You have no items in your shopping cart.
Search
Filters

California Criminal Sentencing Enhancements 2022

This practical reference identifies applicable enhancements, explains pleading and proof, and deciphers the rules of imposition under California’s multiple sentencing schemes.

This practical reference identifies applicable enhancements, explains pleading and proof, and deciphers the rules of imposition under California’s multiple sentencing schemes.

  • Comprehensive chapters on single subjects including drugs; gangs; firearms; and serious, violent, and sexual offenses
  • Easy-to-read charts with code provisions and term lengths
  • Practice tips with alternate charging suggestions
  • Explanations of when the court may stay or strike an enhancement or its penalty
  • Proposition 47 and prior convictions
  • Latest on Proposition 57
  • Gang enhancements and expert testimony
OnLAW CR94160

Web access for one user.

 

$ 270.00
Print CR34162

Approx. 604 pgs, softcover, replaced annually.

$ 270.00

This practical reference identifies applicable enhancements, explains pleading and proof, and deciphers the rules of imposition under California’s multiple sentencing schemes.

  • Comprehensive chapters on single subjects including drugs; gangs; firearms; and serious, violent, and sexual offenses
  • Easy-to-read charts with code provisions and term lengths
  • Practice tips with alternate charging suggestions
  • Explanations of when the court may stay or strike an enhancement or its penalty
  • Proposition 47 and prior convictions
  • Latest on Proposition 57
  • Gang enhancements and expert testimony

1

Sentencing Overview

Hon. Philip Pennypacker

William R. Bennett

  • I.  TRANSITION FROM INDETERMINATE TO DETERMINATE SENTENCING
    • A.  Pre-1977 Law Based on Indeterminate Sentencing
      • 1.  Nature of Indeterminate Sentencing Law  1.1
      • 2.  Movement Toward Determinate Sentencing
        • a.  Allegations of Cruel and Unusual Punishment  1.2
        • b.  Need to Formalize Standard Deviation Table for Sentencing  1.3
        • c.  Overall Discontent With Indeterminate Sentencing Regime  1.4
    • B.  Development and Amendment of Determinate Sentencing Law
      • 1.  Background  1.5
      • 2.  Phase One: The Initial Determinate Sentencing Law
        • a.  Statement of Legislative Purpose; New Sentencing Calculations Needed  1.6
        • b.  Division of Sentences Into Three Terms  1.7
        • c.  Consideration of Other Counts, Enhancements, and Time Served  1.8
        • d.  Changes to Sentencing Structure by Court Rules  1.9
        • e.  On-the-Record Statement of Sentencing Choices  1.10
        • f.  New Parole Process  1.11
      • 3.  Phase Two: Legislative Interventions
        • a.  Background  1.12
        • b.  Sentence Increases for Violent or Serious Offenses  1.13
        • c.  Probation Restrictions; Importance of Tanner Decision
          • (1)  Probation Restrictions and Prelude to Tanner  1.14
          • (2)  Importance of Tanner Decision  1.15
      • 4.  Phase Three: State Initiatives, Related Legislation, and Court Action
        • a.  Background  1.16
        • b.  Proposition 8
          • (1)  Passage of Proposition 8  1.17
          • (2)  Treatment of Prior Convictions Under Proposition 8  1.18
        • c.  Three Strikes Law and Sentencing Legislation
          • (1)  Passage of Three Strikes Ballot Initiative and Other Legislation  1.19
          • (2)  Court Treatment of Strike Sentencing  1.20
      • 5.  Phase Four: Court Rulings on “Aggravating” Sentences, Cunningham Decision, and Legislative Response  1.21
      • 6.  Phase Five: Realignment and Decriminalization
        • a.  The Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011  1.21A
        • b.  Proposition 47: The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act  1.21B
        • c.  Proposition 64: Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act  1.21C
  • II.  CURRENT OPERATION OF DETERMINATE SENTENCING LAW
    • A.  DSL Sentencing Process Summarized  1.22
    • B.  Determining Eligibility for Probation  1.23
    • C.  Selecting Base Term
      • 1.  Mandatory Selection of Base Term  1.24
      • 2.  Factors in Selecting Base Term  1.25
    • D.  Treatment of Multiple Counts
      • 1.  Rule Against Multiple Punishment Under Pen C §654  1.26
      • 2.  Presumption of Concurrent Sentences and Rules for Consecutive Sentences  1.27
    • E.  Adding Enhancements  1.28
    • F.  Applying Pen C §1170(h)  1.28A
    • G.  Finishing the Sentence  1.29
    • H.  Application of Alternative Sentencing Requirements
      • 1.  Background  1.30
      • 2.  Specific Sentencing Schemes
        • a.  Indeterminate Sentencing Law  1.31
        • b.  Strike Law
          • (1)  When Strike Law Applies  1.32
          • (2)  Interplay of Strike Law With Enhancements for Particular Offenses
            • (a)  One Strike Sex Sentencing Law  1.33
            • (b)  Sexual Offense With Prior Conviction  1.34
            • (c)  Habitual Sexual Offender  1.35
            • (d)  Habitual Offenders Who Cause Great Bodily Injury  1.36
            • (e)  Drug Trafficking Involving Minors  1.37
        • c.  Street Gang Enhancements  1.38
        • d.  Application of Other Sentencing Schemes  1.39
    • I.  Examples of Sentencing Calculations Under DSL  1.40

2

Enhancements Overview

Hon. Philip Pennypacker

William R. Bennett

  • I.  ENHANCEMENTS IN CONTEXT OF DETERMINATE SENTENCING LAW  2.1
  • II.  COURT USE OF TERM “ENHANCEMENT” AND TYPES OF ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Court Use of Term “Enhancement”  2.2
    • B.  Types of Sentence Enhancements  2.3
  • III.  FREQUENTLY ENCOUNTERED ISSUES REGARDING ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  New Crime Versus Longer Prison Term; Due Process  2.4
    • B.  Aggravating Factors and Enhancements Distinguished  2.5
    • C.  Alternative Sentencing Schemes and Enhancements Distinguished  2.6
    • D.  Need for Pleading and Proof of Enhancements  2.7
    • E.  Burden of Proof for Enhancements at Preliminary Examinations and Trials  2.8
    • F.  Prohibition on Use of Facts Supporting Enhancement to Also Aggravate Sentence  2.9
    • G.  Imposition of Two Enhancements on Single Substantive Crime  2.10
    • H.  Imposition of Enhancement Sentences  2.11
    • I.  Trial Court’s Authority to Strike Enhancements or Associated Punishment  2.12
    • J.  Example of Multiple Counts With Conduct Enhancements Associated With Each Count  2.13
  • IV.  CHECKLIST OF SPECIFIC CONDUCT ENHANCEMENTS  2.14

3

Victims

Hon. Kenneth L. Shapero

  • I.  CHART: VICTIM ENHANCEMENTS  3.1
  • II.  PURPOSE OF VICTIM-RELATED ENHANCEMENTS  3.2
  • III.  AGED, UNDER AGE, OR DISABLED VICTIMS
    • A.  Particularly Vulnerable Victims (Pen C §667.9)  3.3
    • B.  Elements of Enhancements and Definitions
      • 1.  Specified Offense on Specified Victim (Pen C §667.9(a))  3.4
      • 2.  Specified Offense With Specified Prior on Specified Victim (Pen C §667.9(b))  3.5
    • C.  Punishment
      • 1.  Specified Offense on Specified Victim (Pen C §667.9(a))  3.6
      • 2.  Specified Offense With Specified Prior on Specified Victim (Pen C §667.9(b))  3.7
    • D.  Imposition Rules
      • 1.  Pleading and Proof  3.8
      • 2.  Standard of Proof  3.9
      • 3.  Operation With Determinate Sentencing Law  3.10
        • a.  Calculation of Term  3.11
        • b.  Cunningham and Apprendi  3.12
        • c.  Multiple Counts  3.13
      • 4.  Multiple Victims  3.14
      • 5.  Dual Use of Facts  3.15
      • 6.  Operation With Pen C §654  3.16
      • 7.  Operation With Indeterminate Sentencing  3.17
      • 8.  Operation With Other Enhancements  3.18
      • 9.  Operation With Three Strikes Law  3.19
      • 10.  Operation With the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011  3.19A
      • 11.  Court’s Authority to Strike the Punishment or the Enhancement  3.20
      • 12.  Stipulated Sentence  3.21
  • IV.  HATE CRIME ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Legislative Purpose  3.22
    • B.  Elements of Enhancements and Definitions
      • 1.  Hate Crime (Pen C §422.75(a))  3.23
      • 2.  Hate Crime in Concert (Pen C §422.75(b))  3.24
      • 3.  Hate Crime With Prior Hate Crime (Pen C §422.75(d))  3.25
    • C.  Punishment
      • 1.  Hate Crime (Pen C §422.75(a))  3.26
      • 2.  Hate Crime in Concert (Pen C §422.75(b))  3.27
      • 3.  Hate Crime With Prior Hate Crime (Pen C §422.75(d))  3.28
    • D.  Imposition Rules
      • 1.  Pleading and Proof  3.29
      • 2.  Standard of Proof  3.30
    • E.  Term Imposition
      • 1.  Operation With Determinate Sentencing  3.31
        • a.  Selection and Calculation of Term  3.32
        • b.  Cunningham and Apprendi  3.33
        • c.  Multiple Counts  3.34
        • d.  Multiple Victims  3.35
        • e.  Dual Use of Facts  3.36
        • f.  Operation With Pen C §654  3.37
      • 2.  Operation With Indeterminate Sentencing  3.38
      • 3.  Operation With Other Enhancements  3.39
      • 4.  Operation With Three Strikes Law  3.40
      • 5.  Operation With the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011  3.40A
      • 6.  Court’s Authority to Strike the Punishment or Enhancement  3.41
      • 7.  Stipulated Sentence  3.42

4

Injury and Death

Nancy Brewer

James P. Lambe

  • I.  CHART: GBI AND DEATH ENHANCEMENTS  4.1
  • II.  EFFECT OF GREAT BODILY INJURY ENHANCEMENTS  4.2
    • A.  Definitions
      • 1.  Great Bodily Injury  4.3
      • 2.  Relationship to Serious Bodily Injury  4.4
      • 3.  Comatose  4.5
      • 4.  To Inflict  4.6
      • 5.  Personal Infliction  4.7
      • 6.  Other Than Accomplice  4.8
      • 7.  During Commission of Felony  4.9
      • 8.  Age  4.10
    • B.  Application
      • 1.  Element of the Underlying Offense  4.11
      • 2.  Allegation in Charging Document  4.12
      • 3.  Specific Offenses
        • a.  Homicide, Manslaughter  4.13
        • b.  Pregnancy  4.14
        • c.  Battery With Serious Bodily Injury  4.15
        • d.  Driving Offenses  4.16
    • C.  Intent Requirements  4.17
    • D.  Sentencing Issues
      • 1.  Pleaded and Proved  4.18
      • 2.  Shown by Evidence at Preliminary Hearing or Grand Jury Proceeding  4.19
    • E.  Imposition of Enhancement Sentence
      • 1.  Authority to Stay or Strike  4.20
      • 2.  Probation Eligibility  4.21
      • 3.  Operation With Other Enhancements  4.22
      • 4.  When the Enhancement Is Attached to a Subordinate Term  4.23
      • 5.  Operation With Pen C §654  4.24
      • 6.  Dual Use of Facts  4.25
      • 7.  Credit Issues  4.26
      • 8.  Credits Under Pen C §2933.1  4.27
      • 9.  When There Is a Strike Prior  4.28
      • 10.  When a Three Strikes Life Sentence Is Imposed  4.29
      • 11.  Future Consequences  4.30
    • F.  Juvenile Adjudication Issues  4.31

5

Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons

Robyn L. Chew

Steven I. Katz

  • I.  CHART: FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS  5.1
  • II.  PURPOSE OF FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS  5.2
  • III.  PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO ALL FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Pleading and Proof
      • 1.  Pleading  5.3
      • 2.  Proof of Firearm  5.4
    • B.  Application to Juveniles  5.5
    • C.  Sentencing  5.6
  • IV.  ENHANCEMENTS FOR BEING ARMED WITH FIREARM
    • A.  Definitions  5.7
    • B.  Liability  5.8
    • C.  Application  5.9
    • D.  Sentencing  5.10
    • E.  Consequence of True Finding  5.11
    • F.  Armed During Felony (Pen C §12022(a)(1))  5.12
    • G.  Armed With Assault Weapon During Felony (Pen C §12022(a)(2))  5.13
    • H.  “Armed” and Third Strike Sentencing and Resentencing  5.13A
  • V.  ENHANCEMENTS FOR USE OF FIREARM
    • A.  Definitions  5.14
    • B.  Intent  5.15
    • C.  Liability  5.16
    • D.  Sentencing  5.17
    • E.  Consequence of True Finding  5.18
    • F.  Personal Use During Any Felony (Pen C §12022.5)  5.19
    • G.  Personal Use During Specified Violent Felonies: 10–20–Life Enhancement (Pen C §12022.53)  5.20
      • 1.  Personal Use (Pen C §12022.53(b))  5.21
      • 2.  Intentional Discharge and Great Bodily Injury (Pen C §12022.53(c)–(d))  5.22
        • a.  Intent  5.23
        • b.  Proximately Causing Injury or Death  5.24
        • c.  Sentencing  5.25
  • VI.  FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS FOR STREET GANGS  5.26
  • VII.  FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS FOR DRUG OFFENSES
    • A.  Armed During Specified Drug Offenses (Pen C §12022(c)–(d))  5.27
    • B.  Personal Use During Felony Drug Offense (Pen C §12022.5)  5.28
  • VIII.  FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS FOR SEX OFFENSES
    • A.  Armed With or Use of Firearm or Deadly Weapon During Specified Sex Offenses (Pen C §12022.3)  5.29
    • B.  Personal Use During Specified Sex Offenses: 10–20–Life Enhancements (Pen C §12022.53)  5.30
    • C.  Alternative Sentencing Provision (Pen C §667.61)  5.31
  • IX.  FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES  5.32
  • X.  MISCELLANEOUS FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Furnishing a Firearm (Pen C §12022.4)  5.33
    • B.  Transfer of Firearm (Pen C §27590(d))  5.34
    • C.  Transfer of Assault Weapons; Commission of Crime (Pen C §30600(b)/Pen C §30615)  5.35
    • D.  Possession of Ammunition to Penetrate Vests; Wearing Body Vest  5.36
  • XI.  CHART: DANGEROUS/DEADLY WEAPON ENHANCEMENTS  5.37
  • XII.  DANGEROUS OR DEADLY WEAPON ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Pleading and Proof  5.38
    • B.  Definition of Dangerous or Deadly Weapon  5.39
      • 1.  Dangerous or Deadly Per Se  5.40
      • 2.  Insufficient Evidence of Dangerous or Deadly  5.41
      • 3.  “Dangerous or Deadly” Under Pen C §12022(b)  5.42
      • 4.  “Deadly” Under Pen C §245(a)(1)  5.43
    • C.  Sentencing  5.44
    • D.  Personal Use of Deadly Weapon (Pen C §12022(b))  5.45
    • E.  Armed With or Use of Deadly Weapon During Specified Sex Offenses (Pen C §12022.3(a)–(b))  5.46
    • F.  Third Strike Sentencing and Resentencing  5.47

6

Other Instruments of Injury or Death

Robyn L. Chew

Steven I. Katz

  • I.  CHART: APPLICABLE ENHANCEMENTS  6.1
  • II.  INSTRUMENTS DISTINCT FROM DANGEROUS OR DEADLY WEAPONS  6.2
  • III.  POISON AND HARMFUL SUBSTANCES
    • A.  Use of Poison as Substantive Offense and Enhancement  6.3
    • B.  Use of Poison to Commit Murder: Factor in Aggravation, Special Circumstance  6.4
  • IV.  CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
    • A.  Administering as Substantive Offense  6.5
    • B.  Administering as Enhancement  6.6
    • C.  Administering to Perpetrate Specified Sexual Assault Offenses: One Strike Alternative Sentencing Scheme  6.7
    • D.  Furnishing as Basis for Felony-Murder Rule  6.8
  • V.  FIRE AND ARSON ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Purpose  6.9
    • B.  Major Statutes  6.10
      • 1.  Definitions  6.11
      • 2.  Application  6.12
      • 3.  Sentencing  6.13
      • 4.  Postconviction Consequences  6.14
  • VI.  FIRE AND ARSON ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING SCHEME  6.14A
  • VII.  ARSON AS MEANS TO COMMIT MURDER: FACTOR IN AGGRAVATION, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE  6.15
  • VIII.  EXPLOSIVES, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
    • A.  Purpose  6.16
    • B.  Definitions  6.17
    • C.  Destructive Devices and Explosives as Bases for Substantive Offenses
      • 1.  Possession, Sale, and Transportation of Destructive Devices or Explosives  6.18
      • 2.  Aggravated Possession of Destructive Devices or Explosives  6.19
      • 3.  Use of Destructive Devices or Explosives  6.20
      • 4.  Postconviction Consequences  6.21
  • IX.  CAUSING DEATH THROUGH USE OF DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE OR EXPLOSION
    • A.  As a Substantive Charge  6.22
    • B.  As a Circumstance in Support of Murder Charges  6.23
    • C.  Punishment on Conviction for Both Offenses  6.24
  • X.  WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND RESTRICTED BIOLOGICAL AGENTS
    • A.  Substantive Offenses  6.25
    • B.  Postconviction Consequences  6.26

7

Gangs

Ronald J. Freitas

  • I.  CHART: GANG ENHANCEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING SCHEMES  7.1
  • II.  STREET TERRORISM ENFORCEMENT AND PREVENTION ACT (STEP ACT)
    • A.  Enactment and Constitutionality  7.2
    • B.  Criminal Street Gang Defined  7.3
      • 1.  Common Name  7.4
      • 2.  Primary Activity  7.5
      • 3.  Pattern of Criminal Gang Activity
        • a.  Two or More Offenses  7.6
        • b.  Committed on One or More Than One Occasion  7.7
        • c.  Proving the Predicate Offenses Through Gang Subsets  7.7A
    • C.  Substantive Offenses
      • 1.  Active Participation in Gang: Pen C §186.22(a)
        • a.  Elements  7.8
        • b.  Evidence of Active Participation  7.9
        • c.  Willfully Promotes, Furthers, or Assists Felonious Conduct of Gang  7.10
        • d.  Multiple Punishment  7.10A
      • 2.  Conspiracy and Soliciting, Furnishing, or Concealing Firearms  7.11
    • D.  Conduct Enhancement (Pen C §186.22(b))
      • 1.  Enhancement Defined  7.12
      • 2.  Elements of Primary Gang Enhancement (Pen C §186.22(b)(1))  7.13
        • a.  Any Person; Any Crime  7.14
        • b.  For Benefit of, at Direction of, or in Association With Gang  7.15
        • c.  Specific Intent to Promote, Further, or Assist in Any Criminal Conduct by Gang Members  7.16
      • 3.  Punishment  7.17
        • a.  Pleading and Proof  7.18
        • b.  Staying or Striking the Gang Enhancement  7.19
        • c.  Multiple Enhancements  7.20
    • E.  Alternative Penalty Provisions
      • 1.  Offense Punishable as Felony or Misdemeanor (Pen C §186.22(d))  7.21
      • 2.  Enumerated Felonies With Minimum Indeterminate Terms: Pen C §186.22(b)(4)  7.22
      • 3.  Fifteen-Year Parole Eligibility: Pen C §186.22(b)(5)  7.23
      • 4.  Special Circumstance  7.24
    • F.  Bifurcation From Underlying Charge  7.25
    • G.  Juvenile Proceedings  7.26
    • H.  Additional Sentencing Issues
      • 1.  Asset Forfeiture  7.27
      • 2.  Registration  7.28
      • 3.  Probation Conditions  7.29
      • 4.  Restitution  7.30
      • 5.  Restitution and Parole Revocation Fines  7.31
  • III.  EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
    • A.  Admissibility of Gang Evidence  7.32
    • B.  Use of Expert Witnesses
      • 1.  Qualification as Expert  7.33
      • 2.  Subject of Expert Testimony  7.34
      • 3.  Basis of Expert Opinion  7.35
      • 4.  Sufficiency of Expert Testimony  7.36

8

Drugs

Hon. Kenneth L. Shapero

  • I.  CHART: CONTROLLED-SUBSTANCES ENHANCEMENTS  8.1
  • II.  PURPOSE OF DRUG ENHANCEMENTS  8.2
  • III.  CONDUCT ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Pleading and Proof  8.3
    • B.  Term Imposition
      • 1.  Operation With Determinate Sentencing
        • a.  Enhancements Must Be Imposed Consecutively to Base Term  8.4
        • b.  Selection of Enhancement and Calculation of Term  8.5
        • c.  Cunningham and Apprendi Considerations  8.6
        • d.  Multiple Counts  8.7
      • 2.  Operation With Indeterminate Sentencing  8.8
      • 3.  Dual Use of Facts  8.9
      • 4.  Prohibition on Multiple Punishment for Same Act (Pen C §654)  8.10
      • 5.  Operation With Three Strikes Law  8.11
      • 6.  Operation With the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011  8.11A
      • 7.  Court’s Authority to Strike Punishment or Enhancement  8.12
    • C.  Specific Conduct Enhancements
      • 1.  Trafficking in Heroin, Cocaine, Cocaine Base, Methamphetamine, or PCP Within 1,000 Feet of Specified Facility (Health & S C §11380.7)  8.13
      • 2.  Manufacture of Methamphetamine or PCP in Presence of, or Causing GBI to, Minor Under 16 (Health & S C §11379.7)  8.14
      • 3.  Manufacture of Methamphetamine or PCP That Causes Death or GBI (Health & S C §11379.9)  8.15
      • 4.  Inducing Another to Commit Crime With Value of Controlled Substance Over $500,000 (Health & S C §11356.5)  8.16
      • 5.  Inducing Minor to Violate Narcotics Law (Health & S C §11353.1)  8.17
      • 6.  Inducing Minor to Violate Narcotics Law (Health & S C §11380.1)  8.18
      • 7.  Trafficking Within 1,000 Feet of School (Health & S C §11353.6)  8.19
      • 8.  Quantity Enhancements
        • a.  Possession for Sale, Sale, or Transportation (Health & S C §11370.4)  8.20
        • b.  Manufacture of Controlled Substance by Chemical Extraction or Synthesis (Health & S C §11379.8)  8.21
  • IV.  STATUS ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Overview  8.22
    • B.  Elements of Status Enhancements
      • 1.  Prior Inducing a Minor (Health & S C §11353.4)  8.23
      • 2.  Prior Sale or Manufacture (Health & S C §11370.2)  8.24
    • C.  Pleading and Proof
      • 1.  Pleading  8.25
      • 2.  Proof  8.26
    • D.  Term Imposition
      • 1.  Operation With Determinate Sentencing  8.27
      • 2.  Selection and Calculation of Term  8.28
      • 3.  Prohibition on Multiple Punishment for Same Act (Pen C §654)  8.29
      • 4.  Operation With Indeterminate Sentencing  8.30
      • 5.  Court’s Authority to Strike Punishment or Enhancement  8.31
      • 6.  Stipulated Sentence  8.32

9

DUI

Hon. Matthew C. Braner

  • I.  CHART: DUI-RELATED ENHANCEMENTS  9.1
  • II.  HOW DUIs ENHANCE SENTENCES  9.2
  • III.  EFFECT OF DUI PRIOR ON CURRENT DUI OFFENSE
    • A.  DUI Offenses Subject to Increased Penalty for Prior DUI  9.3
    • B.  Prior DUI Convictions That Will Enhance Current Offense
      • 1.  Qualifying Priors That Enhance Current Misdemeanor Offense  9.4
      • 2.  Separate Felony Convictions That Elevate Current DUI Offense to Felony  9.5
    • C.  Special Criteria Concerning Prior Convictions
      • 1.  Prior Offense Must Have Been Committed Within 10 Years of Current Offense  9.6
      • 2.  Prior May Have Been Committed After Current Offense  9.7
      • 3.  Sentencing Court May Not Strike DUI Priors  9.8
      • 4.  Availability of Preplea Diversion   9.8A
    • D.  Effect of DUI Prior on Punishment for Simple DUI Under Veh C §23152
      • 1.  Punishment Under Veh C §23152 With No Prior DUI  9.9
        • a.  Without Probation  9.10
        • b.  With Probation  9.11
      • 2.  Punishment Under Veh C §23152 With One Prior DUI  9.12
        • a.  Without Probation  9.13
        • b.  With Probation  9.14
      • 3.  Punishment Under Veh C §23152 With Two Prior DUI Convictions  9.15
        • a.  Without Probation  9.16
        • b.  With Probation  9.17
    • E.  Effect of DUI Prior on Punishment for DUI With Injury Under Veh C §23153
      • 1.  Compared to Simple DUI Under Veh C §23152  9.18
      • 2.  Punishment Under Veh C §23153 With No Prior DUI
        • a.  Without Probation  9.19
        • b.  With Probation  9.20
      • 3.  Punishment Under Veh C §23153 With One Prior DUI
        • a.  Without Probation  9.21
        • b.  With Probation  9.22
      • 4.  Punishment Under Veh C §23153 With Two or More Prior DUI Convictions
        • a.  Without Probation  9.23
        • b.  With Probation  9.24
    • F.  Priors That Elevate Current DUI Offense to Felony
      • 1.  Three or More Prior DUI Convictions Under Veh C §23152  9.25
      • 2.  Separate DUI-Related Felony Convictions Enumerated in Veh C §23550.5  9.26
  • IV.  DUI-RELATED FELONY CONVICTIONS THAT QUALIFY AS STRIKE PRIORS UNDER THREE STRIKES LAW  9.27
  • V.  USE OF PRIOR DUI CONVICTION TO ESTABLISH IMPLIED MALICE FOR MURDER CHARGE  9.28

10

Kidnapping, Robbery, and Carjacking

Robyn L. Chew

Steven I. Katz

  • I.  CHART: KIDNAPPING, ROBBERY, CARJACKING, AND GENERALLY APPLICABLE ENHANCEMENTS  10.1
  • II.  KIDNAPPING
    • A.  Differing Treatment of Kidnapping as Enhancement or Underlying Offense  10.2
    • B.  Enhancing Underlying Offenses if Kidnapping Involved
      • 1.  Determinate Term Enhancements for Sexual Offenses During Kidnapping (Pen C §667.8)
        • a.  Enhancements Without Reference to Victim’s Age (Pen C §667.8(a))  10.3
        • b.  Enhancements if Victim Under 14 (Pen C §667.8(b))  10.4
        • c.  Application of Enhancements Under Pen C §667.8
          • (1)  Enhancement Applies Even Without Kidnapping Conviction  10.5
          • (2)  No Dual Use of Enhancement  10.6
          • (3)  Inapplicability to Attempts  10.7
          • (4)  Number of Enhancements per Kidnapping Incident  10.8
          • (5)  Mandatory Imposition of Punishment  10.9
      • 2.  “One Strike” (Indeterminate) Sentencing (Pen C §667.61)  10.10
    • C.  Kidnapping as Special Circumstance to First-Degree Murder Charge  10.10A
    • D.  Kidnapping as Circumstance in Support of Murder Charges  10.10B
    • E.  Enhancements and Other Sentencing Issues if Kidnapping Charged as Primary Offense
      • 1.  General Sentencing Provisions  10.11
      • 2.  Purpose of Kidnapping and Asportation of Victim
        • a.  Purpose of Kidnapping and Minors  10.12
        • b.  Taking Victim Out of State  10.13
        • c.  Asportation or Inability to Consent as Substitute for Force in Certain Cases  10.14
        • d.  Enticing Victim to Leave Area  10.15
        • e.  Bringing Victim Into California  10.16
      • 3.  Sentences for Specific Kidnapping Offenses
        • a.  Kidnapping for Ransom  10.17
        • b.  Kidnapping for Robbery, Carjacking, or Sexual Assault  10.18
      • 4.  Special Rules for Habitual Sexual Offenders Who Commit Kidnapping  10.19
      • 5.  Separate Convictions for Kidnapping and Related Theft Crimes Committed Together  10.20
      • 6.  Probation and Multiple Counts in Kidnapping Cases
        • a.  Limitations on Probation  10.21
        • b.  Multiple Counts  10.22
      • 7.  Special Rules for Kidnapping Sentences if Victim Is Minor, Elderly, or Disabled
        • a.  Minors as Kidnap Victims
          • (1)  General Sentencing Provisions When Victim Is Minor  10.23
          • (2)  Minors Under Age 14
            • (a)  Kidnapping Circumstances Determine Charge and Sentencing Scheme  10.24
            • (b)  Sentencing Choices if Victim Under Age 14  10.25
            • (c)  Kidnapping Child to Deprive Parent or Guardian of Custody (Pen C §667.85)  10.26
        • b.  Elderly, Disabled, or Other Vulnerable Victims (Pen C §667.9(a)–(b))  10.27
  • III.  ROBBERY AND CARJACKING
    • A.  Robbery and Carjacking as Enhancements  10.28
    • B.  Robbery and Carjacking as Special Circumstances to First-Degree Murder Charge  10.28A
    • C.  Robbery or Carjacking as Circumstance in Support of Murder Charges  10.28B
    • D.  Robbery or Carjacking as Underlying Charge
      • 1.  Basic Sentences for Robbery  10.29
      • 2.  Basic Sentences for Carjacking  10.30
      • 3.  Enhancements to Underlying Charge of Robbery and Carjacking
        • a.  Enhancements Summarized  10.31
        • b.  Use of Firearms and Other Dangerous or Deadly Weapons
          • (1)  Firearms
            • (a)  Firearm Enhancements to Underlying Robbery or Carjacking Offenses  10.32
            • (b)  Special Issues Regarding Firearms
              • (i)  Firearm Includes Handgun  10.33
              • (ii)  What Constitutes “Discharge” of Firearm  10.34
              • (iii)  Establishing Firearm Use if Firearm Not Recovered or Seen  10.35
          • (2)  Other Deadly or Dangerous Weapons  10.36
          • (3)  Sentencing Issues in Specific Factual Situations Involving Weapon Use
            • (a)  Victim Lacked Physical Possession of or Close Proximity to Property Stolen  10.37
            • (b)  Defendant Fired Weapon in Response to Being Followed by Victim  10.38
        • c.  Great Bodily Injury  10.39
        • d.  Gang Involvement  10.40
        • e.  Minor, Elderly, or Disabled Victims  10.41

11

Sex Crimes

Catherine Stephenson

  • I.  CHART: SEX CRIME ENHANCEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING SCHEMES  11.1
  • II.  RULES RELATED TO ENHANCEMENTS  11.2
  • III.  ENHANCEMENTS WITH DETERMINATE SENTENCES
    • A.  Conduct-Based Enhancements  11.3
      • 1.  Fleeing to This State to Avoid Prosecution or Custody (Pen C §289.5(d))  11.4
      • 2.  Kidnapping With Intent to Commit Sex Offense (Pen C §667.8(a)–(b))  11.5
      • 3.  Young, Old, or Disabled Victims (Pen C §667.9(a)–(b))  11.6
      • 4.  Exhibiting Sexually Explicit Material to Minor During Crime of Child Molestation (Pen C §667.15)  11.7
      • 5.  Defendant Is Primary Caregiver for Minor Victim (Pen C §674)  11.8
      • 6.  Sexual Assault With Minor for Money or Other Consideration (Pen C §675)  11.9
      • 7.  Personal Use of or Arming With Firearm or Deadly Weapon (Pen C §12022.3(a)–(b))  11.10
      • 8.  10–20–Life Firearm-Use Enhancement (Pen C §12022.53)  11.11
      • 9.  Administration of Controlled Substance to Victim During Commission of Sex Crime (Pen C §12022.75(b))  11.12
      • 10.  Personal Infliction of Great Bodily Injury (Pen C §12022.8)  11.13
      • 11.  Sex Crime Committed by Defendant Who Has AIDS or Is HIV Positive (Pen C §12022.85)  11.14
      • 12.  Personal and Intentional Infliction of Injury Resulting in Termination of Pregnancy (Pen C §12022.9)  11.15
    • B.  Offender-Based Enhancements  11.16
      • 1.  Contacting Minor With Intent to Commit Sex Crime With Prior Conviction (Pen C §288.3(c))  11.17
      • 2.  Prior Sexual Assault Conviction (Pen C §667.6(a))  11.18
      • 3.  Prior Prison Terms for Sex Offenses (Pen C §667.6(b))  11.19
      • 4.  Prior Pen C §289 Conviction and Current Pen C §289 Crime (Pen C §667.10)  11.20
      • 5.  Prior Sex Offense and Current Pen C §288 or §288.5 Offense (Pen C §667.51(a))  11.21
  • IV.  INDETERMINATE SENTENCES  11.22
    • A.  Current Sex Offense and Two or More Convictions for Sex Offenses (Pen C §667.51(c))  11.23
    • B.  One Strike (Pen C §667.61)
      • 1.  Overview  11.24
      • 2.  Trial Considerations
        • a.  One Strike Factors Under Pen C §667.61(d)  11.25
        • b.  One Strike Factors Under Pen C §667.61(e)  11.26
      • 3.  Imposition of One Strike Penalty
        • a.  Current Law, Effective September 9, 2010  11.27
        • b.  Law Between September 20, 2006, and September 9, 2010  11.28
        • c.  Law Before September 20, 2006  11.29
    • C.  Habitual Sexual Offender (Pen C §667.71)  11.30

12

Property Loss, Money Laundering, and Fraud

Michael Begovich

  • I.  CHART: ENHANCEMENTS RELATED TO PROPERTY LOSS, MONEY LAUNDERING, AND FRAUD  12.1
  • II.  STRATEGY FOR CASES INVOLVING SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY LOSS, MONEY LAUNDERING, OR FRAUD  12.2
  • III.  ENHANCEMENT WHEN PROPERTY IS TAKEN, DAMAGED, OR DESTROYED IN COMMISSION OR ATTEMPTED COMMISSION OF FELONY (PEN C §12022.6(a)) [Repealed Effective January 1, 2018]
    • A.  Terms and Elements of Enhancement  12.3
    • B.  Pleading and Proof Requirements [Deleted]  12.4
    • C.  Application [Deleted]
      • 1.  General Rules [Deleted]  12.5
      • 2.  Multiple Charges Arising From Common Scheme or Plan [Deleted]  12.6
      • 3.  Computer-Related Loss [Deleted]  12.7
      • 4.  Operation of Three Strikes Law [Deleted]  12.8
      • 5.  Operation of Pen C §654 [Deleted]  12.9
    • D.  Authority to Dismiss, Strike, or Stay [Deleted]  12.10
  • IV.  MONEY LAUNDERING ENHANCEMENT (PEN C §186.10(c))
    • A.  Terms of Enhancement  12.11
    • B.  Application of Enhancement
      • 1.  General Rules  12.12
      • 2.  Multiple Charges Arising From Common Scheme or Plan  12.13
      • 3.  Application to Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering (Pen C §182)  12.14
      • 4.  Pleading and Proof Requirements  12.15
      • 5.  Operation With Three Strikes Law  12.16
      • 6.  Operation With Pen C §654  12.17
    • C.  Authority to Dismiss, Strike, or Stay  12.18
  • V.  FRAUD-RELATED ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Aggravated White-Collar Crime (Pen C §186.11(a))  12.19
    • B.  Insurance Fraud
      • 1.  Property Insurance Fraud—Prior Conviction (Pen C §548(b))  12.20
      • 2.  Unlawful Acts Related to Fraudulent Insurance Claims—Prior Conviction (Pen C §550(e)–(g))  12.21
    • C.  Workers’ Compensation Fraud
      • 1.  Fraud Related to Workers’ Compensation Claim—Prior Conviction (Ins C §1871.4(c))  12.22
      • 2.  Fraud for Purpose of Reducing Costs of Workers’ Compensation Insurance—Prior Conviction (Ins C §11760(b))  12.23
      • 3.  Fraud for Purpose of Reducing Costs of Workers’ Compensation Insurance From State Compensation Insurance Fund—Prior Conviction (Ins C §11880(b))  12.24
    • D.  Natural Disaster Fraud
      • 1.  Fraud Related to Natural Disaster Damage Repair (Pen C §667.16(a)–(b))  12.25
      • 2.  Scheme to Defraud in Connection With Natural Disaster Damage Repair (Pen C §670(c))  12.26
    • E.  Food Stamp Fraud by Electronic Transfer (Welf & I C §10980(h))  12.27
    • F.  Medi-Cal Fraud (Welf & I C §14107(d))  12.28
    • G.  Impersonation of Peace Officer (Pen C §667.17)  12.29

13

Increased Punishment for Prior Similar Offenses

Nancy Brewer

James P. Lambe

  • I.  COMMON OFFENSES FOR WHICH PUNISHMENT INCREASES WITH A SIMILAR PRIOR  13.1
  • II.  ELEMENT, ENHANCEMENT, OR ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING SCHEME?
    • A.  Concepts and Definitions  13.2
    • B.  Analysis  13.3
    • C.  Dual Use of Facts  13.4
  • III.  DOES JURY HAVE RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT PRIOR CONVICTION?  13.5
  • IV.  MUST PRIOR CONVICTION BE PLEADED AND PROVED?  13.6
  • V.  ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A VIOLATION OF PEN C §666 OR §666.5  13.7

14

Felony Committed While Released on Bail or Own Recognizance

Michael Begovich

  • I.  CHART: ENHANCEMENT FOR FELONY COMMITTED WHILE RELEASED ON BAIL OR OWN RECOGNIZANCE  14.1
  • II.  PURPOSE OF ENHANCEMENT  14.2
  • III.  DEFINITIONS
    • A.  Primary Offense  14.3
    • B.  Secondary Offense  14.4
  • IV.  CUSTODY STATUS  14.5
    • A.  Bail  14.6
    • B.  Release on Own Recognizance (OR)  14.7
    • C.  Client Introduction Letter: Communication Regarding Pen C §12022.1(b) Enhancement  14.8
  • V.  PLEADING AND PROOF REQUIREMENTS
    • A.  Overview  14.9
    • B.  Proof at Preliminary Hearing  14.10
    • C.  Proof at Trial  14.11
  • VI.  RULES GOVERNING IMPOSITION OF ENHANCEMENT
    • A.  Imposition of Enhancement Under AB 109  14.11A
    • B.  Imposition of Enhancement When Prison Sentences Imposed for Primary and Secondary Offenses (Pen C §12022.1(e))  14.12
    • C.  Imposition of Enhancement When Probation Granted for Primary Offense (Pen C §12022.1(f))  14.13
    • D.  Stay of Enhancement Pending Imposition of Sentence for Primary Offense (Pen C §12022.1(d))  14.14
    • E.  Suspension of Enhancement Pending Retrial of Primary Offense (Pen C §12022.1(g))  14.15
    • F.  Imposition of Multiple Enhancements  14.16
    • G.  Operation of Enhancement With Determination of Principal and Subordinate Terms Under Pen C §1170.1  14.17
    • H.  Operation of Enhancement With Pen C §654  14.18
    • I.  Operation of Enhancement With Three Strikes Law  14.19
    • J.  Application of Enhancement to Aiders and Abettors of Secondary Offense  14.20
    • K.  Application of Enhancement to Juveniles  14.21
    • L.  Application of Enhancement to Attempted Crimes  14.22
    • M.  Application of Enhancement in Proposition 47 Context  14.23

15

Prior Prison Commitments and Serious and Violent Felonies

Michael Ogul

  • I.  CHART: PRIOR PRISON COMMITMENTS AND SERIOUS- OR VIOLENT-FELONY ENHANCEMENTS  15.1
  • II.  USE OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS  15.2
  • III.  PROCEDURAL ISSUES
    • A.  Timing of Prior Conviction for Use as Enhancement or Strike  15.3
    • B.  Treatment of Foreign Priors and Juvenile Adjudications
      • 1.  Foreign Priors  15.4
      • 2.  Illustration: Federal Bank Robbery  15.5
      • 3.  Prior Juvenile Adjudications and Adult Court Convictions of Minors in General  15.6
    • C.  Admissions of Prior Convictions (Pen C §1025)  15.7
    • D.  Unitary or Bifurcated Trial on Prior Convictions  15.8
    • E.  Allocation of Issues Between Jury and Court  15.9
    • F.  Admissibility of Rap Sheets to Prove Prior Convictions  15.10
  • IV.  PRIOR-CONVICTION SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Prior Serious-Felony Conviction (Pen C §667(a))
      • 1.  Definition of Serious Felony  15.11
      • 2.  “Separately Brought and Tried” Requirement  15.12
      • 3.  Determining Whether Prior Qualifies as Serious Felony: Constitutional Limitations  15.13
      • 4.  Qualifying Documents  15.14
      • 5.  Evidentiary Considerations  15.15
      • 6.  Illustrations of Convictions Qualifying as Serious Felonies  15.15A
        • a.  Priors Involving Deadly Weapons  15.16
        • b.  Priors Involving Great Bodily Injury  15.17
        • c.  First-Degree Burglary  15.18
        • d.  Gang Offenses  15.19
      • 7.  Enhancement May Be Stricken Under Pen C §1385  15.20
    • B.  Enhancements for Prior Sex Offense Convictions
      • 1.  Five- or 10-Year Enhancement Under Pen C §667.6  15.21
      • 2.  Requirement of Separately Served Terms  15.22
      • 3.  Court May Strike Enhancement  15.23
    • C.  Enhancements for Prior Drug Offense Convictions
      • 1.  Three-Year Enhancement Under Health & S C §11370.2  15.24
      • 2.  Dual Enhancements for Same Prior Drug Conviction  15.25
      • 3.  Prohibition on Probation Under Pen C §1203.07(a)(11)  15.26
  • V.  PRIOR-PRISON-COMMITMENT ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  One-Year or 3-Year Enhancements (Pen C §667.5(a)–(b))  15.27
    • B.  Requirement of Prison Commitment  15.28
    • C.  Requirement of Separately Served Prison Term  15.29
    • D.  Washout Provision  15.30
    • E.  Prohibition Against Dual Enhancements for Same Prior Conviction  15.31
    • F.  Enhancement May Be Stricken Under Pen C §1385  15.32
    • G.  Operation of Prior Serious-Felony Conviction Enhancements With Prior Violent-Felony Prison-Commitment Enhancements  15.33
    • H.  Multiple Enhancements Based on Single Prison Prior  15.33A
  • VI.  THREE STRIKES ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING PROVISION
    • A.  Strike Priors  15.34
    • B.  Determination Made on Date of Initial Sentencing  15.35
    • C.  Requirement That Prior Conviction Occurred Before Commission of Current Felony  15.36
    • D.  No Requirement That Conviction Have Been Separately Brought or Tried  15.37
    • E.  Dual Punishment Based on Single Strike Prior  15.38
    • F.  Court’s Discretion to Dismiss Under Pen C §1385  15.39
    • G.  Juvenile Adjudications as Strike Priors  15.40
    • H.  Out-of-State and Federal Convictions as Strike Priors  15.41

Selected Developments

2022 Update

Amendments to Pen C §1385. Effective January 1, 2022, Pen C §1385 was amended to require a court to dismiss a sentencing enhancement if it is “in the furtherance of justice to do so” and to give great weight in favor of dismissal in specific circumstances, unless the court finds that dismissal would “endanger public safety.” An exception exists if the court is prohibited by an initiative statute from dismissing an enhancement. Pen C §1385(c)(1)–(2). See §§1.18, 2.12, 3.20, 3.41, 5.4, 5.6, 5.10, 5.17, 5.31, 6.3, 6.6, 7.19, 8.12, 8.31, 10.9, 10.20, 11.2–11.22, 11.27, 11.30, 12.18, 12.19, 14.14, 15.20, 15.23–15.25, 15.32, 15.37, 15.39.

Amendments to Pen C §1170. New legislative amendments limit a sentencing judge’s discretion to some extent, specifying when the aggravated term may be selected and requiring that the lower term be imposed in certain situations. Under these amendments, the aggravated, or upper, term may only be imposed (Pen C §1170(b)(2))

when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant, or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

See §§1.21, 1.24–1.25, 1.40, 2.5.

Proposition 47. In People v Walker (2021) 67 CA5th 198, a remand by the appellate court and order to resentence defendant to correct one component of the sentence obligated the trial court to correct another component of the sentence that had become incorrect due to Proposition 47. See §1.21B.

Proposition 64. Although initially subject to a split in authority, it is now settled that Proposition 64 does not entitle a defendant convicted of possession of marijuana in prison under Pen C §4573.6 to resentencing under the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. See §1.21C.

Rule Against Multiple Punishments Under Pen C §654. Previously, courts were required to order punishment under the provision that provides the longest potential term of imprisonment. See former Pen C §654(a); People v Kramer (2002) 29 C4th 720. However, effective January 1, 2022, that limitation is gone and courts have the discretion under Pen C §654 to impose sentence under any of the applicable provisions the of law. See §§1.26, 3.16, 3.37, 6.24, 8.10, 10.20, 11.3, 11.30, 12.17.

Imposition of Enhancements (Pen C §1170.1). New legislative amendments limit a sentencing judge’s discretion in the imposition of enhancements. The court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant, or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial. See Pen C §1170.1(d)(1)–(2). The recent amendment to Pen C §1170.1(d) did away with the explicit requirement that reasons for the sentencing choice must be put on the record. See §§1.28, 2.11, 3.32–3.33, 6.12, 8.6, 10.31, 10.32, 11.2–11.3, 11.10.

Certain Gang Predicates Eliminated. In the context of prosecuting gang enhancements, there were originally 33 predicate crimes. The 2021 amendments to Pen C §186.22(e)(1) dropped seven offenses from the list, consisting of looting (Pen C §463), felony vandalism (Pen C §594(b)(1)), felony theft of an access card or account information (Pen C §484e), counterfeiting, designing, using, or attempting to use an access card (Pen C §484f), felony fraudulent use of an access card or account information (Pen C §484g), identity theft (Pen C §530.5), and wrongfully obtaining Department of Motor Vehicles documentation (Pen C §529.7). See §7.5.

Current Offense Ineligible to Show Pattern of Criminal Gang Activity. By eliminating the current offense from the calculation of the “pattern of criminal gang activity,” the 2021 amendments to Pen C §186.22(e) legislatively overruled People v Loeun (1997) 17 C4th 1; People v Gardeley (1996) 14 C4th 605, 624, overruled on other grounds in People v Sanchez (2016) 63 C4th 665; People v Bragg (2008) 161 CA4th 1385; and In re I.M. (2005) 125 CA4th 1195. See §7.6.

Experts and Predicate Offenses. The facts concerning particular events and participants alleged to be involved in “predicate offenses” are “case specific”; the commission of predicate offenses must be proved by “independently admissible evidence.” People v Valencia (2021) 11 C5th 818, 826. It cannot be established solely by the testimony of an expert who has no personal knowledge of the facts of the case. 11 C5th at 839 (disapproving contrary language in People v Bermudez (2020) 45 CA5th 358, and People v Vega-Robles (2017) 9 CA5th 382). See §§7.6, 7.35.

Willfully Promoting, Furthering, or Assisting Felonious Conduct of Gang. The 2021 amendments to Pen C §186.22 narrowed the definition of “benefit.” The prosecution must now prove that the crime did more than simply benefit the gang’s “reputation.” Pen C §186.22(g). See e.g., People v Gonzalez (2021) 59 CA5th 643 (expert testified that gang members commit crimes to “bolster the status of themselves but also the gang”). See §7.10.

Imposing Weight Enhancements in Health & S C §11370.4 Cases. People v Haro (2021) 68 CA5th 776 criticized People v Estrada (1995) 39 CA4th 1235, following People v Mancebo (2002) 27 C4th 735 and People v Anderson (2020) 9 C5th 946, holding there was no fair notice that two weight enhancements would be aggregated. Such notice would be provided by pleading and proving the specific subdivision of Health & S C §11370.4 setting forth the alleged weight. See §8.20.

Kidnapping by Fraud. Asportation by fraud alone is not sufficient to support a general kidnapping charge. People v Lewis (2021) 72 CA5th 1. Further, deception is not an alternative to force when the charge is general kidnapping, even when the victim is a child. See People v Nieto (2021) 62 CA5th 188 (criticizing use of CALCRIM 1201 when kidnapping is based solely on deception rather than on forceful abduction of victim incapable of consent). However, kidnapping a child through deception with the intent to commit a violation of Pen C §288 satisfies the elements of Pen C §207(b), a specified form of kidnapping. Nieto, 62 CA5th at 197. See §§10.2, 10.14.

Establishing Firearm Use if Firearm Not Recovered or Seen. A firearm enhancement requires only conduct that produces fear of harm or force by means or display of a firearm. It does not require the victim to have seen, heard, or felt the gun. People v Jones (2021) 65 CA5th 1, 8 (defendant told victims that he had gun and gestured to indicate that he had unexposed gun in his pocket). See §10.35.

Prohibition on Probation Under Pen C §1203.07(a)(11) Eliminated. Effective January 1, 2022, Stats 2021, ch 537, repealed former Pen C §1203.07. As such, the prohibition on granting probation because of certain prior drug trafficking convictions no longer exists. See §15.26.

Plea Bargains and Penal Code §667.5(b) Enhancements. A number of courts have grappled with the question of whether prosecutors must be given the opportunity to withdraw from a plea agreement that included the now-vacated Pen C §667.5(b) enhancement. On October 8, 2021, the legislature clarified its intent that “any changes to a sentence as a result of the act that added this section shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement.” See Stats 2021, ch 728 (SB 483). The legislature also codified its directive that (Pen C §1171(d)(1))

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.

See §15.27.

About the Authors

Michael Begovich, Esq., B.A., 1981, University of California, Davis; J.D., 1985, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Mr. Begovich is the Deputy Director of the Office of Assigned Counsel for San Diego County and an adjunct professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. He worked for over 20 years as a San Diego County Deputy Public Defender and is the past Chair of the State Bar of California Criminal Law Section Executive Committee. Mr. Begovich is the update author of “Jury Selection,” California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice, chapter 29 (Cal CEB) and California Criminal Law Forms Manual, chapter 29 (2d ed Cal CEB), and a coauthor of “Presenting and Challenging Expert Testimony on Scientific Evidence,” Scientific Evidence and Expert Testimony in California, chapter 3 (Cal CEB). He has also authored additional articles related to jury selection and trial practice. Mr. Begovich has an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell and received the 2009 “Spirit of CEB” Award for his selfless sharing of information for the betterment of the legal profession. He is the author of “Property Loss, Money Laundering, and Fraud” and “Felony Committed While Released on Bail or Own Recognizance” (see chaps 12 and 14, respectively).

William R. Bennett, Esq., B.A., 2002, University of California, Berkeley; J.D., 2006, Santa Clara University School of Law. Mr. Bennett is the Supervising Attorney of the Santa Clara Superior Court, overseeing the criminal, civil and family law research teams. Mr. Bennett is the coauthor with the Hon. Philip Pennypacker of “Sentencing Overview” and “Enhancements Overview” (see chaps 1 and 2, respectively). Mr. Bennett wishes to thank Mr. Yoni Frankel, law student at Santa Clara University School of Law, for his contributions to the original research on chaps 1 and 2.

Hon. Matthew C. Braner was appointed San Diego Superior Court Judge in 2014. He previously served as the Supervisor of the Appeals and Writs Unit in the San Diego Primary Public Defender’s Office from 1998–2014 and as an adjunct professor at California Western School of Law beginning in 2002. Before that, Judge Braner worked as a trial deputy in San Diego and San Bernardino counties. He received his B.A. in 1981 from the University of California, Berkeley, and his J.D. in 1985 from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Judge Braner coauthored the 2006 revision and is the update author of “Felony Sentencing,” California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice, chapter 37 (Cal CEB). He is the author of “DUI” (see chap 9).

Nancy Brewer, Esq., B.S., 1978, California State University, Fresno; J.D., 1981, Santa Clara University School of Law. Ms. Brewer is an Assistant Public Defender for Santa Clara County and has been an attorney in that office since 1982. Ms. Brewer is a member of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the California Public Defenders Association, and the National Legal Aid & Defender Association. She has a special interest in felony sentencing, Fourth Amendment violations, and speedy trial issues. She has been the author of “Right to Speedy Trial,” California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice, chapter 19 (Cal CEB) since the first edition. She is the author of “Injury and Death” and “Increased Punishment for Prior Similar Offenses” (see chaps 4 and 13, respectively).

Robyn L. Chew, Esq., B.A., 1985, University of California, Davis; J.D., 1989, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Ms. Chew is an Alternate Public Defender in Los Angeles County. She is an advisor and past Chair of the California State Bar Criminal Law Executive Committee and a regular volunteer and board member of Reading to Kids, a nonprofit organization dedicated to inspiring children by instilling in them a love of reading. Ms. Chew is the coauthor with Steven I. Katz of “Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons,” “Other Instruments of Injury or Death,” and “Kidnapping, Robbery, and Carjacking” (see chaps 5, 6, and 10, respectively).

Ronald J. Freitas, Esq., B.S., 1984, California Polytechnic State University (San Luis Obispo); J.D., 1988, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. Mr. Freitas is a Deputy District Attorney of the San Joaquin County District Attorneys Office. He is a co-chairperson of the California District Attorneys Association, Gang Violence Committee, and the Technical Advisor of the CDAA’s Gang Symposium. Mr. Freitas is the author of “Gangs” (see chap 7).

Steven I. Katz, Esq., B.A. cum laude, 1985, University of California, Berkeley; J.D., 1989, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. Mr. Katz is the Head Deputy of the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. He is also an advisor to the Executive Committee of the Criminal Law Section of the State Bar of California. Mr. Katz is the coauthor, with Robyn L. Chew, of “Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons,” “Other Instruments of Injury or Death,” and “Kidnapping, Robbery, and Carjacking” (see chaps 5, 6, and 10, respectively).

Michael Ogul, Esq., B.A., 1977, University of Southern California; J.D., 1980, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Mr. Ogul is a deputy public defender in the Santa Clara County Public Defender Office and has been a public defender throughout his career. He is the author of “Prior Prison Commitments and Serious and Violent Felonies” (see chap 15).

Hon. Philip Pennypacker, B.A. with honors, 1969, University of California, Santa Barbara; J.D., 1972, Santa Clara University School of Law. Judge Pennypacker is the supervising judge of the criminal courts for Santa Clara County. He is also an adjunct faculty member of Lincoln Law School and Santa Clara University School of Law. He has taught at the Stanford Law School’s Trial Advocacy Institute for approximately 10 years. Judge Pennypacker formerly was a deputy public defender and acting public defender for Santa Clara County. As the Conflicts Administrator for Santa Clara County from 1980 to 1986, he established the court-appointed program for indigent defendants at the trial level. He also established the Sixth District Appellate Project in 1984, which coordinated the appointment of counsel in that district. Judge Pennypacker is a past president of the Santa Clara County Bar Association and Santa Clara County Bar Foundation. He is a current member of the State Bar of California Criminal Law Section Executive Committee and the California Judges Association. Judge Pennypacker is the coauthor with William R. Bennett of “Sentencing Overview” and “Enhancements Overview” (see chaps 1 and 2, respectively). Judge Pennypacker and his coauthor, William R. Bennett, wish to thank Mr. Yoni Frankel, law student at Santa Clara University School of Law, for his contributions to the research on their chapters.

Hon. Kenneth L. Shapero, B.S., 1974, University of California, Berkeley; J.D., 1977, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. Judge Shapero is a judge of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. He is a former deputy public defender with the Santa Clara County Public Defender Office. Judge Shapero is the author of “Victims” and “Drugs” (see chaps 3 and 8, respectively).

Catherine Stephenson, Esq., B.S., California State University, San Diego; J.D., 1983, University of San Diego School of Law. In 1984, Ms. Stephenson joined the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office and served there as a career prosecutor for the next 25 years. She prosecuted felony child abuse, sexual assault, and murder cases for most of those years. She is the former Chief of the Family Protection, Central Pretrial, and Appellate Divisions. Ms. Stephenson has taught charging and sentencing in sexual assault cases for the California District Attorneys Association for 20 years. She retired from the District Attorney’s Office in 2008 and continues to teach for CDAA, the National District Attorneys Association, and the paralegal program at the University of San Diego. She is the author of “Sex Crimes” (see chap 11).

About the 2022 Update Authors

Michael Begovich, Esq., updated chaps 12 and 14; see biography in the About the Authors section of this book. Mr. Begovich was an associate with Bobbitt, Pinckard & Fields, APC, where he practiced state and federal criminal defense and labor law. He was a Deputy Public Defender with the San Diego County Primary Public Defender’s Office, where he served as an Assistant Supervisor of a felony team. He completed 12 murder trials to verdict, including capital case representation, and a total of approximately 200 trials to verdict in his career. Mr. Begovich was the Deputy Director of the Office of Assigned Counsel for San Diego County for 3 years, managing one of the largest indigent conflict panels for indigent criminal defendants in California. Mr. Begovich is an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law, teaching courses in Evidence and Fundamentals of Bar Exam Writing. He previously worked as an Adjunct Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, teaching Trial Practice and Advanced Trial Advocacy.

William R. Bennett, Esq., updated chaps 1 and 2 with Michele Smith; see biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

Hon. Matthew C. Braner updated chap 9; see biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

Robyn L. Chew, Esq., updated chaps 5, 6, and 10 with Steven Katz; see biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

Charles Denton, Esq., J.D., 1983, University of California, Davis, School of Law. He is a Deputy Public Defender with the Alameda County Public Defenders Office, where he has practiced for more than 28 years. He has tried cases from drunk driving to the death penalty. He is the co-author of Criminal Defense Jury Instructions (Knowles Publishing) and was one of the original authors of California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice (Cal CEB). He has been a lecturer with the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law for the past 15 years. He and Ronald Freitas updated chap 7.

Sandy Feinland, Esq., B.A., 1986, Tufts University; J.D., 1990, Harvard Law School. Mr. Feinland is a senior trial attorney and Forensic Lead at the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office. He has been a criminal defense attorney since 1993 and a public defender for over 20 years. Mr. Feinland spearheaded the creation of the San Francisco Public Defenders’ Sexual Assault Unit, and later, the Forensics Unit. His career has been dedicated to gaining and sharing knowledge to defend the most difficult cases, with an emphasis on sexual assault and homicide cases. He updated chap 11.

Ronald J. Freitas, Esq., in addition to Charles Denton, updated chap 7; see biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

Steven I. Katz, Esq., updated chaps 5, 6, and 10 with Robyn Chew; see biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

James P. Lambe, A.B., 1974, University of Michigan; J.D., 1977, University of Illinois. Before entering private practice, he spent 28 years with the Fresno County Public Defender’s Office, where he was a Senior Defense Attorney. He is a Certified Specialist in both Criminal Law and Criminal Trial Advocacy. A Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, he is listed in Who’s Who in American Law and Who’s Who in America. In 2006, he became the first public defender from the San Joaquin Valley to be listed in Super Lawyers. He has served on the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Board of Governors, the State Bar of California Criminal Law Advisory Commission, and the State Bar of California Criminal Law Section Executive Committee. He updated “Injury and Death” (chap 4) and “Increased Punishment for Prior Similar Offenses” (chap 13), for the 2012 edition, and has updated them for each subsequent edition.

Michael Ogul, Esq., updated chap 15; see biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

Hon. Kenneth L. Shapero updated chaps 3 and 8; see biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

Michele Smith, Esq., B.A., 2009, California Polytechnic State University (San Luis Obispo); J.D., 2012, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Ms. Smith has been a staff attorney in the criminal division of the Santa Clara County Superior Court since 2013. She updated chaps 1 and 2.

OnLAW System Requirements:
Desktop: Windows XP, 7 or 8, Mac OS 10.8
Mobile: iOS6, iOS7, Android 4.2
Firefox, Chrome, IE and Safari browsers

Note: OnLAW may work with some devices running older versions of these Operating Systems or Windows RT; however, functionality is not guaranteed.

Please see FAQs for more details.
Products specifications
PRODUCT GROUP Publication
PRACTICE AREA Criminal Law
Products specifications
PRODUCT GROUP Publication
PRACTICE AREA Criminal Law