Tag Archives: Unauthorized sentence

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]

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000845

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court incorrectly imposed a consecutive subordinate term for the child abuse and a concurrent term for the false imprisonment because those counts were stayed under Penal Code section 654.

The abstract of judgment does not reflect the correct amount of the defendant’s local conduct credits. We therefore exercise our inherent authority to modify the judgment to correct these errors.

First Holding:

Section 654 generally precludes multiple punishments for a single physical act that violates different provisions of law as well as multiple punishments for an indivisible course of conduct that violates more than one criminal statute.

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, the defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives that were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for independent violations 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

In re Raymundo M. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 78, 94

Second Holding:

The question whether section 654 is factually applicable to a given series of offenses is for the trial court, and the law gives the trial court broad latitude in making this determination. Its findings on this question must be upheld on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support them.

We view the evidence favorably to support the judgment and presume every factual finding that could reasonably be deduced from the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Roles (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 935, 946–947

Third Holding:

Because the court stayed counts 3 and 5 under section 654, count 3 should not be a consecutive one-third term and count 5 should not be concurrent. Remand is not necessary to correct these matters. The trial court clearly intended to impose the midterm for all counts and enhancements, and to stay execution of the sentences in counts 3 and 5 and the enhancement attached to count 5. We will therefore exercise our authority to modify the judgment to correct the unauthorized sentence.

Authority:

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

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

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

Fourth Holding:

There were errors in the abstract of judgment, including the failure to mark that counts 3 and 5 were stayed under section 654, and reflected seven days credit for time served less than ordered by the court. We exercise our authority to correct this error as well

Authority:

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

Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000835

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing under section 1172.75, the court erroneously imposed an enhancement that had been vacated as a result of an earlier appeal. The court also erred by not recalculating the credit for time served through the date of the resentencing. Further, the restitution fine must be vacated, as it was imposed at least 10 years ago.

First Holding:

When a prison term already in progress is modified the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served, whether in jail or prison, and whether before or since he was originally committed and delivered to prison custody. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is responsible for calculating any postsentence custody credits.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29

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

Second Holding:

After 10 years have elapsed from the imposition of a restitution fine imposed under section 1202.4, any remaining balance is unenforceable and uncollectible. Any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Third Holding:

The trial court struck the six one-year prior prison terms but declined to otherwise modify the sentence. However, although this court had previously vacated the three-year term imposed on count 1 pursuant to section 12022.7,(a), in resentencing the defendant, the trial court again imposed the enhancement and three-year term. The parties agree this was error, as do we. The great bodily injury enhancement imposed as to count 1 must be stricken and the three-year term vacated.

(Gary note: The court cited no authority for its order striking the enhancement that had been stricken in the earlier appeal. The relief seems obvious enough. Under section 1260, “The court may reverse, affirm, or modify a judgment or order appealed from, or reduce the degree of the offense or attempted offense or the punishment imposed, and may set aside, affirm, or modify any or all of the proceedings subsequent to, or dependent upon, such judgment or order, and may, if proper, order a new trial and may, if proper, remand the cause to the trial court for such further proceedings as may be just under the circumstances.”

(If that doesn’t precisely address the issue, one could also look at Dutra, although it, too, is not exactly on point. It dealt with the trial court’s act of not complying with the instructions in the remittitur because of a change in the law, but the change did not permit it to act outside the direction of the remittitur. Again, not exactly what happened here.

(Or one could argue that imposing the enhancement resulted in an unauthorized sentence (again), which can be corrected whenever the matter is before the court. See, for example, Sanders.

(It just seems so intuitive that the trial court, on resentencing, could not reimpose an enhancement that was stricken as unlawful in the earlier appeal. I’m not surprised the appellate court did not see a need to cite authority, particularly where the parties both agreed on the error and remedy. The authorities I have listed below were not cited by the court, and the two cases are fairly distinguishable from this situation, but might prove interesting reading nonetheless.)

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Dutra (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1367

People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 743, fn. 13

Abstracts and Minutes, Defenses, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000827

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The Three Strikes sentence is unauthorized because the prior strike allegation was never admitted or found true by the jury or court.

First Holding:

A defendant has a statutory right to a jury trial on the issue of whether he suffered an alleged prior conviction. He may waive that right and submit to a court trial or admit the truth of the prior conviction allegation. Here, there is nothing in the record showing there was any trial on the prior strike. After returning their verdicts on the substantive offenses, the jurors were discharged without considering the strike.

Authority:

PEN 1025(b)

PEN 1158

People v. Epps (2001) 25 Cal.4th 19, 25

Second Holding:

Had the matter been brought to the attention of the court, the court could have convened a new jury to try the prior conviction allegation.

Authority:

People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 595–596 [when the court improvidently discharged the jurors before they decided prior conviction allegations, and the defense failed to timely object, double jeopardy did not bar trial of the allegations before a new jury]

Third Holding:

There are cases in which the reviewing court has determined the trial court impliedly found true an enhancement allegation by imposing the enhancement at sentencing. But in such cases, the trial court was at least presented evidence supporting the allegation.

The same is not true here. While the prosecutor at one point represented that he had the certified 969b packet for the prior, there is no indication he presented those documents, or any other evidence, to the court.

And although the minute order of sentencing reflects a true finding by the court on the prior strike, we cannot rely on those entries because there is no oral record of the court making those findings.

Authority:

People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 691, fn. 17

People v. Chambers (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1047

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385–386

Fourth Holding:

There is no constitutional or procedural bar precluding the prosecution from retrying a prior strike allegation following appellate reversal for insufficient evidence.

Authority:

People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 239 [constitutional requirement of fundamental fairness, equitable principles of res judicata and law of the case, and relevant statutory provisions do not bar retrial of prior strike allegation]

People v. Monge (1997) 16 Cal.4th 826, 829 [state and federal prohibitions against double jeopardy do not bar retrial of a prior conviction allegation in a noncapital case]

Monge v. California (1998) 524 U.S. 721

Sentencing

Case 000823

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to stay the sentence on the use of firearm enhancement and the prior serious felony in an effort to show leniency. The proper procedure requires the court to strike them, not stay them.

Holding:

The trial court imposed and stayed both the remaining section 12022.53(b) and (c) firearm enhancements as to counts 1 and 2, and the serious felony prior enhancement as to count 2. This was an unauthorized sentence. The record indicates that the trial court did not intend to punish the defendant for these additional enhancements. Because a trial court has no authority to stay an enhancement based on its discretion, the court imposed a legally unauthorized sentence. We exercise our authority under section 1260 to modify the judgment by striking this unauthorized sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Bay (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 126, 139 [The trial court has no authority to stay an enhancement, rather than strike it—not, at least, when the only basis for doing either is its own discretionary sense of justice.]