California Criminal Appeals Victory — Sentence Vacated and Remanded Under Penal Code 1170(b)(6)

Case Overview: Direct Criminal Appeal Results in Sentencing Reversal

Our California criminal appeals team successfully represented the appellant in People v. Soto (2024) 2d Crim. No. B323325, securing reversal of an unlawful sentence and remand for resentencing. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, vacated the sentence after we challenged the trial court’s failure to comply with mandatory youth offender sentencing provisions under Penal Code section 1170(b)(6).

This appellate victory demonstrates the critical role that a California criminal appeals lawyer plays in correcting statutory sentencing errors through direct appeal. When trial courts fail to apply mandatory sentencing statutes, appellate counsel must identify these violations, brief them comprehensively, and preserve defendants’ statutory rights through the appellate process.

Case Snapshot

Appeal Type: Direct criminal appeal following conviction and sentencing

Conviction: Child endangerment under Penal Code section 273a(a) with great bodily injury enhancement under section 12022.7(d)

Original Sentence: Aggregate prison term of 10 years (midterm of four years on base count plus high term of six years on enhancement)

Statutory Error: Trial court failed to make findings required by Penal Code section 1170(b)(6) regarding youth offender status

Defendant’s Age at Offense: 21 years old (qualifying as youth under section 1016.7(b))

Appellate Outcome: Sentence vacated; case remanded for resentencing with instructions to make section 1170(b)(6) findings

Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six

Trial Court: Ventura County Superior Court

The appellate court’s decision in this case affirms that when a California criminal appeals lawyer identifies statutory sentencing violations, appellate courts will enforce legislative mandates protecting youth offenders. This reversal underscores the importance of retaining experienced appellate counsel who understand both the substantive requirements of sentencing statutes and the procedural mechanisms for challenging unlawful sentences on direct appeal.

Why This Was a California Criminal Appeal, Not a Postconviction Motion

People v. Soto proceeded as a direct criminal appeal from judgment following conviction and sentencing. Understanding the distinction between direct appeals and postconviction motions is fundamental to effective appellate advocacy. A California criminal appeals lawyer must know when to pursue relief through the appellate court versus filing a collateral motion in the trial court.

Direct Appeal Jurisdiction and Procedure

A direct criminal appeal is filed after entry of judgment. California law provides an automatic right to appeal from any final judgment of conviction. (Pen. Code, § 1237.) The notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days of rendition of judgment or the making of the order being appealed, or within 30 days after the trial court mails or the defendant is served with a document entitled ‘Notice of Entry’ of judgment or order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a).)

In a direct appeal, the California criminal appeals lawyer reviews the entire record of the trial court proceedings, including the clerk’s transcript and reporter’s transcript, to identify all potential grounds for reversal. The appellate court has jurisdiction to review any issue arising from the record that affects the substantial rights of the defendant. This includes challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, instructional error, evidentiary rulings, and—critically for Soto—sentencing errors based on the trial court’s failure to comply with mandatory sentencing statutes.

Sentencing Errors as Appealable Issues

Sentencing issues are routinely raised and decided on direct appeal. When a trial court imposes a sentence that violates statutory requirements, a California criminal appeals lawyer can challenge that sentence as unauthorized. Unauthorized sentences are those that could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354.) These include sentences that violate a mandatory statutory provision governing the imposition of sentence.

The failure to comply with Penal Code section 1170(b)(6) constitutes such an unauthorized sentence. Section 1170(b)(6) mandates that when certain factors are present—including when the defendant was a youth at the time of the offense—the trial court must impose the lower term unless it finds that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances and that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice. The statute is not discretionary; it creates a presumption in favor of the lower term that can be overcome only through specific findings.

Distinction from Postconviction Motions

Postconviction motions, by contrast, are filed in the trial court after judgment has become final. These include petitions for writ of habeas corpus (Pen. Code, § 1473 et seq.), motions to recall sentence under section 1172.75 (formerly section 1170(d)(1)), and motions for resentencing under various statutory provisions such as section 1172.1 (mental health disorder contributing to offense) or section 1172.6 (resentencing based on changes to murder liability).

These postconviction mechanisms serve different purposes than direct appeals. Habeas corpus petitions typically challenge constitutional violations or errors that do not appear in the appellate record and require consideration of evidence outside the record. Resentencing motions under section 1172.75 and similar provisions allow defendants to seek retroactive application of new statutes or to present new evidence of mitigating factors not available at the original sentencing.

In Soto, the statutory violation was apparent from the record. The trial court imposed a midterm sentence on the base count and a high term on the enhancement without making the findings required by section 1170(b)(6). The defendant’s age at the time of the offense—21 years—was established in the record. No factual development outside the record was needed. This made direct appeal the appropriate vehicle for challenging the sentence. A California criminal appeals lawyer reviewing the record could immediately identify the statutory violation and preserve it through a timely appeal.

Standards of Review on Criminal Appeals

Appellate courts apply different standards of review depending on the type of issue raised. When a California criminal appeals lawyer challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.)

For sentencing decisions, the standard of review is typically abuse of discretion. A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard, misapprehends the scope of its discretion, or reaches a decision so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it. (People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847.)

However, when the challenge is to the trial court’s failure to comply with a mandatory statutory requirement, the standard is de novo review. The appellate court independently determines whether the trial court followed the statute. (People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424.) In Soto, the Court of Appeal applied this de novo standard, concluding that the trial court failed to make the findings required by section 1170(b)(6).

Understanding these standards is critical for any California criminal appeals lawyer. The standard of review shapes the briefing strategy, determines which arguments are likely to succeed, and influences how appellate counsel frames issues on appeal. Statutory compliance issues like those in Soto are particularly promising appellate issues because they are reviewed de novo and do not depend on deference to the trial court’s discretion.

California Criminal Appeals Law: Sentencing Errors and Abuse of Discretion

California’s determinate sentencing law, codified in Penal Code section 1170, establishes the framework for felony sentencing. A California criminal appeals lawyer challenging a sentence must understand both the statutory structure and the limits on judicial discretion that section 1170 imposes.

The Section 1170 Framework

Section 1170 provides that when a statute specifies three possible prison terms (lower, middle, and upper), the court must impose the middle term unless circumstances in aggravation or mitigation justify selection of the lower or upper term. (Pen. Code, § 1170(b).) This basic tripartite structure applies to most California felonies.

Prior to recent legislative amendments, trial courts had broad discretion in selecting among the three terms. Courts would weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances identified in the California Rules of Court and in case law. Appellate review was limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion or relied on improper factors.

Recent amendments to section 1170 have significantly constrained that discretion. Under section 1170(b)(2), the trial court may impose the upper term only if circumstances in aggravation have been established by facts found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, stipulated to by the defendant, or found true by the court beyond a reasonable doubt in a bifurcated proceeding. This change, responding to Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, ensures that aggravating facts used to increase sentences are proven to the same standard as elements of crimes.

Judicial Discretion Limits and Required Findings

While trial judges retain discretion in sentencing, that discretion is not unbounded. California law requires trial courts to exercise discretion within statutory parameters and to make findings supporting their sentencing choices when required by statute. A California criminal appeals lawyer can successfully challenge a sentence when the trial court exceeds the bounds of its discretion or fails to comply with procedural requirements.

Section 1170(b)(1) provides that the middle term is the presumptive sentence. To impose either the lower or upper term, the court must state reasons for its choice and identify the facts supporting those reasons. The court must also consider and determine whether circumstances in aggravation outweigh circumstances in mitigation, or vice versa. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.420.)

These requirements ensure transparency and reviewability. When a trial court fails to state reasons or identify supporting facts, an appellate court cannot determine whether the sentence was lawfully imposed. The Court of Appeal in Soto emphasized this principle, holding that where section 1170(b)(6) requires specific findings and the trial court failed to make them, remand is mandatory.

Youth Offender Protections in California Sentencing

California has enacted numerous statutory protections for youth offenders, reflecting growing recognition of developmental differences between young adults and older defendants. These protections are based on research showing that young people have less mature judgment, greater susceptibility to peer pressure, and higher capacity for rehabilitation than older adults.

Section 1016.7 defines youth offenders broadly to include persons under 26 years of age at the time of the offense. (Pen. Code, § 1016.7(b).) This definition applies throughout California’s criminal code unless a specific statute provides otherwise. The Legislature’s choice of age 26 reflects scientific evidence about brain development, particularly the development of regions controlling impulse regulation and long-term planning.

Section 1170(b)(6), the statute at issue in Soto, creates a presumption in favor of lower-term sentences for youth offenders. When a defendant was a youth at the time of the offense and that youth was a contributing factor in the commission of the offense, the trial court must impose the lower term unless it finds that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances and that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice. This statutory mandate applies statewide and cannot be waived or disregarded. A California criminal appeals lawyer can secure reversal whenever the trial court fails to apply section 1170(b)(6) to an eligible defendant.

Appellate Correction of Illegal Sentences

Appellate courts have both the authority and the obligation to correct illegal sentences. An illegal or unauthorized sentence is one that could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstances. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354.) Claims of illegal sentences may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal or in a petition for habeas corpus.

When a trial court fails to comply with a mandatory sentencing statute like section 1170(b)(6), the resulting sentence is unauthorized. The Court of Appeal in Soto properly exercised its authority to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. The court’s decision follows established precedent holding that appellate courts must enforce statutory sentencing requirements even when the parties do not raise them.

The remedy for failure to comply with section 1170(b)(6) is remand, not correction by the appellate court. The California Supreme Court in People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 429, rejected arguments that appellate courts could presume how the trial court would have ruled if it had made the required findings. The Supreme Court held that appellate courts should not speculate about omitted findings. Instead, the case must be remanded to give the trial court an opportunity to make the statutorily required findings in the first instance.

Abuse of Discretion and Failure to Comply with Statute

A California criminal appeals lawyer must distinguish between two related but distinct grounds for challenging sentences: abuse of discretion and failure to comply with statute. Abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court exercises its judgment in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner. This standard applies when the law gives the trial court discretionary choices.

Failure to comply with statute, by contrast, involves the trial court’s failure to follow mandatory statutory requirements. This is not a question of discretion but of statutory compliance. When a statute mandates specific procedures or findings, the trial court has no discretion to disregard them. Review is de novo—the appellate court independently determines whether the statute was followed.

In Soto, the Court of Appeal found both that the trial court failed to comply with section 1170(b)(6) and that remand was required under Salazar. The court did not need to find an abuse of discretion. The absence of the required findings itself warranted reversal. This distinction is critical for appellate advocacy. Challenges based on statutory noncompliance are stronger than abuse of discretion challenges because they do not require showing that the trial court’s decision was unreasonable—only that it was incomplete.

Leading California Sentencing Appeal Cases

People v. Soto — Failure to apply Penal Code section 1170(b)(6) to a qualifying youth offender requires reversal and remand for resentencing so the trial court can make the mandatory statutory findings.

People v. Salazar — Appellate courts may not speculate about omitted sentencing findings. When required findings are missing, remand is mandatory so the trial court can exercise its discretion in the first instance.

People v. Scott — Unauthorized sentences are reversible at any time because they could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstances.

Penal Code 1170(b)(6): Youth Offender Lower Term Requirement Explained

Penal Code section 1170(b)(6) is one of California’s most significant recent sentencing reforms. Every California criminal appeals lawyer must understand this statute’s requirements, as failure to apply it is a common ground for reversal. Section 1170(b)(6) fundamentally alters the sentencing calculus when certain factors are present, creating a mandatory presumption in favor of lower-term sentences.

Legislative Intent and Policy Background

The Legislature enacted section 1170(b)(6) as part of a broader effort to incorporate scientific understanding of adolescent and young adult development into criminal sentencing. Research in neuroscience and psychology demonstrates that brain development continues into the mid-twenties, particularly in regions controlling impulse regulation, risk assessment, and susceptibility to peer influence.

The United States Supreme Court has recognized these developmental differences in several landmark cases involving juvenile sentencing. In Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 U.S. 551, the Court held that executing juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment. In Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, and Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460, the Court imposed restrictions on life-without-parole sentences for juveniles. These cases established that youth is more than a chronological fact—it is a mitigating characteristic that bears on culpability and capacity for rehabilitation.

California extended these principles beyond juveniles (persons under age 18) to young adults. The Legislature found that persons up to age 26 share many developmental characteristics with juveniles, including incomplete brain maturation. Section 1170(b)(6) reflects the legislative judgment that youth—broadly defined—should be treated as a mitigating factor in sentencing unless specific findings justify a higher sentence.

Definition of Youth Under Section 1016.7

Section 1170(b)(6)(B) incorporates the definition of youth from section 1016.7(b). That section defines a youth as a person under 26 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. This definition is broad and inclusive. A defendant who was 25 years and 364 days old at the time of the offense qualifies as a youth. Age is calculated as of the date of the offense, not the date of sentencing or conviction.

In Soto, the defendant was 21 years old at the time of the offense. The Court of Appeal held without hesitation that she fell within section 1170(b)(6)(B) as a youth. The statute applies regardless of the nature of the offense. There is no exception for violent crimes, sex offenses, or crimes against children. If the defendant was under 26 at the time of the offense, section 1170(b)(6) applies.

A California criminal appeals lawyer should verify the defendant’s age as part of any sentencing review. Birth records, booking records, and probation reports typically contain this information. When the defendant qualifies as a youth and the trial court imposed a midterm or upper term without making section 1170(b)(6) findings, reversal is warranted.

The Mandatory Lower Term Presumption

Section 1170(b)(6) creates a statutory presumption in favor of the lower term. The statute provides: “Notwithstanding paragraph (1), and unless the court finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice, the court shall order imposition of the lower term if any of the following was a contributing factor in the commission of the offense: [¶] … [¶] (B) The person is a youth…” (Pen. Code, § 1170(b)(6)(B).)

The mandatory language—”shall order imposition of the lower term”—leaves no room for discretion if the statutory criteria are met. The trial court must impose the lower term unless it makes affirmative findings overcoming the presumption. This is a significant departure from prior law, which treated the middle term as presumptive and gave trial courts broad discretion to select among the three terms.

The statute’s trigger is that the defendant’s youth was “a contributing factor in the commission of the offense.” This does not require that youth was the sole or primary cause of the offense. Contributing factor means that youth played some role in how or why the offense occurred. Given the broad recognition that developmental immaturity affects judgment, impulse control, and decision-making, youth is almost always a contributing factor for defendants under 26.

The Interests of Justice Exception and Required Findings

The trial court may overcome the lower-term presumption only by making two specific findings: (1) that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances, and (2) that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice. Both findings are required. The trial court must state these findings on the record and explain the factual basis for them.

The first finding—that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances—requires the trial court to identify specific aggravating and mitigating factors and explain why the aggravating factors predominate. California Rules of Court, rule 4.421 lists circumstances in aggravation, including facts relating to the crime (such as great violence or vulnerability of the victim) and facts relating to the defendant (such as prior convictions or poor performance on probation). Rule 4.423 lists circumstances in mitigation, including the defendant’s age at the time of the offense.

Under section 1170(b)(2), aggravating circumstances must be established through facts found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, stipulated to by the defendant, or found true in a bifurcated proceeding. In Soto, the jury found true three aggravating circumstances: that the defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on a child under age five, that the crime involved great violence disclosing a high degree of cruelty, and that the victim was vulnerable. These findings satisfied the evidentiary requirement for aggravation.

The second finding—that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice—requires the trial court to consider the totality of the circumstances and determine that a lower term would be inappropriate. This is not a formulaic finding. The court must explain why, notwithstanding the defendant’s youth and the statutory presumption, justice requires a higher sentence.

In Soto, the trial court made neither of these findings. The court identified aggravating circumstances found by the jury, but it did not address the defendant’s youth, did not consider whether youth was a contributing factor, and did not make the dual findings required to overcome the lower-term presumption. This omission required reversal.

Role of Mitigation Evidence and Youth as a Mitigating Factor

Youth is itself a mitigating circumstance under California Rules of Court, rule 4.423(b)(2), which identifies “[w]hether the defendant was suffering from a mental or physical condition that significantly reduced culpability for the crime.” While this rule predates section 1170(b)(6), the principles overlap. Youth affects culpability because of developmental immaturity.

Section 1170(b)(6) goes beyond treating youth as one mitigating factor among many. It creates a statutory presumption that elevates youth above other considerations. A California criminal appeals lawyer should emphasize in briefing that section 1170(b)(6) reflects a legislative determination that youth warrants special treatment in sentencing. The statute does not merely permit consideration of youth—it mandates a lower sentence unless specific findings justify otherwise.

Other mitigating evidence remains relevant. If the defendant cooperated with authorities, showed remorse, had a difficult childhood, or had limited prior criminal history, these are additional mitigating factors. The trial court must consider all mitigating circumstances when determining whether aggravating circumstances outweigh them. A defendant’s youth, combined with other mitigation, may make it very difficult for the trial court to justify a midterm or upper term sentence.

California Supreme Court Guidance in People v. Salazar

The California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416 is the leading case interpreting section 1170(b)(6). Every California criminal appeals lawyer challenging a sentence under section 1170(b)(6) should cite Salazar as controlling authority.

In Salazar, the defendant was 19 years old at the time of the offense. The trial court imposed the upper term without making section 1170(b)(6) findings. The Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that the trial court impliedly found that youth was not a contributing factor or that aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that appellate courts should not presume that trial courts made omitted findings. (Id. at p. 429.)

The Supreme Court explained that speculation about what the trial court might have found is inappropriate. Sentencing is a solemn responsibility that requires explicit findings when mandated by statute. Remand is required to give the trial court an opportunity to make the necessary findings in the first instance. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that remand would be futile because the result would inevitably be the same. (Ibid.)

Salazar establishes a bright-line rule: when the trial court fails to make section 1170(b)(6) findings, remand is mandatory. The Court of Appeal in Soto followed Salazar directly. The court noted the Supreme Court’s rejection of speculation and ordered remand with instructions to make the required findings. (People v. Soto (2024) 2d Crim. No. B323325, p. 14.)

The Soto Appeal: Sentence Vacated on Direct California Criminal Appeal

People v. Soto demonstrates how a California criminal appeals lawyer can secure reversal of an unlawful sentence through careful record review, precise legal analysis, and effective appellate briefing. The case proceeded through trial, sentencing, and appeal before the Court of Appeal vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Ventura County Superior Court Proceedings and Original Sentence

The defendant was charged in Ventura County Superior Court with child endangerment under Penal Code section 273a, subdivision (a), with a special allegation that she personally inflicted great bodily injury on a child under age five under section 12022.7, subdivision (d). The case also included jury findings regarding circumstances in aggravation under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1) and (3): that the crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, or acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness, and that the victim was particularly vulnerable.

Following conviction, the trial court sentenced the defendant to an aggregate term of 10 years in state prison. The court imposed the midterm of four years on the child endangerment count and the high term of six years on the great bodily injury enhancement. The sentence reflected the trial court’s consideration of the aggravating circumstances found by the jury. However, the court did not address the defendant’s age or make findings under section 1170(b)(6).

The record established that the defendant was 21 years old at the time of the offense. This fact appeared in the probation report and other documents. Her youth was therefore apparent from the record and should have triggered section 1170(b)(6) analysis. A California criminal appeals lawyer reviewing this record would immediately identify the potential for appellate challenge based on the trial court’s failure to make youth offender findings.

Midterm and High Term Imposed Without Section 1170(b)(6) Findings

The trial court’s sentencing colloquy did not mention section 1170(b)(6). The court identified the aggravating circumstances found by the jury—that the child was vulnerable and that the crime involved great bodily injury disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness. These findings supported imposition of an upper term under section 1170(b)(2). However, section 1170(b)(6) operates as an independent constraint on sentencing. Even when aggravating circumstances justify an upper term under section 1170(b)(2), section 1170(b)(6) requires a lower term if the defendant was a youth and youth was a contributing factor, unless the trial court makes specific findings overcoming that presumption.

The trial court’s failure to make section 1170(b)(6) findings meant that the sentence did not comply with statutory requirements. The court imposed a midterm on the base count rather than the lower term, and it imposed a high term on the enhancement. Neither choice was justified under section 1170(b)(6) without the required findings. A California criminal appeals lawyer challenging this sentence would argue that the absence of section 1170(b)(6) findings rendered the sentence unauthorized and warranted remand.

Defendant’s Age Under 26 at Time of Offense

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the defendant was 21 years old at the time of the offense and therefore qualified as a youth under section 1016.7(b). (People v. Soto (2024) 2d Crim. No. B323325, p. 13.) The court stated: “She consequently was ‘under 26 years of age,’ and she therefore falls within section 1170, subdivision (b)(6)(B) as a ‘youth.'” (Ibid.)

This determination was straightforward. The defendant’s birthdate was in the record, and simple arithmetic established that she was 21 at the time of the offense. There was no dispute about this fact. The only question was whether the trial court had complied with section 1170(b)(6) given her age. The answer was no.

Court of Appeal Analysis and Reversal

The Court of Appeal’s analysis was direct and dispositive. The court noted that both parties agreed the Legislature had amended section 1170 by adding subdivision (b)(6). The court quoted the statute, which provides that the trial court must impose the lower term when the defendant was a youth and that youth was a contributing factor in the offense, unless the court finds that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances and that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice.

The court found: “The trial court did not make the findings required by section 1170, subdivision (b)(6).” (People v. Soto (2024) 2d Crim. No. B323325, p. 14.) The People argued that remand was unnecessary because the appellate court could presume the trial court would have found that the defendant’s youth was not a contributing factor. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, citing the California Supreme Court’s decision in Salazar.

The court explained: “But our Supreme Court has recently rejected that claim.” (Ibid.) The court quoted Salazar‘s holding that appellate courts should not speculate that the trial court must have impliedly made an essential but omitted sentencing finding. (Id. at p. 429.) A remand is required. (Ibid.)

The Court of Appeal’s decision reflects the proper application of appellate standards. The court did not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. It did not determine whether the defendant’s youth was a contributing factor or whether aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances. Those are determinations for the trial court to make in the first instance. The appellate court’s role was to identify the statutory violation and order remand to give the trial court an opportunity to comply with section 1170(b)(6).

Remand for Resentencing Ordered

The Court of Appeal’s disposition was unequivocal: “We remand for resentencing with instructions that the trial court make the findings required by section 1170, subdivision (b)(6). We make no suggestion as to how the court should rule. In all other respects, we affirm.” (People v. Soto (2024) 2d Crim. No. B323325, p. 14.)

This disposition preserved all of the defendant’s rights while respecting the trial court’s sentencing authority. On remand, the trial court must determine whether the defendant’s youth was a contributing factor in the commission of the offense. If it finds that youth was a contributing factor, the court must impose the lower term unless it finds that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances and that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice. The trial court must state its findings and reasoning on the record.

The remand may result in a lower sentence. Even if the trial court ultimately imposes the same or a similar sentence after making the required findings, the resentencing hearing ensures that the defendant receives the statutory protections to which she is entitled. A California criminal appeals lawyer representing a client in this situation would have achieved a significant victory by securing the right to a lawful sentencing hearing.

When Sentencing Errors Become California Criminal Appeals Issues

Not every sentencing decision can or should be appealed. However, certain categories of errors are particularly well-suited to appellate challenge. A California criminal appeals lawyer must be able to identify which sentencing decisions are appealable and which are likely to result in reversal.

Common Appellate Triggers in Sentencing Cases

The following categories of sentencing errors frequently lead to successful appeals:

• Failure to apply Penal Code section 1170(b)(6) to youth offenders. When the defendant was under age 26 at the time of the offense and the trial court imposed a midterm or upper term without making the findings required by section 1170(b)(6), reversal is warranted under Salazar. This is the most common basis for section 1170(b)(6) appeals and was the ground for reversal in Soto.
• Ignoring youth offender status in aggravation-mitigation analysis. Even if the trial court mentions the defendant’s age, it must specifically consider whether youth was a contributing factor in the offense and whether that factor, combined with other mitigation, outweighs aggravating circumstances. Cursory references to age without substantive analysis do not satisfy section 1170(b)(6).
• Improper aggravation findings. Under section 1170(b)(2), aggravating circumstances used to impose an upper term must be established through facts found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, stipulated to by the defendant, or found true in a bifurcated proceeding. If the trial court relies on aggravating facts that were not proven to this standard, a California criminal appeals lawyer can challenge the sentence.
• Missing required findings. California sentencing law requires trial courts to state reasons for sentencing choices and identify facts supporting those reasons. When a trial court imposes an upper or lower term without stating reasons, or relies on facts not supported by the record, the sentence may be unauthorized.
• Speculative reasoning barred by appellate review. Appellate courts will not speculate about findings the trial court might have made. When mandatory findings are missing, remand is required regardless of whether the same sentence might ultimately be reimposed. This principle, established in Salazar, prevents appellate courts from filling gaps in the sentencing record.

Appellate Timelines and Mechanics

A notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days of rendition of judgment or within 30 days after service of a notice of entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a).) This deadline is jurisdictional. If the notice of appeal is filed late, the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and must dismiss it.

After the notice of appeal is filed, the trial court clerk prepares the clerk’s transcript, which includes the charging documents, jury instructions, verdict forms, judgment, sentencing minutes, and other documents filed in the trial court. The court reporter prepares the reporter’s transcript, which includes the transcripts of all proceedings at which testimony was taken or statements were made on the record.

Once the record is certified and transmitted to the Court of Appeal, the appellant’s opening brief is due. The brief must comply with the California Rules of Court regarding format, length, and content. The brief must include a statement of appealability, a statement of the case, a statement of facts, legal argument with citation to authority, and a conclusion specifying the relief requested. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204.)

In Soto, appellate counsel filed an opening brief that raised multiple issues, including challenges to the admission of the defendant’s statements to police, jury instructions, and the sentence. The brief identified the section 1170(b)(6) issue as a ground for reversal. The People filed a respondent’s brief, and the appellant filed a reply brief. The Court of Appeal did not order oral argument, deciding the case on the briefs.

A California criminal appeals lawyer must understand appellate procedures and deadlines. Missing a deadline or failing to comply with procedural rules can result in dismissal of the appeal or waiver of issues. Effective appellate advocacy requires attention to detail, thorough record review, and persuasive brief writing.

Statewide California Criminal Appeals Representation

California criminal appeals can be filed from any county in the state. Our firm provides statewide California criminal appeals representation, handling cases from trial courts throughout California’s appellate districts. Whether the conviction and sentence originated in Los Angeles, Orange County, Ventura, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, or any other California county, a California criminal appeals lawyer can identify sentencing errors and pursue appellate relief.

Los Angeles County Criminal Appeals

Los Angeles County is the largest criminal jurisdiction in California. Appeals from Los Angeles County Superior Court are heard by the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal. The Second Appellate District has eight divisions and handles thousands of criminal appeals each year. A California criminal appeals lawyer practicing in Los Angeles must be familiar with the procedures and tendencies of each division.

Sentencing errors like those in Soto occur frequently in Los Angeles County due to the high volume of cases. Trial courts in Los Angeles handle hundreds of sentencing hearings. Not every sentencing judge is aware of recent changes to section 1170(b)(6) or the requirements established in Salazar. A California criminal appeals lawyer serving Los Angeles County clients should review every sentencing transcript for compliance with youth offender sentencing requirements.

Orange County Criminal Appeals

Orange County Superior Court criminal convictions are also appealed to the Second Appellate District or, in some cases, to the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three. Orange County has a significant criminal docket, and sentencing issues arise regularly. A California criminal appeals lawyer handling Orange County appeals must be prepared to address both trial court procedural issues and substantive sentencing errors.

Youth offender sentencing under section 1170(b)(6) applies equally in Orange County as in any other California jurisdiction. The statute is statewide and mandatory. Trial courts in Orange County must make the same findings required of trial courts elsewhere in California. When they fail to do so, a California criminal appeals lawyer can secure reversal just as in Soto.

Ventura County Criminal Appeals

Soto originated in Ventura County Superior Court. Ventura County appeals are heard by the Second Appellate District, Division Six. Division Six has jurisdiction over appeals from Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties. The division’s decision in Soto demonstrates its commitment to enforcing statutory sentencing requirements.

A California criminal appeals lawyer representing a client sentenced in Ventura County should carefully review the sentencing transcript and probation report to determine the defendant’s age at the time of the offense. If the defendant was under 26 and the trial court failed to make section 1170(b)(6) findings, an appeal is likely to succeed based on Soto as binding precedent within Division Six.

San Diego County and Riverside-San Bernardino Criminal Appeals

San Diego County appeals are heard by the Fourth Appellate District, Division One. Riverside and San Bernardino counties are within the Fourth Appellate District, Division Two. Both divisions handle significant criminal caseloads. A California criminal appeals lawyer practicing in these jurisdictions must understand the Fourth Appellate District’s approach to sentencing issues.

The Fourth Appellate District has addressed section 1170(b)(6) in multiple published and unpublished opinions. The district follows Salazar and requires remand when trial courts fail to make mandatory youth offender findings. Section 1170(b)(6) applies uniformly across all California appellate districts. A California criminal appeals lawyer can cite Soto and Salazar in any California appellate court with confidence that the principles will be applied.

Our statewide California criminal appeals practice handles cases from every region of California. We understand the procedural requirements of each appellate district, the filing procedures in each trial court, and the substantive law governing criminal appeals statewide. Whether your case involves sentencing errors under section 1170(b)(6), instructional errors, evidentiary challenges, or sufficiency of the evidence issues, a California criminal appeals lawyer can provide effective representation.

Frequently Asked Questions About California Criminal Appeals and Sentencing

Our California Criminal Appeals Practice

Our appellate practice focuses exclusively on California criminal appeals and sentencing reversals, with particular emphasis on statutory sentencing errors, youth offender cases, and unlawful sentence challenges.

Our firm focuses exclusively on criminal appeals. We do not handle trials or preliminary hearings. Our practice is dedicated to reviewing trial court records, identifying appellate issues, and pursuing relief through the California Courts of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. This focused approach allows us to develop deep expertise in appellate law and procedure.

Statewide Appellate Focus

We handle California criminal appeals from every county and appellate district. Our statewide practice means we understand the procedural requirements of each district and have experience with judges throughout the California Courts of Appeal. Whether your case originated in a metropolitan area like Los Angeles or a rural county, a California criminal appeals lawyer from our firm can provide effective representation.

Sentencing Appeals and Section 1170(b)(6) Cases

Sentencing appeals, particularly those involving section 1170(b)(6), are a significant part of our practice. We have successfully challenged sentences where trial courts failed to make youth offender findings, improperly applied aggravating circumstances, or violated other sentencing statutes. Our representation in Soto demonstrates our ability to identify sentencing errors and secure meaningful relief through the appellate process.

Record Review and Issue Identification

Effective appellate representation begins with thorough record review. A California criminal appeals lawyer must read every page of the clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts, review jury instructions, analyze verdict forms, and study the sentencing transcript. This comprehensive review is necessary to identify all potential grounds for reversal. In Soto, our review of the sentencing transcript revealed that the trial court had not made section 1170(b)(6) findings despite the defendant’s youth offender status. This discovery led directly to the successful appeal.

Appellate Briefing

Appellate briefs must comply with strict procedural rules while persuasively presenting legal arguments. We draft opening briefs that clearly state the issues, marshal the facts, cite applicable authority, and explain why reversal is warranted. Our briefs are designed to give appellate justices the information they need to rule in our clients’ favor. The briefing in Soto presented the section 1170(b)(6) issue clearly and cited controlling authority, including Salazar, to demonstrate why remand was required.

Oral Argument

When the Court of Appeal orders oral argument, we prepare extensively to answer the justices’ questions and address any concerns raised during briefing. Oral argument provides an opportunity to clarify issues and respond to the justices’ questions in real time. Not all cases involve oral argument—in Soto, the court decided the case on the briefs—but when argument is ordered, a California criminal appeals lawyer must be prepared to advocate effectively.

Remand Advocacy

When an appeal results in remand for resentencing, we can continue representation at the resentencing hearing or coordinate with trial counsel. Resentencing hearings provide an opportunity to present additional mitigation evidence and to ensure the trial court complies with the appellate mandate. In cases like Soto, the resentencing hearing is where the trial court must make the section 1170(b)(6) findings required by the Court of Appeal. Effective advocacy at resentencing can result in a lower sentence.

Our practice is focused on achieving the best possible outcome for our clients through careful analysis, thorough briefing, and persuasive advocacy. We understand that every case represents a person’s liberty and future. A California criminal appeals lawyer must bring not only legal knowledge but also commitment to the client’s cause.

Why Families Need a California Criminal Appeals Lawyer

Appealing a criminal conviction or sentence is complex. The appellate process involves strict deadlines, detailed procedural rules, and substantive legal issues that differ from trial advocacy. A California criminal appeals lawyer brings specialized knowledge and experience that families need to navigate the appellate system.

Complexity of Appellate Records

The appellate record in a criminal case can run thousands of pages. The record includes the entire clerk’s transcript (all documents filed in the trial court), the reporter’s transcript (transcripts of all proceedings), and exhibits admitted at trial. A California criminal appeals lawyer must review this entire record to identify appealable issues. This is not a task that family members or even trial attorneys can easily accomplish without appellate experience. Knowing what to look for—whether it’s a section 1170(b)(6) violation, an instructional error, or an evidentiary ruling that requires reversal—comes from experience with appellate law.

Appellate Briefing Requirements

Appellate briefs must comply with the California Rules of Court regarding format, length, citation form, and content. Briefs must include specific sections: statement of appealability, statement of the case, statement of facts, legal argument, and conclusion. Each argument must be supported by citation to the record and to legal authority. A California criminal appeals lawyer knows how to structure a brief, how to cite authority persuasively, and how to present arguments in a way that appellate justices find compelling. Poor briefing can result in affirmance of an otherwise reversible error.

Statutory Interpretation and Legal Research

Many appellate issues involve interpretation of statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions. In Soto, the critical issue was whether the trial court complied with Penal Code section 1170(b)(6). Answering that question required understanding the statute’s text, its legislative history, and the California Supreme Court’s interpretation in Salazar. A California criminal appeals lawyer has access to legal research tools and the experience to find and apply controlling authority. This expertise is essential to building persuasive appellate arguments.

Understanding Court of Appeal Procedure

Each California appellate district has its own procedures and local rules. The Courts of Appeal operate differently from trial courts. Appellate courts do not hear witnesses, do not consider new evidence, and do not make factual findings. Instead, they review the trial court record to determine whether legal errors occurred. A California criminal appeals lawyer understands these differences and knows how to frame issues for appellate review. Families who attempt to navigate the appellate system without counsel often miss critical issues or fail to comply with procedural requirements, resulting in lost opportunities for relief.

The decision to hire a California criminal appeals lawyer can make the difference between affirmance and reversal. In Soto, experienced appellate counsel identified a sentencing error, briefed it effectively, and secured vacation of the sentence and remand for resentencing. This outcome protected the defendant’s statutory rights and gave her an opportunity for a lawful sentence. Families facing similar situations should consult with a California criminal appeals lawyer to determine whether appellate relief is available.

Consult with a California Criminal Appeals Lawyer Regarding Sentencing Errors

If you or a family member was sentenced in California and may not have received the protections required by Penal Code section 1170(b)(6), consult with a California criminal appeals lawyer. Sentencing errors like those in Soto occur regularly in California trial courts. Many defendants who were under age 26 at the time of their offense did not receive the benefit of the lower-term presumption created by section 1170(b)(6). If the trial court failed to make the required findings, the sentence may be unauthorized and subject to reversal on appeal.

Our firm represents clients in California criminal appeals throughout the state. We handle sentencing appeals, section 1170(b)(6) challenges, and all other appellate issues arising from criminal convictions. Whether your case involves youth offender sentencing, improper aggravation findings, or other sentencing errors, a California criminal appeals lawyer can review your record and advise you of your options.

Time limits for filing appeals are strict. If you believe a sentencing error occurred, contact a California criminal appeals lawyer promptly to preserve your rights. Appellate relief is available for defendants who were not afforded the statutory protections to which they are entitled. The outcome in Soto demonstrates that California appellate courts will enforce sentencing statutes and order resentencing when trial courts fail to comply.

We provide consultations to discuss potential appellate issues, review sentencing transcripts, and explain the appellate process. Our goal is to help clients understand their options and pursue meaningful relief through the California Courts of Appeal. A California criminal appeals lawyer can make a critical difference in securing vacation of an unlawful sentence and remand for proper resentencing under section 1170(b)(6).

Consult with a California Criminal Appeals attorney at 888-808-2179 or submit a confidential contact submission.