Skip to content

Section 1172.75 resentencing – May a trial court reimpose the upper term without complying with 1170(b)(2)?

This case presents the following issue: May a trial court reimpose a previously imposed upper term sentence under Penal Code section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(4) where the facts underlying one or more aggravating circumstances were neither stipulated to by the defendant nor found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial…

Case: People v. Eaton (March 14, 2025, C096853) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 5/14/2025 (S289903)
Case Number: S289903/C096853
Updated: 20260930
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? Held: Under the plain language of PC 1385(c)(2), absent a finding that dismissal would…

Case: People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024
Case Number: S278309/B319961
Updated: 20240815
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 (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719
Case Number: S281599
Updated: 20250514
Read more

PC 1172.75 Resentencing When Defendant’s Prior Prison Term Enhancements Were Imposed and Stayed

Does Senate Bill No. 483 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728) entitle a defendant to a full resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75 if the defendant’s prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) were imposed and stayed, rather than imposed and executed? Held: PC 1172.75 entitles defendants to full resentencing when their judgments include a prior prison term…

Case: People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050
Case Number: S283169/E080064
Updated: 20250626
Read more

Application of Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 When Defendant is Resentenced Under SB 483 (PC § 1172.75)

Do the revised penalty provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Pen. Code, § 1170.12) apply when a defendant is resentenced pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (Pen. Code, § 1172.75)? The Court requested supplemental briefing on whether defendants qualify as “presently serving an indeterminate term” under Penal Code section 1170.126 if they were serving such a term…

Case: People v. Guevara (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838
Case Number: S283305/B329457
Updated: 20251009
Read more

PC § 1170(b)(3) and Sixth Amendment Right to a Jury Trial–Circumstances in Aggravation Based on Certified Records of Prior Convictions, Beyond Bare Fact of Convictions

Did the sentencing court’s consideration of circumstances in aggravation based on certified records of prior convictions, beyond the bare fact of the convictions, violate Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(3) or defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial? Held:  Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, held that a defendant is entitled to have a jury determine whether…

Case: People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069
Case Number: S283326/A165613
Updated: 20250626
Read more

Remand to Reinstate Strike Finding and Resentence Defendant Under Three Strikes Law

Did the Court of Appeal err in remanding the case with directions to reinstate the strike finding and to resentence defendant as a person who has suffered a prior strike conviction under the Three Strikes Law? (See People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 164, fn. 7; see also People v. McGlothin (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 468, 478; People v. Humphrey…

Case: People v. Dain (2025) 18 Cal.5th 246
Case Number: S283924/A168286
Updated: 20250804
Read more

Prosecution’s Ability to Rescind Plea Agreement at SB 483 Resentencing When Defendant’s Sentence is Reduced Beyond Eliminating Prison Priors

Is the prosecution entitled to rescind a plea agreement when a defendant receives a full resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728) and the trial court intends to reduce the sentence beyond eliminating the prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b))? Held:  The matter was transferred to the Court of Appeal, First Appellate…

Case: People v. Montgomery (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 768, review granted 5/29/2024
Case Number: S284662/A167813
Updated: 20241218
Read more

Whether a single act that harms multiple victims may constitute two strikes under the Three Strikes law

May two prior convictions arising out of a single act that harms multiple victims constitute two strikes under the Three Strikes law? (People v. Vargas (2014) 59 Cal.4th 635; People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148.) Held: A single act that harms two victims may not be treated as two prior strikes for purposes of Three Strikes sentencing.  Expanding the…

Case: People v. Shaw (2025) 18 Cal.5th 1089
Case Number: S286453/C098821
Updated: 20251215
Read more

Does Penal Code section 2900.5, subdivision (b) entitle the defendant to duplicative presentence custody credits when sentenced to concurrent terms on multiple cases at a single hearing?

When a defendant is sentenced to concurrent terms on multiple cases jointly resolved at a single hearing, does Penal Code section 2900.5, subdivision (b) entitle the defendant to duplicative presentence custody credits for time spent in custody on one or more of the cases, but not others? Held:  "[C]ustody credit is not automatically applied across multiple, distinct prosecutions merely because…

Case: People v. Cofer (2026) 20 Cal.5th 1
Case Number: S286297/H050122
Updated: 20260625
Read more

Whether Victim Restitution is Penal for Purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause

Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution’s ex post facto clause, which prohibits laws that retroactively increase the punishment for a crime or criminalize conduct that was legal when it occurred. The act extended the time period for which defendants were required to make restitution payment and added interest assessments. Held:…

Case: Ellingburg v. United States (2026) 607 U.S. 163 [146 S.Ct. 564]
Case Number: 24-482
Updated: 20260120
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? Held: Under Penal Code section 1172.6, trial courts may not impose uncharged and unproven allegations or enhancements as part of resentencing a successful petitioner. Arellano, charged…

Case: People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457
Case Number: S277962/H049413
Updated: 20240720
Read more

Whether resentencing courts may strike special circumstance findings for convictions before the effective date of section 1385.1?

The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: Does Penal Code section 1385.1, which bars sentencing courts from striking special circumstance findings, apply to Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing proceedings for murder convictions occurring prior to the June 6, 1990 effective date of section 1385.1?

Case: People v. Henderson (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 828, review granted 7/9/25
Case Number: S291105/B330707
Updated: 20250709
Read more

PC 1172.1 – Is there a presumption that a defendant will be resentenced to a lower term?

This case presents the following issues: (1) If a trial court recalls a defendant’s sentence upon recommendation of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.1, is there a presumption that the defendant will not be resentenced to the same effective term? (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by resentencing defendant…

Case: People v. Andrews (April 2, 2025, F088013) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 7/30/25.
Case Number: S290832/F088013
Updated: 20260513
Read more

Does issuing an OSC to correct part of a sentence render the sentence non-final for purposes of ameliorative laws?

Does the issuance of an order to show cause to review one aspect of a defendant's sentence in habeas corpus proceedings render applicable all ameliorative laws taking effect after the defendant's judgment became final? Held:  A grant of habeas corpus relief as to a portion of a sentence does not necessarily obligate the trial court to conduct a full resentencing…

Case: People v. Esquivias (2026) 20 Cal.5th __
Case Number: S286371 / B329800
Updated: 20260817
Read more

PC 1172.75 – Is a defendant entitled to resentencing when a prior prison term enhancement was imposed but punishment was stricken?

Is a defendant entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when the judgment in the defendant’s criminal case includes a prior prison term enhancement that was imposed but for which punishment was stricken? Held:  "We held in People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050 (Rhodius) that such an enhancement was 'imposed' even though the enhancement was stayed rather than…

Case: People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57
Case Number: S286987/H051258
Updated: 20260702
Read more

Trial court’s jurisdiction to modify a death sentence under PC 1172.75.

(1) May a superior court modify a death judgment under the recall and resentencing procedure in Penal Code section 1172.75? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the exclusivity provision of Penal Code section 1509 precludes modification of a death judgment under Penal Code section 1172.75? (3) Did the superior court have jurisdiction to resentence defendant pursuant…

Case: People v. Dixon (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 236, review granted 10/22/25
Case Number: S292223/B335987
Updated: 20260715
Read more

When PC 1170(b) sentencing error may be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt

Did the Court of Appeal err by declining to remand for resentencing under the amended Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)? (See People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069; People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730; People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416; People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354.)

Case: People v. Flowers (Sept. 22, 2025, B312522) [nonpublished opinion], review granted 12/17/25
Case Number: S293388/B312522
Updated: 20251217
Read more

Does the failure to allege premeditation and deliberation in the information render an indeterminate attempted murder sentence unauthorized?

Is defendant's indeterminate sentence for attempted murder unauthorized under Penal Code section 664, subdivision (a) because the prosecutor did not allege in the information that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated? Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in: People v. Williams (C100503) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 3/11/26 (S295057)

Case: People v. Orozco (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 343, review granted 12/17/25
Case Number: S293587/B329413
Updated: 20260311
Read more

Whether the CSC has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals in capital cases following noncapital resentencing?

This case presents issues relating to the noncapital resentencing of a capital defendant following remand. The Court directed the parties to brief and argue whether this Court has exclusive jurisdiction over this appeal, or whether this appeal may be decided by the Court of Appeal. (See Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11, subd. (a); People v. Coleman (1991) 53 Cal.3d…

Case: People v. Mataele (G064565), transfer granted 05/29/2025 (S291019)
Case Number: S291019/G064565
Updated: 20260401
Read more

Excessive Fines Clause – weighing the gravity of the offense

The question presented is whether, in determining whether a fine contravenes the Excessive Fines Clause, courts may consider the gravity of the underlying offense purely in the abstract or should consider the gravity of the specific defendant's wrongdoing.

Case: Jouppi v. Alaska (2025) 566 P.3d 943, cert. granted 7/20/2026
Case Number: 25-0246
Updated: 20260720
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: 20220822
Read more

Did Court of Appeal Err by Finding Trial Court Would Not Have Imposed a Low Term Sentence Under Newly-Added Penal Code section 1170(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.) Remand was required where the sentencing court did not clearly indicate…

Case: People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416
Case Number: S275788/B309803
Updated: 20231120
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)? Held:  Where the trial court orders defendant to pay victim restitution in an amount to be determined (PC 1202.4(f)), the court retains jurisdiction to order the specific amount of restitution after probation…

Case: People v. McCune (2024) 16 Cal.5th 980
Case Number: S276303/A163579
Updated: 20240808
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)? Held: Penal Code section 12022.53 establishes a tiered system of sentencing enhancements for specified felonies involving the use of firearms. (All statutory references are to…

Case: People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015
Case Number: S275940/D078919
Updated: 20240429
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: 20230525
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 Penal Code section 1172.6 proceedings, a prior jury finding of intent to kill does not conclusively establish that the petitioner is ineligible for relief at…

Case: People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433
Case Number: S272238/G058604
Updated: 20231127
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 (2024) 15 Cal.5th 706
Case Number: S258376
Updated: 20240205
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? Held: Dismissed as moot on 8/20/25.  

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: 20250820
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: 20230605
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) 14 Cal.5th 476
Case Number: S271178
Updated: 20230302
Read more

Prejudice Standard on Appeal for SB 567 Issue

What prejudice standard applies on appeal when determining whether a case should be remanded for resentencing in light of newly-enacted Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731)? Held: The CSC holds that Chapman standard of review applies in determining whether, in cases where the judgment is not yet final, remand is required for resentencing pursuant to SB 567, which…

Case: People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730
Case Number: S274942/C094174
Updated: 20240801
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? Held:  Constitutional due process does not require an ability to pay hearing prior to imposing any punitive “fine.” Instead, constitutional challenges to criminal fine amounts, such…

Case: People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1
Case Number: S257844/D072464
Updated: 20251229
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: 20221117
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: 20220808
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: 20210818
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: 20200723
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: 20200323
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: 20200302
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: 20190411
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? Held: Defendant who agreed to an upper term sentence pursuant to a plea bargain may invoke the retroactive benefit of SB 567's changes to PC 1170(b) regarding her nonfinal judgment…

Case: People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729
Case Number: S277314/A163476
Updated: 20260518
Read more