Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2024 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Willovergreen2 sentences2024(People v. Willover (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 302, 323 [“When the sentencing decision involves an assessment of various factors, the trial court has discretion to accord different weight to each factor, and its decision need not be determined by the sheer number of factors on one side or the other”].) We may not substitute our judgment of how the circumstances should have been weighed for that of the trial court. 2024(People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847 .) When a sentencing decision requires the evaluation of various aggravating and mitigating factors, the trial court “has discretion to accord different weight to each factor, and its decision need not be de determined by the sheer number of factors on one side or the other.” (People v. Willover (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 302, 323 .) An abuse of discretion occurs when the court “relies upon circumstances that are not relevant to the decision or that otherwise constitute an improper basis for decision.” (Sandoval, at p. 847.) 2. | 3 | 5 |
People v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2024Rather, the trial court’s exercise of its sentencing discretion ‘requires “[a] quantitative and qualitative analysis” of multiple factors. [Citation.]’” (People v. Willover (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 302, 323 , quoting People v. Wright (1982) 30 Cal.3d 705, 719 .) C. 2021(See People v. Willover (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 302, 323 [noting that when a “sentencing decision involves an assessment of various factors, the trial court has discretion to accord different weight to each factor, and its decision need not be determined by the sheer number of factors on one side or the other,” and that instead, “the trial court’s exercise of its sentencing discretion ‘requires “[a] quantitative and qualitative analysis” of multiple factors’ ”], quoting People v. Wright (1982) 30 Cal.3d 705, 719 .) In addition, the record clearly shows that even if the court had found defendant | 1 | 3 |
People v. Sandovalred2 sentences2024(People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847 .) When a sentencing decision requires the evaluation of various aggravating and mitigating factors, the trial court “has discretion to accord different weight to each factor, and its decision need not be de determined by the sheer number of factors on one side or the other.” (People v. Willover (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 302, 323 .) An abuse of discretion occurs when the court “relies upon circumstances that are not relevant to the decision or that otherwise constitute an improper basis for decision.” (Sandoval, at p. 847.) 2. 2016(See § 1170, subd. (d)(2)(F) [trial court is not limited to consideration of enumerated factors].) A trial court abuses its sentencing discretion when its decision is arbitrary or capricious, inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the law, or based on “circumstances that are not relevant to the decision or that otherwise constitute an improper basis for decision.” (People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 588 , 161 P.3d 1146 ].) When the sentencing decision involves an assessment of various factors, the trial court has discretion to accord different weight to each fac | 1 | 2 |
People v. Strothergreen1 sentence2024(See People v. Strother, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 571.) Moreover, contrary to defendant’s contention, the trial court did cite to an offense specific aggravating circumstance—namely that defendant acted with violence by repeatedly stabbing Yeng with a weapon. | 1 | 1 |
People v. McDanielsgreen1 sentence2021(See, e.g., People v. McDaniels (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 420, 425 [concluding remand is unnecessary if the “record shows that the trial court clearly indicated when it originally sentenced the defendant that it would not in any event have stricken a firearm enhancement”]; People v. Gutierrez (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1894 , 1896 18 [resentencing was required “unless the record shows that the sentencing court clearly indicated that it would not, in any event, have exercised its discretion to strike the allegations”].) As summarized ante, in imposing the middle term the trial judge considered the “extr | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Gutierrez
green
1 sentence2021(See, e.g., People v. McDaniels (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 420, 425 [concluding remand is unnecessary if the “record shows that the trial court clearly indicated when it originally sentenced the defendant that it would not in any event have stricken a firearm enhancement”]; People v. Gutierrez (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1894 , 1896 18 [resentencing was required “unless the record shows that the sentencing court clearly indicated that it would not, in any event, have exercised its discretion to strike the allegations”].) As summarized ante, in imposing the middle term the trial judge considered the “extr | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
1 sentence2016Rather, the trial court’s exercise of its sentencing discretion “requires ‘[a] quantitative and qualitative analysis’ of multiple factors. [Citation.]” (People v. Wright (1982) 30 Cal.3d 705, 719 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 196 , 639 P.2d 267 ].) Here, the trial court’s decision to deny defendant’s petition was not based solely on its evaluation of the factors listed in section 1170, subdivision (d)(2)(F) but also on its finding that defendant’s crimes were “particularly [vicious], cruel and callous,” and that defendant was “the leader of the criminal enterprise that day.” Section 1170, subdivision (d)(2) | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Edelbacher
red
2 sentences2012We concluded that “[o]n the whole,” the arguments of counsel were “not seriously misleading” because the prosecutor and defense counsel correctly stated in argument that the weighing process was qualitative and that the sheer number of factors in aggravation or mitigation was not determinative. {Edelbacher, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 1036 .) Regarding the discretionary nature of the penalty determination within the context of the weighing process, we noted that the trial court did not inform the jury that its responsibility, based on its individualized weighing discretion, was to determine the app 2012We concluded that “[o]n the whole,” the arguments of counsel were “not seriously misleading” because the prosecutor and defense counsel correctly stated in argument that the weighing process was qualitative and that the sheer number of factors in aggravation or mitigation was not determinative. {Edelbacher, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 1036 .) Regarding the discretionary nature of the penalty determination within the context of the weighing process, we noted that the trial court did not inform the jury that its responsibility, based on its individualized weighing discretion, was to determine the app | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Brown
red
2 sentences1989With respect to the second source of potential confusion identified in Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at page 541 , however, there is a substantial danger the jury was misled with respect to the proper context of the weighing process and the nature of the determination it was intended to achieve. 1989With respect to the second source of potential confusion identified in Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d at page 541 , however, there is a substantial danger the jury was misled with respect to the proper context of the weighing process and the nature of the determination it was intended to achieve. | 1 | 1989–1989 |