Tag Archives: Unauthorized sentence

Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000406

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The provision in the probation order requiring the defendant to reimburse the county for public defender and probation related services must be stricken.

Holding:

Section 1465.9(a) provides that the balance of any court-imposed costs imposed under former section 987.8, authorizing public defender fees, and former section 1203.1b, authorizing probation services fees, as those sections read on June 30, 2021, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated. Accordingly, we will strike the portion of the probation order authorizing these fees.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(a)

People v. Portillo (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 577, 602-603

People v. Greeley (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 609, 625

Sentencing

Case: 000403

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing, it was error for the court to impose a sentence on the greater subdivision of the gun use enhancement when, at the original sentencing, it had imposed the lesser enhancement.

First 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. The trial court may reconsider all its prior discretionary sentencing decisions. The Henderson rule however imposes a limitation on the court’s sentencing discretion. Under the Henderson rule, when a defendant successfully appeals a criminal conviction, California’s constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy precludes the imposition of more severe punishment on resentencing.

Authority:

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

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681

People v. Burbine (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1259 [upon remand for resentencing, the trial court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the defendant’s sentence]

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

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

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

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

Second Holding:

When a trial court pronounces an unauthorized sentence,such a sentence is subject to being set aside judicially and is no bar to the imposition of a proper judgment thereafter, even though it is more severe than the original unauthorized pronouncement. The Serrato rule protects the People’s right to mandated, lawful sentences. The limitations of the rule rebut any appearance of vindictiveness. If an increase in penalty has no nexus to the original illegality in the sentence, the protection against vindictiveness is not applicable. The general rule applies that in California a harsher penalty may not be imposed after a successful appeal.

Authority:

People v. Serrato (1973) 9 Cal.3d 753, 764

People v. Price (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1405, 1413

People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 348–350

Third Holding:

Imposition of the firearm enhancement undersection 12022.53(b) on count 1 was not unauthorized. An unauthorized sentence is one that could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case, regardless of the facts. Our criticism of the firearm enhancement in the prior appeal was limited to the manner in which it was imposed rather than the fact of its imposition. Because the challenged enhancement had no nexus to the original illegality in the sentence, we conclude that the trial court erred by imposing the greater enhancement under section 12022.53(d) on this count, in lieu of the lesser enhancement under section 12022.53(b) that it had originally imposed.

We will therefore remand the matter back to the trial court for a full resentencing hearing. While the trial court may reconsider all discretionary sentencing choices under no circumstances should the aggregate sentence be more than the sum of the original sentence and the mandatory increase required due to any Serrato errors.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Trammel (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 415, 435

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000369

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred in failing to conduct a full resentencing. The court erred in its calculation of custody credits, both as to postsentence conduct credits and credits for days in actual custody. The abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment as to the restitution fines and the victim restitution order.

First Holding:

When a defendant is convicted of an offense, a sentencing court has a duty to render judgment and impose the penalty authorized by law. Judgment is rendered when the trial court orally pronounces sentence. In rendering the judgment, the court must pronounce sentence on each count for which the defendant sustained a conviction. The failure to pronounce a sentence for each conviction results in an unauthorized sentence that can be corrected at any time.

Authority:

PEN 12

People v. Martinez (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1012

People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344, fn. 9

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

People v. Price (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1405, 1411, fn. 6

Second Holding:

At the resentencing hearing following our remand in the earlier appeal, the trial court addressed only the errors we identified in our opinion. Our remand order was not so limited. It was for a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Smith (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1003, 1008, abrogated on another ground by People v. Bullock (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 985

Third Holding:

The trial court’s statements suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the effect of our order vacating the defendant’s sentence and remanding for a full sentencing, which was the nullification of the previous sentence. Because the prior sentence no longer existed, the court had to construct an entirely new sentence. By failing to orally pronounce a sentence on the nine counts for which it stayed the sentences at the original sentencing, the court failed to render judgment on all of the defendant’s convictions, resulting in an unauthorized sentence. When the trial court stated it was excluding counts it had previously stayed under section 654, the trial court used the term concurrent in connection with section 654. But where section 654 applies, it precludes any multiple punishment, consecutive or concurrent.

Authority:

People v. Rouse (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 292, 297

People v. Price (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1405, 1411, fn. 6

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

People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 594

Fourth Holding:

Generally, when an unauthorized sentence is discovered on appeal, a reviewing court affirms the defendant’s conviction and remands the case for the trial court to pronounce a sentence consistent with the verdict.

Authority:

People v. Taylor (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 349, 353

Fifth Holding:

Our order for a full resentencing necessarily encompasses calculating the defendant’s custody credits and the appropriate assessments, fines, and restitution awards. When it resentenced the defendant, the trial court was required to credit her with all actual days she had spent in custody up to that time, including time in custody after the original sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424-425

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

Sixth Holding:

A trial court is required to include all aspects of a judgment in its oral pronouncement. That includes fines and direct victim restitution. The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order and the abstract of judgment. Upon a defendant’s request, the trial court must hold a hearing on the defendant’s ability to pay before imposing ancillary costs, like the court operations assessment (sec. 1465.8(a)(1)) and the court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373).

Authority:

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

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387-388

People v. Rowland (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1745, 1751

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

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000366

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by: (1) refusing to strike a prior serious felony enhancement attached to the defendant’s conviction for one count of possession of a firearm after an associated gang enhancement was dismissed; and (2) maintaining an indeterminate sentence on that same count. Accordingly, we will vacate the sentence for that count, strike one of the associated serious felony enhancements, and remand for resentencing consistent with Penal Code section 667(e)(1).

First Holding:

The defendant was sentenced to a Three Strikes indeterminate sentence and the sentence was enhanced for a prior serious felony conviction. During the appeal from that conviction, AB 333 was enacted to change the elements of section 186.22 regarding the crime and enhancements for gang criminal activity. As a result of the opinion in Valencia we reversed the conviction for violation of section 186.22 in count 5, and the jury’s finding that defendant committed the attempted shooting at an occupied vehicle (count 1) and possessed a firearm (count 7) for the benefit of a criminal street gang.

We remanded to give the prosecution an opportunity to retry count 5 and the gang enhancement allegations on counts 1 and 7 under amended section 186.22. The trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss count 5 and the gang enhancement allegations as to counts 1 and 7. The court denied the defendant’s request to sentence the defendant to a determinate term and rejected his argument that the basis of the count 7’s status as serious felony had been undermined by AB 333, and it was no longer a serious felony to support either the five-year enhancement for his prior serious felony or as a third strike. The court erred. Count 7 was only considered a serious felony by reason of the jury’s true finding on the gang enhancement. With the gang enhancement out of the picture, count 7 could no longer be considered a serious felony.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

PEN 667

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818

Second Holding:

Count 7 was only a serious felony by reason of the gang enhancement, which had been stricken. Therefore, he was not convicted in the current case of a third strike, and was subject to only a doubling of his sentence, not a life term.

Authority:

PEN 667

Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000350

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Section 654 applied and it was error to impose sentence on more than one of the three counts of human trafficking, pimping, and pandering.

First Holding:

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.

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

Second Holding:

Section 654 does not preclude multiple convictions but only multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. The proscription against double punishment is applicable where there is a course of conduct that violates more than one statute and comprises an indivisible transaction punishable under more than one statute. The divisibility of a course of conduct depends upon the intent and objective of the actor. If all the offenses are incident to one objective, then the defendant may be punished for any one of them but not for more than one. Accordingly, the trial court should have stayed the sentences on two of the counts pursuant to section 654.

Authority:

People v. Miller (1977) 18 Cal.3d 873, 885

Third Holding:

Here, the defendant was convicted in three counts of human trafficking, pimping, and pandering, each related to one victim and each during the same period. Given the specific factual scenario presented here, including that all three offenses were charged for the same period and that none relied on one specific act, the pimping offense was incidental to the pandering offense, and the intent to pander was an essential element of the human trafficking charge.

Authority:

People v. Deloach (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 323, 337 [as a general rule, any acts of prostitution that follow directly or proximately from the pandering are incident to a single objective and therefore constitute an indivisible transaction with it; that is, the subsequent sex offenses are incidental to the commission of the pandering, and are facilitated by it]

People v. Dearborne (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 250, 263 [As charged under the facts of this case, the human trafficking and pandering were part of the same criminal intent and objective, and thus the court was required to stay the sentence on the pandering count. The human trafficking charge literally has an element of an intent to pander.]

Fourth Holding:

The defendant asks us to remand the matter for resentencing based on this error, but we agree with the People that resentencing is not necessary. Rather, we exercise our authority to modify the judgment to reflect that the punishments on [named counts] are stayed pursuant to section 654.

Authority:

PEN 1260 [appellate court may reverse, affirm, or modify judgment]

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473, [court may exercise its authority to modify a judgment based on an unauthorized sentence under section 1260 in the context of section 654]

Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000336 (There is no 000335)

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court should have stayed the sentence for either the assault or the battery conviction.

First Holding:

Although Code of Civil Procedure section 269 provided defendant with a statutory right to a certified shorthand reporter rather than an electronic recording, we conclude violation of that statutory right was harmless. The proceedings were recorded electronically and extensive transcripts were prepared based on the recordings.

The California Supreme Court has held that the trial court’s failure to comply with Penal Code section 190.9, requiring that all proceedings in a capital case be conducted on the record with a court reporter present, was harmless where the record was nevertheless adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.

Similarly, here, defendant possessed a statutory right to a certified court reporter, but the trial court’s inability to comply with that right, regardless of the reason, was harmless so long as the electronic recording produced an adequate appellate record.

(Gary note:  You might want to look at Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court (Contra Costa County) 8/10/26 S288176, in which the Supreme Court recognized the right to a verbatim transcript, whether by certified shorthand reporter or electronic, despite the Government Code section 69957 proscription against use of electronic recording other than in limited exceptions.  While the case was a civil dispute, the principles would seem to apply in criminal cases as well.  It’s at least worth looking at, because it may be useful on the quality of the transcript process even where criminal proceedings are electronically recorded.)

Authority:

CCP 269

People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1256-1258 (Hajek and Vo were abrogated on another point by People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1216)

Second Holding:

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.

Authority:

PEN 654

Third Holding:

Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654 requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an act or omission may include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several acts pursued with a single objective. 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. Section 654 prohibits multiple sentences where the defendant commits different acts that violate different statutes but the acts comprise an indivisible course of conduct engaged in with a single intent and objective.

Whether section 654 applies in a given case is a question of fact for the trial court, which is vested with broad latitude in making its determination. Its findings will not be reversed on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them.

Authority:

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

People v. Latten (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 574, 577

People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143

Fourth Holding:

Section 654 now 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. Thus, unless the record clearly indicates which sentence the trial court would stay, remand is required to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion.

Authority:

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

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

Sentencing

Case: 000333

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred by sentencing appellant to a consecutive mid-term of eight years on count 6, because he was convicted of only a single relevant offense. The mandatory consecutive sentencing scheme in section 667(d) can apply only when a defendant stands convicted of multiple enumerated sex offenses

Holding:

The trial court sentenced appellant to a consecutive mid-term of eight years on count 6 under section 667.6(d)(1). But as the parties correctly note, the mandatory consecutive sentencing scheme in subdivision (d) can apply only when a defendant stands convicted of multiple” enumerated sex offenses under this statute. Here appellant was convicted of only one offense under section 667.6(e) and therefore the sentence on count 6 must be reconsidered.

Authority:

People v. Jones (1988) 46 Cal.3d 585, 594, fn. 5

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Sentencing

Case: 000320

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

This is not exactly a win for the defendant, but it reinforces the proper application of section 654. In this instance, the trial court simply did not impose any sentence on a count that the court determined section 654 applied to. It resulted in reversal of the sentence, with a direction that the court impose a sentence on all counts, including the one to which section 654 applied, and stay execution as to that count. Interestingly, the abstract of judgment actually reflected that the court had imposed and stayed sentence under section 654. Reaffirming my supplication that we should always examine abstracts of judgment, as it truly is not uncommon for them to contain errors.

First Holding:

The abstract of judgment incorrectly states that the trial court imposed the upper term for count 2 and stayed the sentence under section 654. However, the court did not impose sentence for count 2 during the sentencing hearing. Where, as here, a discrepancy exists between the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order and the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 893

People v. El (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 963, 967

Second Holding:

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. Stated differently, section 654 prohibits multiple punishment for the same act or omission. When section 654 is applicable, the accepted procedure is to sentence defendant for each count and stay execution of sentence on certain of the convictions to which section 654 is applicable.

Authority:

PEN 654

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

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

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

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 380 [when section 654 applies, it is improper to impose no sentence or to stay imposition of the sentence]

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473 [when section 654 applies, the trial court imposes an unauthorized sentence by failing to sentence defendant on all counts]

Third Holding:

Because the sentence is unlawful, we remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing purposes. On remand a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 381

In re Mattison (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1067

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000318

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

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

First Holding:

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

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

Authority:

PEN 667.7

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

Second Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

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

Third Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

Fourth Holding:

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

Authority:

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

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

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

Fifth Holding:

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

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

Authority:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fines and fees, Jurisdiction, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case: 000299

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On revoking probation, the court added an additional restitution fine to the original restitution fine and modified an eight-month consecutive term to an eight-month concurrent term in the same case, and then a 16-month concurrent term in a second case. On notice from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that the 8-month concurrent term was unauthorized because the the one-third of the middle term clculation applies only to consecutive terms. The trial court then converted the eight-month concurrent term to 16 months concurrent. The second restitution fine was unauthorized and must be stricken. The court had no authority to change the original eight-month consecutive term to either a concurrent eight-month term or a sixteen-month concurrent term, because at the time probation was granted, the court imposed a sentence (two years on the principal count and eight months on the subordinate offense) in that case, with execution suspended pending successful completion of probation. The matter is remanded for resentencing.

First Holding:

A restitution fine imposed at the time probation is granted survives the revocation of probation. Because of this, an additional restitution fine imposed at the time probation is revoked is unauthorized and must be stricken from the judgment.

Authority:

People v. Urke (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 766, 779

People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819

Second Holding:

There is a distinction between a probation grant in which imposition of sentence has been suspended (meaning, no sentence has been declared) and one where sentence has been imposed (meaning, a term has been specified) with the execution of that term suspended during the term of probation. In the former (imposition of sentence suspended), on revocation the court is free to choose whatever sentence options were available had probation never been granted. In the latter, the only choices are to reinstate probation or to revoke probation and order the previously imposed sentence executed.

Authority:

PEN 1203.2(c)

People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081

People v. Scott (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1415, 1424

Third Holding:

The letter from CDCR did not constitute a recommendation for recall of the sentence and resentencing under section 1170.1 that the sentence be modified. It was merely a letter seeking clarification on whether a lawful sentence had been imposed. Thus, the court could not base its resentencing on a response to the notice contemplated by section 1170.1.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 986-987

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 791–792

Fourth Holding:

When the parties negotiate a plea agreement that grants probation incorporating and conditioned upon the service of a specified term in custody, the resulting term of incarceration constitutes a material term of, the parties’ agreement. As such, the term is not subject to subsequent modification without the consent of both parties, and cannot be altered solely on the basis of the trial court’s general statutory authority to modify probation during the probationary period. Further, a plea agreement requiring an unauthorized sentence is not enforceable. On the other hand, once the court approves a plea bargain, it cannot change the agreement without the consent of the parties. When a guilty plea is invalidated the parties are generally restored to the positions they occupied before the plea bargain was entered.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 931, 935

In re Daniel M. Williams (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 936, 945 [the trial court cannot approve a plea bargain that calls for an unlawful sentence]

People v. Aragon (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 749, 756–757

People v. Baries (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 313, 319 [The concurrent sentence was unauthorized and could not have been lawfully imposed. It must be vacated, and the trial court must give the defendant, if she chooses, the opportunity to withdraw her plea since it cannot be honored.]

People v. Griffin (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1119

Abstracts and Minutes, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case: 000257

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A jury found the defendant guilty of one count of murder, two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition. The trial court sentenced him on each count of conviction and did not stay the sentence on any count. The court improperly sentenced him on two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm when he had only committed a single violation of that crime. The court erred when it sentenced him for being both a felon in possession of a firearm and a felon in possession of ammunition. We vacate defendant’s conviction on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and stay his sentence for being a felon in possession of ammunition. The abstract of judgment incorrectly marks trhe determinate term on count 2 as “M” for middle term rather than “H” to reflect the high term that was actually imposed, and must be corrected.

First Holding:

Possession of a firearm by a felon is a continuing offense. In the case of continuing offenses, only one violation occurs even though the proscribed conduct may extend over an indefinite period. The crime of possession of a firearm by a felon continues for as long as the possession of the firearm continues and is not completed until the possession has ceased. Therefore, where there is no evidence that the defendant relinquished his possession of a firearm, or that his possession was interrupted for a time, he can be convicted of only one count of that offense. The defendant possessed the same firearm on both dates charged in the information. The People did not present any evidence to show that the defendant ceased his possession of that firearm at any time between the murder and the arrest. We therefore vacate defendant’s conviction on count 4.

Authority:

People v. Mason (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 355, 365, 366-367

Wright v. Superior Court (1997) 15 Cal.4th 521, 525, fn. 1

People v. Warren (1940) 16 Cal.2d 103, 112

Second 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. The statute bars multiple punishment for separate offenses arising out of a single occurrence when all of the offenses were incident to one objective. It prohibits punishment for both unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition when the only ammunition at issue was either found inside or fired from the firearm.

Authority:

People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 498

People v. Broadbent (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 917, 922–923

People v. Sok (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 88, 100

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 132, 138

Third Holding:

Where multiple punishments have been improperly imposed, the proper procedure is for the reviewing court to modify the sentence to stay imposition of the lesser term. Here, the trial court should have stayed the punishment on count 3, the lesser term. We will therefore modify the judgment to stay the sentence on that count.

Authority:

People v. Spirlin (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 119, 131

People v. Broadbent (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 917, 922–923

People v. Sok (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 88, 100

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 132, 138

Fourth Holding:

The abstract of judgment for the determinate term on count 2 be modified to reflect that the defendant was sentenced to the high term (“H”), rather than the mid-term (“M”).

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 187

Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000254

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Penal Code section 654 prohibits punishment for both the murder and the burglary during which it occurred. In addition, the defendant is entitled to one more day credit for time served.

First Holding:

Section 654 provides in relevant 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. It bars the imposition of multiple sentences for a single act or omission, even though the act or omission may violate more than one provision of the Penal Code. It has long been interpreted to preclude multiple punishments not only for a single act that violates more than one statute, but for an indivisible course of conduct. If all of the offenses were merely incident to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once.

Authority:

People v. Dowdell (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1413

People v. Mejia (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1042–1043

Second Holding:

On appeal, we review factual determinations under the deferential substantial evidence test, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People. We review de novo the legal question of whether section 654 applies.

Authority:

People v. Valli (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 786, 794

Third Holding:

Burglary consists of entry into a house with the intent to commit a felony. Thus, ordinarily, if the defendant commits both burglary and the underlying intended felony, section 654 will permit punishment for one or the other but not for both. Here, the record reflects that the intent and objective of both the burglary and the murder were the same, and this was the prosecution’s theory of the case at trial. Accordingly, in light of the evidence introduced at trial, the jury instruction on burglary, and the prosecutor’s argument, substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s order to sentence defendant consecutively on these counts. Rather, one of the sentences on counts 1 or 2 should be stayed pursuant to section 654. And, because section 654 provides the court with discretion with regard to which sentence will be stayed, remand is necessary for the court to exercise its discretion in modifying defendant’s sentence.

[GARY NOTE: Don’t ignore the importance of this last statement. While it may be hard to imagine a case in which a judge would sentence on the burglary and stay the sentence for the murder, the judge does have that discretion under section 654. You may have a case where your client may be more sympathetic and the crimes not so divergent in their relative seriousness. It is not inconceivable that you could persuade a judge to impose and execute sentence on the lesser evil committed by your client, staying execution of the sentence on the more serious offense.]

Authority:

People v. Centers (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 84, 98

People v. Islas (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 116, 130 [When a defendant is convicted of burglary and the intended felony underlying the burglary, section 654 prohibits punishment for both crimes]

Fourth Holding:

Defendant was entitled to one additional day of presentence custody credit because the court failed to include the day of his arrest.

Authority:

PEN 2900.5


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


People v. Valdes (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 953, 955 [the day of arrest counts as a custody credit day]