected.

First Holding:

Where, as here, a defendant’s current sentence includes prison prior term enhancements rendered invalid under section 1172.75(a), the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely the striking of newly invalid enhancements.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

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

Second Holding:

The Three Strikes law is a penalty provision, not an enhancement. It is not an enhancement because it does not add an additional term of imprisonment to the base term. Instead, it provides for an alternate sentence (25 years to life) when it is proven that the defendant has suffered the requisite number of convictions, prior and present. (At least two prior serious felony convictions, and the current offense being a qualifying offense for invocation of Third Strike sentencing.)

Authority:

People v. Williams (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 733, 744

Third Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

When a trial court pronounces an unauthorized sentence, the sentence may be set aside and is no bar to the imposition of a proper judgment thereafter, even though it is more severe than the original unauthorized pronouncement.

Authority:

People v. Vizcarra (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 422, 431–432

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1036, fn. 21

Fifth Holding:

The trial court erred in failing to update his presentence credits at the time of resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

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

Sixth Holding:

The amended abstract of judgment incorrectly lists the defendant’s conviction in count 3 as one for first degree robbery, when in fact the conviction should be identified as one for second degree robbery. The abstract of judgment must be corrected.

(Gary note: Though the court discussed the need for amending the abstract of judgment for various reasons through the opinion, it did not cite authority for its order that it be corrected. There is plenty of authority available, of course. I have set out some cases the court could have drawn from, but there are undoubtedly many others.)

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, Jurisdiction, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000977

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals the no-contact and stay-away orders imposed by the trial court as part of his prison sentence and as a condition of his parole following his conviction for petty theft and making criminal threats.

The Attorney General argues the defendant forfeited this issue by failing to object to the orders in the trial court.

We disagree and strike the no-contact and stay-away orders because the trial court lacked authority to issue them and otherwise affirm the judgment.

First Holding:

Normally, only claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal. In the sentencing context, we have applied the rule to claims of error asserted by both the People and the defendant.

We have, however, created a narrow exception to the waiver rule for unauthorized sentences or sentences entered in excess of jurisdiction.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354

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

Second Holding:

A claim that a sentence is unauthorized may be raised for the first time on appeal, and is subject to judicial correction whenever the error comes to the attention of the reviewing court. A sentence is generally unauthorized where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. Such error is clear and correctable independent of any factual issues presented by the record at sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Dotson (1997) 16 Cal.4th 547, 554, fn. 6

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354

Third Holding:

The trial court did not have statutory authority to impose no-contact or stay-away orders in these circumstances. While there are statutory provisions that allow a trial court to impose no-contact and stay-away orders in other circumstances, for example, domestic violence cases, cases involving sexual assault of a minor, stalking cases, as a condition of probation, or during active criminal proceedings, there are no statutes specifically authorizing the trial court here to impose no-contact and stay-away orders as part of the defendant’s prison sentence or as a condition of his parole.

Authority:

PEN 1203.097

PEN 1202.05(a)

PEN 646.9(k)

PEN 1203.1(j)

PEN 136.2

Fourth Holding:

Ponce rejected the argument that that trial courts, independent of statutes, have inherent authority to protect trial participants, citing both California and federal cases. It held that even if the trial court had relied on inherent judicial authority to issue its order, the result would not change.

An existing body of statutory law regulates restraining orders. Inherent powers should never be exercised in such a manner as to nullify existing legislation. Where the Legislature authorizes a specific variety of available procedures, the courts should use them and should normally refrain from exercising their inherent powers to invent alternatives.

The trial court here should have refrained from acting because there is an existing body of statutory law regulating no-contact and stay-away orders.

Authority:

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 383-384

Fifth Holding:

The Legislature has adopted specific statutory provisions authorizing parole boards to impose no-contact and stay-away orders as a condition of parole. Under this statutory scheme, the victims here can request the parole board to include no-contact and stay-away orders as a condition of the defendant’s parole.

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(a) authorizes trial courts to issue orders to protect against any threats or harassment after notice and hearing.

Therefore, because the Legislature already authorizes available procedures for no-contact and stay-away orders for the victims in this case, the trial court was not authorized to impose them under its inherent authority.

Authority:

PEN 3053.2(a) [the parole board must impose a no-contact order as a condition of parole if requested by the victim]

PEN 3053(a) [the parole board may also impose on the parole any conditions that it may deem proper]

CCP 527.6(a)

Sentencing

Case 000964

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(Gary note: This was not a win, but has section 654 principles of importance.)

There are some sentencing errors related to counts 2, 3 and 4. The court imposed one-third the midterm on each of counts 2 and 3, which it stayed under section 654, and it imposed a concurrent one-third the midterm on count 4.

It was error to impose and stay sentences under section 654 based on 1/3 the middle term, and it was error to impose a concurrent term at 1/3 the middle term.

First Holding:

If a court makes multiple terms concurrent, they must all be full terms, not one-third the midterm. Because concurrent terms are not part of the principal and subordinate term computation under section 1170.1(a), they are imposed at the full base term, not according to the one-third middle term formula, even though they are served at the same time.

A concurrent term begins when it is imposed and runs together with the other terms, with the latest expiring term controlling.

Authority:

PEN 669

PEN 1170.1(a)

People v. Quintero (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1156, fn. 3, disapproved on another ground in People v. Poisson (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 121, 125

People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178, 1182, fn. 3

People v. Matthews (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 164, 169, fn. 4

Second Holding:

Section 654 prohibits multiple punishment where the same act or omission or a course of conduct deemed to be indivisible in time results in multiple statutory violations. A trial court must determine whether to stay execution of a sentence under section 654, thereby avoiding multiple punishment, before deciding whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences.

If the court decides to stay a sentence, it must impose and stay execution of the sentence on that count with no determination made as to whether it is consecutive or concurrent. This is because a term cannot be both consecutive and stayed simultaneously because the two are mutually exclusive.

Authority:

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.424

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335

People v. Cantrell (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1164

People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178, 1182, fn. 3

Third Holding:

In addition, the one-third-the-midterm rule of section 1170.1(a) only applies to a consecutive sentence, not a sentence stayed under section 654. When a sentence is required to be stayed under section 654, the trial court should impose a full-term sentence to ensure the defendant’s punishment is commensurate with his criminal liability if the stay is lifted.

Accordingly, the trial court must impose a full term on any count that it stays under section 654. If the count for which sentence is not stayed is reversed or otherwise undone, imposition of sentence on the stayed count is preserved.

Authority:

People v. Cantrell (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1164

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468

Fourth Holding:

Here, the transcript of the sentencing hearing, the court’s sentencing minute order and the abstract of judgment reflect the court imposed unauthorized terms of one-third the midterm for counts 2, 3 and 4. Such unauthorized sentences are subject to correction on review.

Authority:

People v. Menius (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1295

Gary Bonus Note:

(In the last sentence of what I have called First Holding, the court states that a concurrent term begins to run when it is imposed. But there is a special provision under Penal Code section 1203.2a (no parentheses there) that every attorney should practically memorize. It is limited to cases where a defendant has been placed on probation in one case, then later is committed to state prison on another case.  Section 1203.2a can provide a benefit.

(Read it carefully. It appears to require proper steps by the defendant, though Hoddinott seems to hold otherwise. Why take the chance? Just do it right, and you won’t risk the Supreme Court changing its mind, right?

(But if events happen as described in section 1203.2a, the court has a limited time during which it has jurisdiction to act on the probation case, and failure to act within the limited time deprives the court of all jurisdiction to act on the probation case.

(Assuming the court acts timely and revokes probation and imposes a concurrent sentence, it will be deemed to have started from either the date probation was granted or from the date he was received in prison on the new offense.  In other words, far earlier than the date the court imposes execution of sentence on the probation revocation.  Section 1203.2a is designed to serve as an incentive for defendants to take care of outstanding cases when they are sent to prison.

(Again, read it carefully, and guide your client into fulfilling all the steps that serve to invoke section 1203.2a. Of course, if the court chooses to impose the sentence consecutively (assuming a timely action), the consecutive term will be served in a normal fashion.

(But section 1203.2a carries the possibility that untimely action by the court will deprive it of jurisdiction OR that, if the court is so inclined, a concurrent sentence starts at a much earlier time than the order revoking probation and committing the defendant to prison.

(An excellent analysis appears in In re Hoddinott (1996) 12 Cal.4th 992. Section 1202.2a requires the probation officer to report to the court whenever it learns a probationer has been committed to state prison. If the prisoner makes a request in conformity with the opening paragraph of the section, or if the probation learns about the new commitment from some other source, the probation officer must notify the court within 30 days. And here is Hoddinott’s summary of what happens if the probation officer or the court does not act timely:

(“In summary, we hold section 1203.2a’s final paragraph describes two events that will oust the court of jurisdiction: the probation officer’s failure to report the commitment to the court (in accord with paragraph two’s requirements) and the court’s failure to impose sentence within the time periods specified in the third paragraph. The probation officer’s 30-day reporting requirement is jurisdictional and applies once the defendant or other specified person has notified the probation officer in writing of the probationer’s subsequent state prison commitment, even though the written notice may not be a valid request for absentee sentencing.”)

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000897

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On remand following the defendant’s earlier appeal, the trial court imposed an upper term based on impermissible aggravating recidivism factors.

Holding:

Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.

Here, the court imposed the upper term based on the aggravating facts that the defendant’s prior convictions were numerous and of increasing seriousness and his performance on probation was unsatisfactory.

Because the defendant did not stipulate to these facts, which go beyond the bare fact of his prior convictions and their elements, he was entitled to a jury trial on them. That he did not receive one renders the sentence unauthorized.

Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand the matter to give the People an opportunity to retry the aggravating facts.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1086, 1091

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 776 [proper remedy where aggravating facts were not tried to a jury is to remand and give the People an opportunity to retry the aggravating facts]

 

Second Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000871

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court was not statutorily authorized to impose a section 12022.53(c) enhancement for a section 26100 offense (discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle). We remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.

First Holding:

We review the trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. In deciding whether the trial court has abused its discretion, we note that when a trial court’s decision rests on an error of law, that decision is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847

People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) (2008) 43 Cal.4th 737, 746

Second Holding:

Section 12022.53, in relevant part, sets forth escalating additional and consecutive penalties, beyond that imposed for a substantive crime, for the use of a firearm in the commission of specified felonies. Section 12022.53(c) mandates the imposition of a 20-year term for the personal and intentional discharge of a firearm in the commission of one of the section 12022.53(a) felonies, which does not include section 26100.

Imposition of that enhancement was an abuse of discretion, which resulted in an unauthorized sentence.

Authority:

PEN 12022.53

Third Holding:

The People suggest this court can modify the sentence and impose a lesser included section 12022.5(a) enhancement of 10 years. But section 12022.5(a) provides that the enhancement does not apply if firearm use is an element of the underlying offense, which precludes its application to the crime of discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle. Thus, we remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Kramer (2002) 29 Cal.4th 720, 723, fn. 2

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 700, fn. 12

Eighth Amendment, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000857

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed an incorrect term for one of the counts of conviction. It appears that the court may not have considered whether section 654 applies to some counts. And the court’s medical costs order requires clarification.

First Holding:

The court imposed one year in the county jail for violation of Health and Safety Code section 11364 (possession of narcotics paraphernalia), a misdemeanor. Because there is no specific sentence defined for that offense, the general provisions of section 11374 apply.

Every person who violates or fails to comply with any provision of the division that includes section 11364, except one for which a penalty is otherwise in that division specifically provided, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine in a sum not less than thirty dollars ($30) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by imprisonment for not less than 15 nor more than 180 days.

It was error to impose a jail term greater than 180 days, and the sentence imposed was an unauthorized sentence.

Authority:

HSC 11364

HSC 11374

People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19, 26 [a sentence is generally unauthorized when it cannot be lawfully imposed under any circumstance in a particular case]

Second Holding:

On remand, the trial court may reconsider all components of defendant’s sentence, including whether section 654 applies to counts 3 and 4.

Authority:

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 994

Third Holding:

The trial court ordered defendant to pay for his own medical costs or medical fees while incarcerated. The trial court was not authorized to require him to pay his medical costs or fees while in prison. The probation report cited section 4011 as the authority for the medical costs order, but that section applies only to medical care of prisoners while in a city or county jail and not costs incurred during state level incarceration.

Further, section 5007.5 prohibits the Secretary from imposing a fee for inmate-initiated medical visits in prison. The statute does not prohibit requiring a prisoner to pay any other medical fees or bills that may be charged to him while incarcerated.

On remand, the trial court is instructed to clarify its order requiring defendant to pay his medical costs and fees in accordance with Penal Code section 5007.5.

Authority:

PEN 5007.5 [prohibiting the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from charging a fee for an inmate-initiated medical visit of an inmate confined in the state prison.]

PEN 4011 [concerning incarceration in a city or county jail]

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000855

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred under section 654 by imposing concurrent sentences on three separate convictions arising from the same single act.

First Holding:

Section 654(a) 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. When a court determines that a conviction falls within the meaning of section 654, it is necessary to impose sentence but to stay the execution of the duplicative sentence. The imposition of concurrent sentences is precluded by section 654 because under such a sentence the defendant is deemed to be subjected to the term of both sentences although they are served simultaneously.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Duff (2010) 50 Cal.4th 787, 796

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 380 [The trial court is required to impose judgment on each count, which involves selecting a term, and then staying execution of the duplicative sentence, the stay to become permanent upon defendant’s service of the portion of the sentence not stayed.]

Second Holding:

Section 654 provides the trial court with discretion to impose and execute the sentence of either term, which could result in the trial court imposing and executing the shorter sentence rather than the longer sentence.

Authority:

PEN 654

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

Third Holding:

One provision of the One Strike law, section 667.61(h)), states: “Notwithstanding any other law, probation shall not be granted to, nor shall the execution or imposition of sentence be suspended for, a person who is subject to punishment under this section.”

There is a split of authority over whether this provision precludes a sentencing court from staying execution of a One Strike sentence under section 654. We conclude that People v. Govan has the better reasons view of the interplay between section 667.61(h) and section 654.

Authority:

People v. Caparaz (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 669

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1032-1035 [Based on the Govan court’s review of legislative history, the “no suspension clause” must be read in the context of a bar against the grant of probation, and does not supersede section 654’s prohibition against multiple punishment, disagreeing with Caparaz.]

Fourth Holding:

When we interpret a statute, our fundamental task is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose.

We first examine the statutory language, giving it a plain and commonsense meaning. If the language is clear, courts must generally follow its plain meaning unless a literal interpretation would result in absurd consequences the Legislature did not intend.

If the statutory language permits more than one reasonable interpretation, courts may consider other aids, such as the statute’s purpose, legislative history, and public policy.

Furthermore, we consider portions of a statute in the context of the entire statute and the statutory scheme of which it is a part, giving significance to every word, phrase, sentence, and part of an act in pursuance of the legislative purpose.

Authority:

People v. Reynoza (2024) 15 Cal.5th 982, 989–990

Fifth Holding:

Courts have recognized that the suspension clause’s language has a technical meaning unique to a grant of probation. We therefore conclude the Legislature intended for section 667.61(h)’s suspension clause to have its technical, probation related meaning.

Indeed, as used in section 1203(a), “probation” means the suspension of the imposition or execution of a sentence and the order of conditional and revocable release in the community under the supervision of a probation officer.

When the Legislature uses a term of art, a court construing that use must assume that the Legislature was aware of the ramifications of its choice of language. We therefore conclude the Legislature intended for section 667.61(h)’s suspension clause to have its technical, probation related meaning.

Authority:

PEN 7(c) [Words and phrases shall be construed according to the context and the approved usage of the language, but technical words and phrases, and any others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law, shall be construed according to that peculiar and appropriate meaning.]

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1033

People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524, 536, fn. 8 [the words ‘suspension of execution’ are employed in conjunction with a grant of probation and have developed into terms of art], (disapproved on another ground by People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1, 7, fn. 3)

People v. Borynack (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 958, 965

Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838, 850, fn. 3

Sixth Holding:

This interpretation is consistent with how some courts have interpreted similarly worded statutes. Many related criminal statutes with related purposes contain language identical to section 667.61(h). Courts have not historically interpreted similar statutory provisions as precluding a stay under section 654.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1138, 1141 [We consider the language of the entire scheme and related statutes, harmonizing the terms when possible.]

People v. Barela (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 152, 160 [holding section 1203.06–with similar language–does not preclude a stay under section 654]

People v. Superior Court (Himmelsbach) (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 524, 536, fn. 8 [rejecting as unpersuasive the contention that a prohibition on suspension of execution of sentence under repealed section 12311 precluded a stay under section 654]

Seventh Holding:

We presume that when the Legislature enacted section 667.61 in 1994 and amended it in 2006, the Legislature was aware of how courts had interpreted identical statutory language and that the Legislature intended for that interpretation to also apply to section 667.61.

Where legislation has been judicially construed and a subsequent statute on the same or an analogous subject uses identical or substantially similar language, we may presume that the Legislature intended the same construction, unless a contrary intent clearly appears.

Authority:

People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293, 1367

Eighth Holding:

Finally, we are satisfied that interpreting section 667.61 as allowing a stay under section 654 is consistent with the One Strike law’s legislative purpose in imposing lengthy prison sentences for certain sex offenses.

Although interpreting section 667.61 this way allows for shorter sentences in some circumstances, it does not require it. Rather, it leaves the decision to the trial court’s sound sentencing discretion.

Authority:

PEN 654

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

Ninth Holding:

When a sentencing court is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

In light of the presumption on a silent record that the trial court is aware of the applicable law, including statutory discretion at sentencing, we cannot presume error where the record does not establish on its face that the trial court misunderstood the scope of that discretion.

The record indicates, however, that the trial court did not understand the scope of its discretion. The court expressly stated it took no joy in imposing the harsh sentence, and that it had imposed counts concurrently wherever it could, but that it had no discretion to impose other than the harsh sentence–that the sentence it imposed were the only options.

Therefore, we must remand for resentencing given the extent of the court’s full discretion under section 654.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424

People v. Gutierrez (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 515, 527

(Gary note, of marginal historical interest: 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.)

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000848

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in imposing an indeterminate sentence on the attempted sodomy conviction and failed to properly calculate the defendant’s determinate sentence.

First Holding:

In evaluating claims of insufficient evidence, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence such that a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We presume the existence of every fact supporting the judgment that the jury reasonably could deduce from the evidence. A judgment will be reversed only if there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict under any hypothesis. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury, reweigh the evidence, or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses.

Authority:

People v. Elliot (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 466

People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206

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

Second Holding:

Under either simple or aggravated kidnapping, the asportation element requires that the movement be more than that which is merely incidental to the commission or attempted commission of the associated crime.

Simple kidnapping requires that the defendant moved the victim a substantial distance, but no minimum distance is required.

The aggravated kidnapping circumstance, however, also requires that the movement substantially increased the risk of harm to the victim beyond that inherent in the underlying offense. The increased risk may be of either physical or psychological harm.

Authority:

People v. Waqa (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 565, 577-578

Third Holding:

The crime of attempted sodomy is not subject to the One Strike law under section 667.61(c). Thus, it was error to impose an indeterminate sentence for that offense.

Authority:

PEN 667.61

People v. Rodriguez (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 204, 217

Fourth Holding:

Sentencing a defendant for offenses subject to determinate terms involves a three-step process:

First, the trial court is required to select a base term—either the statutory low, middle or upper term—for each of the crimes.

Second, if the court determines that a consecutive sentence is merited, it must designate the crime with the greatest selected base term as the principal term and the other crimes as subordinate terms.

Third, the court sentences the defendant to the full base term it selected for the principal term crime and one-third of the middle term for any crimes for which the sentence is ordered to run consecutively.

A subordinate term is one-third of the middle term even if the trial court had initially selected the lower or upper term as the base term. The court did not follow this procedure on three of the counts, and resentencing is required.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1

People v. Rodriguez (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 204, 211-212

Fifth Holding:

Generally, when a defendant successfully appeals a criminal conviction, California’s constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy precludes the imposition of more severe punishment on resentencing.

This rule does not apply, however, when a trial court imposes an unauthorized sentence. In such cases, courts may impose the proper judgment on remand even though it is more severe than the original unauthorized pronouncement.

Authority:

People v. Vizcarra (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 422, 431

People v. Burhop (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 808, 814 [An unauthorized sentence renders the unlawful part of a judgment of conviction and sentence void and correctable at any time.]

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1036, fn. 21 [We must correct an unauthorized sentence even where the corrected sentence results in a longer term.]

Sixth Holding:

Here, the trial court’s sentence on count 4 of an indeterminate term of 25 years to life was unauthorized and must be corrected. Likewise, the court’s failure to designate a principal term among counts 6 through 8 amounted to an unauthorized sentence. Accordingly, the trial court is not constrained by the length of the original determinative sentence for purposes of resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Neely (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 787, 797–798 [court erroneously applied principal term/subordinate term methodology set forth in sec. 1170.1 to all the offenses when it imposed one-third of the middle term sentences for the determinate term offenses]