Relevant factors enumerated in these rules must be considered by the sentencing judge, and will be deemed to have been considered unless the record affirmatively reflects otherwise.
Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)
When a judge sentences someone in a criminal case, they are required to think about all the relevant factors listed in California's sentencing rules. These factors help the judge decide on a fair sentence.
You do not need to worry that the judge forgot to consider these factors. The court automatically assumes the judge thought about all of them unless something in the court record clearly shows otherwise.
Summary generated March 14, 2026
Committee Notes
Relevant factors are those applicable to the facts in the record of the case; not all factors will be relevant to each case. The judge's duty is similar to the duty to consider the probation officer's report. Section 1203.
In deeming the sentencing judge to have considered relevant factors, the rule applies the presumption of Evidence Code section 664 that official duty has been regularly performed. (See People v. Moran (1970) 1 Cal.3d 755, 762 [trial court presumed to have considered referring eligible defendant to California Youth Authority in absence of any showing to the contrary, citing Evidence Code section 664].)
Rule 4.409 amended effective January 1, 2018; adopted as rule 409 effective July 1, 1977; previously renumbered effective January 1, 2001; previously amended effective January 1, 2007.
Disclaimer
The information on this site is for general reference only and is not legal advice.
Rule text may not reflect the most recent amendments. Always verify against official
sources before relying on any rule in a legal matter.
By using this site, you agree to our
Terms of Service and Privacy Policy,
whether or not you click this button.