Tag Archives: Unauthorized sentence

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000535 and Case 000536

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate the conviction for involuntary manslaughter, as it is a lesser included offense of the murder that she was also convicted of in a separate count. Section 654 requires stay of either the murder count or the child abuse count, because they were based on the same act. We remand to the trial court for it to determine which of the two sentences should be stayed.

[Gary note: There were two defendants, and the opinions, though separate, were virtually material, so I have summarize both in this single summary]

First Holding:

We summarize the relevant facts pertinent to the issues raised on appeal, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment.

Authority:

In re Jesus O. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 859, 861

People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578

Second Holding:

For Victim A’s death, the jury convicted the defendant of both second degree murder (count 1) and involuntary manslaughter (count 2). The parties agree, as do we, that, because substantial evidence supports the murder conviction, the involuntary manslaughter conviction must be vacated. A defendant cannot be convicted of both an offense and a necessarily lesser included offense based upon the commission of an identical act. In such a situation, the lesser included offense must be reversed. Involuntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder. The defendant’s convictions were based on the same act. Accordingly, the conviction in count 2 must be vacated.

Authority:

People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 736

People v. Munoz (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 143, 153

Third Holding:

For the child abuse conviction in count 3 involving Victim A, the defendant received a sentence of four years in prison, which was to run concurrently to her indeterminate sentence for Victim A’s murder in count 1. Section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for a single act or course of conduct that violates more than one statute. Where all offenses are incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for only one of them, and execution of sentence on the remaining counts must be stayed. Because the same act supports the convictions in counts 1 and 3, section 654 prohibits multiple punishment and requires that execution of sentence be stayed on one of those counts.

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 337

Fourth Holding:

Under amended section 654, the sentencing court has discretion to determine which sentence should be stayed. This could result in the trial court imposing and executing the shorter sentence rather than the longer sentence. At sentencing in this matter, the trial court imposed a concurrent four-year term on count 3. Although the court’s decision to run the felony child abuse term concurrently suggests it would not stay the sentence for murder, nothing in the sentencing record affirmatively shows how the trial court would have exercised its discretion under section 654. Accordingly, we remand for resentencing so the trial court may determine in the first instance which sentence must be stayed under section 654.

Authority:

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

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000526

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At sentencing, the trial court found the defendant, who was found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and vandalism, was not a suitable candidate for probation and imposed a custodial sentence. As part of that sentence, the court issued an indefinite stay-away order barring the defendant from the specific address of the apartment complex where the victim lived. It was improper to issue a protective order, which must be stricken.

First Holding:

Claims that a sentence is unauthorized may be raised for the first time on appeal and should be corrected whenever a reviewing court identifies the error.

Authority:

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 382

Second Holding:

Section 136.2(a)(1), allows a trial court to issue protective orders during a criminal case. But courts have read that provision to allow protective orders only while the criminal action is pending. In response, the Legislature added subdivision (i) to section 136.2, which allows postconviction protective orders lasting up to 10 years, but only when the defendant is convicted of domestic violence, certain sexual offenses, street terrorism, or crimes requiring sex offender registration.

Outside of those categories, section 136.2 does not give the trial court statutory authority to impose the postconviction protective order. The order here was unauthorized on two independent grounds. First, it was indefinite in duration and not tied to the pendency of the criminal proceedings. The trial court denied probation, so the order was not authorized as a condition of probation. A postjudgment restraining order imposed under these circumstances falls outside the authority granted by section 136.2 and must be stricken. Second, the trial court never made a finding of good cause to believe that the defendant posed an ongoing risk of intimidating or dissuading the vicitm or anyone else at the complex.

Authority:

PEN 136.2

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

People v. Stone (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 153, 159

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

Third Holding:

A criminal protective order must also rest on a finding of good cause to believe that the defendant is likely to try to intimidate or dissuade a victim or witness. The fact that a victim was harmed or threatened with harm is not enough on its own.

Authority:

Babalola v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 948, 962

Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000521

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court improperly imposed a domestic violence fee, because that only applies to those granted probation, which the defendant was not, as he was sentenced to prison.

First Holding:

The requirement to make a $500 domestic violence payment is not authorized by section 1203.097, because the trial court denied probation. The judgment is modified to strike the $500 domestic violence payment.

Authority:

PEN 1203.097

Sentencing, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000503

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to impose concurrent terms on two counts, because section 654 prohibited multiple punishment. The sentence for count 1 is modified from concurrent to stayed.

First Holding:

Section 654(a) provides, in part, 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. Section 654 has been applied not only where there was but one act in the ordinary sense but also where a course of conduct violated more than one statute and the problem was whether it comprised a divisible transaction which could be punished under more than one statute within the meaning of section 654. 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 the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 637

Second Holding:

We apply the substantial evidence standard of review. Substantial evidence does not support a finding of separate intents and objectives. The evidence that defendant pointed the gun at the victim when threatening her supports a finding that defendant used the gun to emphasize his threat and cause the victim mental anguish. Accordingly, defendant held a single intent and objective during the course of conduct—to cause the victim to fear for her life. We will modify defendant’s suspended prison sentence.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Leonard (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 465, 499

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000496

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court should have stayed the sentence on one count under section 654.

Holding:

The defendant was convicted under two separate Penal Code sections for the same act. Section 654 provides that an act punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act be punished under more than one provision. The sentence imposed for count 7 should have been stayed. The defendant requests a remand for resentencing, but we may modify the judgment ourselves to stay the count 7 sentence.

(GARY NOTE: The opinion does not mention whether it concluded that the trial court would have imposed sentence on the count carrying the longer sentence (15 years to life) rather than on the count carrying the shorter term (180 days), a choice that has been restored to the judiciary with the passage of AB 518 several years ago. But the defendant’s total sentence on the numerous counts consisted of several hundred years to life. Allowing the trial court to choose between the counts would likely not have resulted in earlier release. On the other hand, it is conceivable that on remand, the trial court might have had other options on a full resentencing.)

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 350, 353

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 132, 139

Sentencing

Case 000490

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the section 1172.75 sentence recall hearing, the court imposed a sentence longer than the original sentence, which violates section 1172.75. Remanded for a full resentencing hearing in compliance with section 1172.75.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 makes it clear that resentencing pursuant to this section shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety. Resentencing pursuant to this section shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed. Here, appellant was originally sentenced to an aggregate term of 25 years to life plus five years.

At resentencing, the trial court significantly increased appellant’s sentence when it imposed three consecutive 25-year-to-life terms, rather than concurrent terms as were previously imposed, plus three years for the great bodily injury enhancement on count 2 and a consecutive, rather than a concurrent, upper term of six years on count 3. Defendant was resentenced to an aggregate term of 75 years to life plus nine years.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

We conclude that appellant’s sentence is unauthorized since it directly violates section 1172.75(d)(1)’s proscription against imposing a longer sentence at resentencing An unauthorized sentence is one that could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. It is well established that when the trial court pronounces a sentence which is unauthorized that sentence must be vacated and a proper sentence imposed when the mistake is brought to the attention of the reviewing court. Therefore, because defendant’s sentence is unauthorized, we vacate defendant’s sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing in compliance with section 1172.75(d).

Authority:

In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1130

People v. Benton (1979) 100 Cal.pp.3d 92, 102

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000486

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit that same murder. It was error to impose sentence on both counts concurrently. One of the counts should have been stayed under section 654.

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. A defendant may not receive more than one punishment for a single act, nor may a defendant receive multiple punishments for acts that comprised a single, indivisible course of conduct in service of a single objective. As a result, section 654 prohibits punishing a defendant for both conspiracy to commit murder and the underlying murder.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 550-552

People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 835, 866, disapproved of on another ground by People v. Riccardi (2012) 54 Cal.4th 758, 824, fn. 32

Second Holding:

In pronouncing the defendant’s sentence, the court did not stay the sentence on count two, which was necessary to avoid double punishment.

Authority:

People v. Caparaz (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 669, 689

Third Holding:

Where, as here, the punishment is the same for the two counts at issue, a remand is unnecessary because it would not change the defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, we will modify the judgment to stay the sentence for count two.

Authority:

People v. Bey (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 144, 167

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000470

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be amended to make clear the trial court found an inability to pay fees and fines, and to provide the correct number of prejudgment credit days.

First Holding:

At sentencing, the trial court found that the defendant did not have the ability to pay the court fees. The abstract of judgment, however, imposes a court security fee of $200 and a criminal conviction assessment of $150. We will direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment accordingly.

Authority:

People v. Costella (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1, 10

Second Holding:

Based on counsel’s representations, the court awarded credit for actual days served that was 30 days less than he actually served. Therefore, the court’s minute order should be corrected to reflect the proper number of credit days, and the abstract of judgment should be amended accordingly.

[GARY NOTE: The court did not cite any authority for this correction, but there is plenty. I have listed authority the court could have cited.]

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Chilleli (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 581, 591 [The failure to properly calculate custody and conduct credit is a jurisdictional error that can be corrected at any time]

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

People v. Acosta (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 411, 428, fn. 8

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000461

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We direct the trial court to modify the judgment to correct a sentencing error on the defendant’s sentence for attempted kidnapping.

First Holding:

We review unauthorized sentences de novo. A computational error that leads to an unauthorized sentence can be corrected at any time.

Authority:

People v. Tua (2018) 18 Cal.App.5th 1136, 1140

People v. Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1205

Second Holding:

Kidnapping is punishable by three, five, or eight years in state prison. The sentence for an attempted offense is one-half of the sentence for the completed offense. Thus, attempted kidnapping would be punishable by 18 months, 30 months, or four years. However, any subordinate counts to be served consecutively are only given one-third of the middle term. Here, the trial court used count 2 (assault with a deadly weapon) as the principal count for the determinate term.

This made count 3, the attempted kidnapping, a subordinate term. Since the court imposed a consecutive sentence for this count, the court was only authorized to impose one-third of the middle term, which is 10 months. However, the court stated one-third the middle term was two years and six months. The court clearly intended to pronounce the correct sentence but miscalculated or misspoke as to the actual length of the term. The abstract of judgment reflects the incorrect calculation and should be amended to reflect 10 months for count 3.

Authority:

PEN 208

PEN 664

PEN 1170.1(a)

People v. Felix (2000) 22 Cal.4th 651, 655

People v. Wilson (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 500, 518 [reviewing court has authority to correct unauthorized sentence]

Third Holding:

As to his convictions and punishment for murder and robbery, section 654 prohibits punishment for both murder and the target offense when the prosecution relies only on a theory of first degree felony murder. However, if the prosecution offers an alternate theory such as premeditation, and there is evidence to support the alternate theory, then the court may properly impose separate sentences for the murder and the underlying felony.

Authority:

People v. Carter (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 831, 841

Fourth Holding:

We use the substantial-evidence standard to assess the trial court’s factual findings, implicit or explicit, of whether there was a course of conduct with a single criminal objective. We review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo. We look at the entire record in the light most favorable to the verdict.

Authority:

People v. Moseley (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1598, 1603

People v. Perry (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1521, 1524

Fifth Holding:

Section 654(a) prohibits multiple punishments for actions that fall within the same course of conduct in which the perpetrator had a single intent and objective. A defendant may be punished only once if all the crimes were merely incidental to or were the means of accomplishing a single objective. If a defendant had multiple, independent criminal objectives, he or she may be punished for each crime, even if the crimes had common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct. The applicability of section 654 turns on whether the defendant had multiple criminal objectives, not whether an act occurred during the commission of a crime.

Authority:

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311

People v. Perry (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1521, 1525

People v. Rodriguez (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1007

Sixth Holding:

We review instructional error de novo. We view the challenged instruction 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 impermissibly. We assume jurors are intelligent and capable of understanding and correlating instructions.

Authority:

People v. Ocegueda (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 548, 557

Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000445

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Convicted of both murder and conspiracy to commit that murder, the court should have stayed the sentence for the conspiracy under section 654.

First Holding:

Section 654(a) provides in pertinent part 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. The waiver doctrine does not apply to questions involving the applicability of section 654. Errors in the applicability of section 654 are corrected on appeal regardless of whether the point was raised by objection in the trial court or assigned as error on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 654

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

Second Holding:

Section 654 precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. Even concurrent sentences on convictions subject to section 654 are prohibited; the sentence on one of the two applicable convictions must be imposed and then stayed. The purpose of section 654 is to insure that a defendant’s punishment will be commensurate with his culpability.

Authority:

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 294

People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 591–592

People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1211

Third Holding:

To determine the applicability of section 654, we first consider if the different crimes were completed by a single physical act. If so, the defendant may not be punished more than once for that act. Only if we conclude that the case involves more than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of conduct reflects a single intent and objective or multiple intents and objectives.

Authority:

People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311

Fourth Holding:

If the convictions involve more than one act, the court reaches step two of the section 654 analysis: whether the course of conduct involved multiple intents and objectives. At step two, whether crimes arise from an indivisible course of conduct turns on the perpetrator’s intent and objective. If all of the crimes were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, a defendant may be punished only once. If, however, a defendant had several independent criminal objectives, he may be punished for each crime committed in pursuit of each objective, even though the crimes shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct. Whether a defendant harbored a single intent—and thus a single objective—is a factual question; the applicability of section 654 to settled facts is a question of law.

Authority:

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

People v. Perry (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1521, 1525

Fifth Holding:

Because the conspiracy count in this case did not include a broader objective than the commission of the first degree murder, section 654 applied.

Authority:

People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 247

People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 439 [overruled on other grounds in People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919]

People v. Briones (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 524, 529

People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 835, 866 [disapproved on other grounds in People v. Riccardi (2012) 54 Cal.4th 758, 824, fn. 32]

People v. Ramirez (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 603, 615–616

Sixth Holding:

We acknowledge the trial court’s discretion under section 654 to choose which punishment to stay. Nevertheless, we conclude that a remand is unnecessary because the trial court’s decision on which punishment to stay would make no difference to the total sentence for the defendant. In this case, the sentence for the first degree murder count and the conspiracy to commit murder count are the same, 25 years to life. Under these circumstances, we will correct the trial court’s error by modifying the defendant’s sentence to stay the punishment on count 2, the conspiracy to commit murder conviction and the attached enhancements, to comply with section 654.

Authority:

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

People v. Cortez (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1223, 1237
People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 835, 870 [disapproved on other grounds in People v. Riccardi (2012) 54 Cal.4th 758, 824, fn. 32]

People v. Calles (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1221

People v. Bey (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 144, 167

Jurisdiction, Sentencing

Case: 000444

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court had no jurisdiction to modify the long-final judgment in response to a letter from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) that pointed out sentencing errors (which were adverse to the defendant’s interests). The defendant appealed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because there was no jurisdiction in the lower court, and thus nothing to appeal from.

It did, however, treat the appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and granted the writ, directing the trial court to to vacate the order modifying the defendant’s’ sentence on the conviction for dissuading a witness and reinstate the original sentence imposed on that count.

First Holding:

Under the general common law rule, a trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has commenced. However, there are limited exceptions to this rule. For example, the court has inherent power to correct a clerical error at any time. A court also may resentence a defendant in connection with a petition for writ of habeas corpus or under specified conditions provided in section 1172.1.

Authority:

People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 787, 790–791

Second Holding:

Here, the trial court made two modifications to the defendant’s sentence long after execution of the sentence had commenced. First, the court imposed a 10-year enhancement under section 12022.5(a), rather than under section 667.6(c). A record of the court’s oral pronouncement of the original sentence could not be produced for this appeal, so it is not clear if the court misspoke while announcing the sentence, or if the mistake appeared for the first time in the minute order.

In any event, it is apparent the court intended to impose the enhancement under section 12022.5(a), as alleged in the information and found true by the jury. Therefore, the error was essentially clerical, which the trial court had inherent discretion to correct at any time.

Authority:

People v. Menius (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1294 [court’s inadvertent reference to the wrong statute at sentencing was a clerical error]

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 790–791

Third Holding:

Second, the trial court modified the defendant’s sentence to impose a full consecutive middle term on the dissuading a witness count. The original sentencing court imposed a consecutive one-third the middle term on that count, as is generally required under section 1170.1(a). However, the resentencing court determined section 1170.15 required it to impose a full consecutive term, presumably because the victim of the dissuading offense also was the victim of another felony conviction. A court’s failure to impose a full consecutive term under section 1170.15 is a judicial error, not a clerical error.

Authority:

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 792 [a court makes a judicial error when it fails to impose the legally required sentence under section 1170.15]

Fourth Holding:

Courts of Appeal are split on whether trial courts have inherent jurisdiction to correct an unauthorized sentence, i.e., a sentence that could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. The majority of appellate courts have concluded they do not but others see it differently.

Authority:

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

People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 633

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 62–63

People v. Hernandez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1122–1124

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 796–797

People v. Garcia (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 139, 144–145

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 990

People v. Cervantes (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 825

In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000417

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to impose a $10 crime prevention fine under section 1202.5. It is ordered stricken. The minute order must be corrected to reflect that the resentencing proceedings were under section 1172.75, not under section 1172.6 as the minute order indicated.

First Holding:

The original imposition of the section 1202.5 crime prevention fine was unauthorized.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [claims of unauthorized sentencing error may be raised at any time]

Second Holding:

Under section 1202.5(a), courts are required to impose a $10 crime prevention fine on a defendant who is convicted of a theft-related offense listed in the statute. Here, the $10 crime prevention fine was unauthorized because defendant’s convictions are not among the offenses listed in section 1202.5(a). Thus, we strike the $10 crime prevention fine from defendant’s sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1202.5(a)

People v. Jefferson (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 660, 663

Third Holding:

The minute orders refer to the proceedings as taking place pursuant to section 1172.6. As the record is clear these were resentencing proceedings pursuant to section 1172.75, this appears to be a clerical error.

[Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for the order or observation regarding the correction of the minute order, but there is authority aplenty. The court could have cited one or more of the cases I have set out below.]

Authority:

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

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

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

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2