Sentencing

Did Court of Appeal Err by Finding Trial Court Would Not Have Imposed a Low Term Sentence Under Newly-Added Penal Code section 1170, Subdivision (b)(6)

Did the Court of Appeal err by finding the record clearly indicates the trial court would not have imposed a low term sentence if it had been fully aware of its discretion under newly-added subdivision (b)(6) of Penal Code section 1170? (See People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391.) Held: After Norman Salazar had been sentenced but while his appeal…

Case: People v. Salazar (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 453, review granted 10/12/2022
Case Number: S275788/B309803
Updated: November 20, 2023
Read more

Setting Victim Restitution After Terminating Probation Pursuant to AB 1950

Did the trial court exceed its jurisdiction by setting the amount of victim restitution after terminating defendant's probation pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1950 (Stats. 2020, ch. 328)? Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in: People v. Bui (H049109) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 6/14/2023 (S279880)    

Case: People v. McCune (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 648, review granted 10/26/2022
Case Number: S276303/A163579
Updated: June 14, 2023
Read more

Striking PC § 12022.53 Firearm Enhancement and Imposing Lesser Uncharged Enhancement Pursuant to a Different Statute (PC § 12022.5)

Does the trial court have discretion to strike a firearm enhancement imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.53 and instead impose a lesser uncharged firearm enhancement pursuant to a different statute (Pen. Code, § 12022.5)? Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in: People v. Fuller (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 394, review granted 11/22/2022 (S276762/E071794) People v. Johnson…

Case: People v. McDavid (Apr. 21, 2022) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 9/28/2022
Case Number: S275940/D078919
Updated: March 22, 2023
Read more

Constitutionality of Fact-Finding Required by PC 667.6, subd. (d)

Does Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (d), which requires that a "full, separate, and consecutive term" must be imposed for certain offenses if the sentencing court finds that the crimes "involve[d] the same victim on separate occasions," comply with the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Held: Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (d) requires a sentencing court to impose “full,…

Case: People v. Catarino (2023) 14 Cal.5th 748
Case Number: S271828
Updated: May 25, 2023
Read more

SB 1437–Gang-Murder Special Circumstance Preclude Eligibility for Resentencing at Prima Facie Stage?

Does a jury's true finding on a gang-murder special circumstance (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(22)) preclude a defendant from making a prima facie showing of eligibility for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95? In 2006, a jury convicted Freddy Alfredo Curiel of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found true the gang-murder special circumstance allegation…

Case: People v. Curiel (Nov. 4, 2021) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 1/26/2022
Case Number: S272238/G058604
Updated: November 27, 2023
Read more

One Strike Law Pleading and Sentencing

(1) Did the Court of Appeal err by disagreeing with People v. Jimenez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 373 and endorsing as mandatory the sentencing practice prohibited in that case; (2) Is the Court of Appeal's decision incorrect under People v. Mancebo (2002) 27 Cal.4th 735; (3) Did the Court of Appeal err by failing to address petitioner's claims as to the issues of waiver…

Case: In re Vaquera (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 233, review granted 11/26/2019
Case Number: S258376/G056786
Updated: July 12, 2023
Read more

Constitutionality of Three Strikes Law–Requiring Prosecutors to Plead and Prove Prior Convictions

(1) Does the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) violate the separation of powers doctrine by requiring prosecutors to plead and prove prior qualifying felony convictions? (2) If there is a duty to plead prior qualifying convictions, is mandamus the proper remedy to compel a prosecutor to act?  

Case: The Association of Deputy District Attorneys v. Gascón (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 503, review granted 8/31/2022
Case Number: S275478/B310845
Updated: August 31, 2022
Read more

Mental Health Diversion–Latest Point to Request

What is the latest point at which a defendant may request mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36? A request for pretrial diversion (Pen. Code, § 1001.36) must be made before attachment of jeopardy at trial or the entry of a guilty or no contest plea, whichever occurs first. In 2018, defendant was charged with resisting an executive officer with…

Case: People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791
Case Number: S268925
Updated: June 5, 2023
Read more

Judicial Fact Finding at Sentencing When Jury Failed to Reach a Verdict

Did the sentencing court err by finding petitioner's conviction for battery with serious bodily injury was a serious felony (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)), despite the jury's failure to reach a verdict on the allegation that petitioner personally inflicted great bodily injury in committing that offense? (See Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542…

Case: In re Cabrera (2023) __ Cal.5th __
Case Number: S271178
Updated: March 2, 2023
Read more

Does Gallardo (Limiting Judicial Fact-Finding for Prior Convictions) Apply Retroactively

Do the limitations of People v. Gallardo (2017) 4 Cal.5th 120 on judicial fact-finding concerning the basis for a prior conviction apply retroactively to final judgments? (Compare In re Milton (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 977 with In re Brown (Feb. 25, 2020, E071401) 45 Cal.App.5th 699.) A request for an order directing depublication of the opinion was denied. Held: In 1987, petitioner William Milton was convicted of…

Case: In re Milton (2022) 13 Cal.5th 893
Case Number: S259954/B297354
Updated: August 22, 2022
Read more

Fines, Fees, Assessments and Considering Defendant’s Ability to Pay

(1) Must a court consider a defendant's ability to pay before imposing or executing fines, fees, and assessments? (2) If so, which party bears the burden of proof regarding the defendant's inability to pay? Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in: People v. Hicks (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 320, review granted 11/26/2019 (S258946/B291307) People v. Belloso (2019) 42…

Case: People v. Kopp (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 47, review granted 11/13/2019
Case Number: S257844/D072464
Updated: June 17, 2020
Read more

Three Strikes Sentencing When There Are Multiple Current Violent or Serious Felony Convictions

Does the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (c)(6) & (7), 1170.12, subd. (a)(6) & (7)) require consecutive terms on multiple current violent or serious felony convictions, regardless of whether the offenses occurred on the same occasion or arose from the same set of operative facts? Held: "This case considers if and when a court may impose concurrent sentences…

Case: People v. Henderson (2022) 14 Cal.5th 34
Case Number: S265172
Updated: November 17, 2022
Read more

SB 1437–Felony-Murder Special Circumstance Finding Precluding Eligibility for Relief

Does a felony-murder special circumstance finding (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) made before People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 preclude a defendant from making a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under Penal Code section 1170.95? Held: A pre-Banks/Clark felony-murder special-circumstance finding does not preclude a defendant from establishing a prima facie case for…

Case: People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698
Case Number: S266606
Updated: August 8, 2022
Read more

SB 1437–Record of Conviction When Considering Prima Facie Showing of Eligibility and Timing of Right to Appointed Counsel

(1) May superior courts consider the record of conviction in determining whether a defendant has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under Penal Code section 1170.95? (2) When does the right to appointed counsel arise under Penal Code section 1170.95, subdivision (c)? Held: When a defendant files a complying petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95,…

Case: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952
Case Number: S260598
Updated: August 18, 2021
Read more

Imposition of PC 12022.53(e) Enhancements Not Pleaded

Were the enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (e), improperly imposed as to counts 3 through 7 because the prosecution did not specifically plead a violation of this subdivision as to those counts? (See People v. Mancebo (2002) 27 Cal.4th 735.) Opinion By: Justice Kruger (unanimous decision) Held: Trial court erred by imposing vicarious firearm use enhancements (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd.…

Case: People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946
Case Number: S253227
Updated: July 23, 2020
Read more

Prop. 47 — Taking a Vehicle

In this case in which briefing was previously deferred pending decision in People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175, the court ordered the parties to brief the following question on 2/21/2018: Does equal protection or the avoidance of absurd consequences require that misdemeanor sentencing under Penal Code sections 490.2 and 1170.18 extend not only to those convicted of violating Vehicle Code section…

Case: People v. Bullard (2020) 9 Cal.5th 94
Case Number: S239488
Updated: March 23, 2020
Read more

Prop 47–Identity Theft

May a felony conviction for the unauthorized use of personal identifying information of another (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)) be reclassified as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 on the ground that the offense amounted to Penal Code section 459.5 shoplifting? Opinion By: Justice Cuéllar (unanimous decision) Held: A felony conviction for misuse of personal identifying information (Pen. Code, § 530.5,…

Case: People v. Jimenez (2020) 9 Cal.5th 53
Case Number: S249397
Updated: March 2, 2020
Read more

Prop.47–Direct Application Where Offense Occurred Before Prop. 47 Enacted, But Trial/Sentencing Occurred After Effective Date

On 3/21/2018, the Court ordered briefing in a previously held case on the following issue: Does Penal Code section 490.2, added by Proposition 47, effective November 5, 2014, apply directly (i.e., without a petition under Penal Code section 1170.18) in trial and sentencing proceedings held after Proposition 47's effective date, where the charged offense was allegedly committed before Proposition 47's…

Case: People v. Lara (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1128
Case Number: S243975
Updated: April 11, 2019
Read more

Retroactive Application of SB 567 to Stipulated Plea Agreements

Does Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731), which limits a trial court’s discretion to impose upper term sentences, apply retroactively to defendants sentenced pursuant to stipulated plea agreements? Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in: Second District People v. Sovalbarro (B317652) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 12/28/2022 (S277121) People v. Caro (B315233) [nonpub. opn.],…

Case: People v. Mitchell (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1051, review granted 12/14/2022
Case Number: S277314/A163476
Updated: November 1, 2023
Read more

Permissible Enhancements on Penal Code Section 1172.6(e) Resentencing

When a defendant obtains resentencing of a conviction under Penal Code section 1172.6, subdivision (e), is the trial court permitted to impose not only the target offense or underlying felony, but also corresponding enhancements?

Case: People v. Arellano (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 418, review granted 3/15/2023
Case Number: S277962/H049413
Updated: March 15, 2023
Read more

PC Section 1172.6 Resentencing and Pre-2009 Provocative Act Murder Convictions

(1) Is defendant entitled to resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6 on the ground that malice could be imputed to the defendant under the provocative act theory of murder for convictions occurring before 2009 (see Sen. Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.); People v. Concha (2009) 47 Cal.4th 653)? (2) Did the trial court err by not considering the…

Case: People v. Antonelli (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 712, review granted 10/18/2023
Case Number: S281599/B321947
Updated: October 18, 2023
Read more

Whether PC 1385(c) Creates a Rebuttable Presumption in Favor of Dismissing an Enhancement

Does the amendment to Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c) that requires trial courts to “afford great weight” to enumerated mitigating circumstances (Stats. 2021, ch. 721) create a rebuttable presumption in favor of dismissing an enhancement unless the trial court finds dismissal would endanger public safety? Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in: First District…

Case: People v. Walker (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 386, review granted 3/22/2023
Case Number: S278309/B319961
Updated: October 25, 2023
Read more