’WPCµ ›ĖĮˆ¦śµ›Œ?BȕŸģ®Ź²ƒŲõŸ{¹Œ$Ö¹—©NVg÷ÜĒ4š„ģ…0MC40_¾~ˆĶÓčČteŒ-L” Q£ŃskŅü«sėrß! –BŻsłx”‡)¼÷:zV5D Ģr܌'ā»H*ēv% äUJ&įÅ1K”puOĶīsĶž[Z†·ł‚e;MšxöÆ(ĮĚź žQ欬KvFųūūóŁ)1ģÕ”ą¬;I‘)įMē±› €OiN„š¾ƒ’µiņ¾SMšČ«, õz=UZZ­ÜE*)Żõöü;ĶŃük¢){&wńuš“]~kMKŲķÄ|*æśū_Ļ ųš$§źś©aTöņÕŒ•E©0ćėÜŃä7Ž£S½™:ė1‡*&šĮÆś©ü †nyyń”˜Į¾!1Żø°‘įöX#ÉŠU!N™ %ē 0Yķ ^ F wR 4V j y m{ N’  ” 0N °ė 6› 0Ń 0Dnę²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²² B˜˜HP 4050 BACK HALLWAYŲČČŲŲČŲČ0(ÖĆ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(1”Ź$””Ō€ŠŻOˆXXŌŌUSUS.,ŌøiI<— ¶sF;athryn3|x’U‹’’’’ ’Ż ƒ‘E$ŻŌ€ŠĶwˆXXŌŌUSUS.,Ōą  ąņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_Ō€€All€further€statutory€references€in€these€materials€are€to€the€Penal€Code€unlessŠ ° Šotherwise€specified.(ĶO$——Ō’ŌņņóóŌ’Ō  blogBlakely ICWABedrickBrownellTernusbaggies T.C.CroninStierdepublicationSandovalTerrellpatdownMimmsMarsdenSiracoUrbina secsMulayMcCoveyNeuhoffBraucherSHAWNAKennard Tran D.R.refile O]urtaserQuiroga T]heStarritt FDAPdispositionalsynopsizeClitesShorsSheltonHoskings suasponteShippdiringPlaystationRanneyCal.AppLieske SafCALCRIM Y]esFerrandoSoglin J.C.ManzyAngres DEJwardshipconcealable UsefBreenYatesPitchessWestlawAbusafiehpresentenceResentencingremititturChiaraBatson LWOPRindelsKesserCambraLenixWaltreusexcusaltearedpretextualBuelnaFarberW]hereMarianoMercantin inManchenoPatsearchesBrisboispatsearchwww.fdap.org/victories.php(M(3‘E$¤¤Ż ƒ”Ź!ŻŌ€ŠĖ£ˆXXŌŌUSUS.,ŌŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó ÜŻ ƒ‘E$ŻŌ€ŠĶwˆXXŌŌUSUS.,Ōą  ąņņŚ  Ś2Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_Ō€€Ō_ŌņņPitchessŌ_Ō€v.€Superior€Courtóó€(1974)€11€Cal.3d€531. dŻ ƒ”Ź!ŻŌ€ŠĶwˆXXŌŌUSUS.,ŌŻ  ŻŌ_Ōņ ņņņó óóóŌ‡ˆĶwˆˆŠĶwŌą@’ ’ ģąŌ#†ŠĶwˆˆˆĶwh#ŌŌ‡ī§iīˆŠĶwŌņ ņFIRST€DISTRICT€APPELLATE€PROJECTˆŠ ° Šą@"ģąTRAINING€SEMINARˆŠ Ō$ Šą@ÖÖ"ģąŌ#†ŠĶwˆīī§i¼#ŌJanuary€30,€2010ˆŠ ųH ŠĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢŌ‡„•‘ „ˆŠĶwŌą@| | !ģąCALENDAR€YEAR€2009ˆŠ ä4  Šą@m m ģąSELECTED€UNPUBLISHEDˆŠ D”  Šą@Ģ Ģ ģąFIRST€DISTRICT€VICTORIESˆŠ ¤ō ŠĢĢĢĢą@ĄĄ%ģąŌ#†ŠĶwˆ „„•‘°#ŌTara€MulayņņˆŠ  „Ō ŠŲŲŃ8€ĶwŠˆddČ8ŃŃ  ŃÓ  ÓņņŌ‡ BˆŠĶwŌINTRODUCTIONŌ#†ŠĶwˆ BF#ŌóóŠ ° ŠĢÓ7ÓóóOne€hundred€and€twenty„five€victories...ó ó€In€2009,€FDAP€staff€and€panel€attorneysŠ ą0 Šprevailed€on€claims€for€relief€inņņņ ņ€ó óóóapproximately€125€cases€in€the€First€District€Court€ofŠ ä4 ŠAppeal.€€The€vast€majority€of€these€cases€resulted€in€the€issuance€of€unpublishedŠ ä4 Šopinions.€Š ä 4 ŠŌ_Ōą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąą p ąą Č ąŌ_ŌĢCongratulations€are€in€order€for€all€of€the€victorious€appellate€advocates.€€The€125Š ä 4 Švictories€yielded€a€wide€range€of€results,€from€the€reversal€of€serious€felony€convictions,Š ä 4 Što€the€lowering€of€fines,€to€the€award€of€additional€credits,€to€the€reversal€of€juvenileŠ ä 4  Šdispositional€orders.€€Each€of€these€victories€conferred€a€benefit€on€the€client€and,€byŠ ä4  Šcalling€trial€courtsšš€and€other€trial€participantsšš€attention€to€errors€which€occurred€in€theŠ ä4  Šprocess,€helped€to€ensure€that€fair€trial€and€sentencing€procedures€will€be€followed€in€theŠ ä4  Šfuture.€Š ä4  ŠĢSummaries€of€all€125€victories,€with€links€to€the€unpublished€opinions,€can€be€found€inŠ ä4 Šthe€searchable€š šVictories€Blogšš€on€FDAPššs€website€(Ō4‚Ż ¶ŌŻ‚ ĶOŻŌ’ŌņņŻ  ŻŌ5  Ōwww.fdap.org/victories.phpŌ6 ŌŻ‚ ĶO) ƒŻóóŌ’ŌŻ  ŻŌ7Ż 6 W Ō).€€WeŠ ä4 Šurge€you€to€consider€the€advantages€of€using€this€resource€in€your€panel€work.€TheŠ ä4 ŠVictories€Blog€includes€summaries€of€all€First€District€victories€dating€from€March€2005Š ä4 Šand€is€searchable€by€keyword€or€by€category.€€The€list€of€categories€and€subcategories,Š ä4 Šnumbering€284€as€of€January€2010,€is€quite€user€friendly€and€extremely€comprehensive.€Š ä4 ŠFor€example,€there€are:€25€subcategories€under€the€category€š šinsufficiency€of€theŠ ä4 Ševidence,šš€with€each€subcategory€corresponding€to€a€distinct€offense;€17€subcategories€ofŠ ä4 Šinstructional€error€under€š šjury€instructionsšš;€and€22€subcategories€under€š šsentencingŠ ä4 Šerror.šš€€€Š ä4 ŠĢReviewing€unpublished€opinions€can€help€with€issue€selection,€research,€analysis,€andŠ ä4 Šargumentation.€€Unpublished€opinions€shed€light€on€the€types€of€arguments€regardingŠ ä4 Šerror,€waiver,€and€prejudice€that€the€Courts€of€Appeal€find€most€persuasive.€€TheŠ ä 4 ŠVictories€Blog€also€makes€it€easy€to€search€First€District€opinions€by€Division€so€you€canŠ ä!4 Šknow€if€the€particular€Division€to€which€your€case€is€assigned€has€addressed€a€specificŠ ä"4 Šissue.€€Š ä#4 ŠĢIn€the€following€materials,€we€synopsize€just€a€small€sample€of€2009€victories.€We€do€notŠ ä%4!! Šclaim€to€have€provided€a€significant€or€representative€sample€of€the€broad€range€ofŠ ä&4"" Šappellate€arguments€that€prevailed€in€2009.€€Rather,€we€have€tried€to€choose€one€or€twoŠ ä'4## Švictories€from€each€of€several€of€the€types€of€criminal€cases€appointed€counsel€handle€inŠ ä(4$$ Šthe€First€District€„€jury€trials,€juvenile€delinquency,€guilty€plea,€probation€revocation,€andŠ ä)4%% Šsearch€and€seizure€cases.€€Additionally€we€have€included€a€section€highlighting€2009Š ä*4&& Šhabeas€victories.Š ä+4'' ŠŠ ä,4(( Šņņņ ņņņÓ  ÓŌ‡ BˆŠĶwŌSELECTED€JURY€TRIAL€VICTORIESŌ#†ŠĶwˆ B#ŌóóŠ ° ŠÓÓĢPeople€v.€Clites€&€Cox,€óóA115826€(Division€Two)Š ą0 ŠSubjects:ņņ€óóAdmission€of€Police€Officer€Testimony€that€Defendants€Were€Guilty;Š Ž. ŠInstructions€on€General€Principles€of€Law€Closely€Connected€to€the€CaseņņŠ Ü, ŠóóDate€Filed:€January€29,€2009Š Ś * ŠAttorney:€Susan€Shors€(Clites)€&€Alan€Stern€(Cox)Š Ų ( ŠFDAP€Buddy:€Paula€Rudman€&€Richard€BraucherŠ Ö & Šó óĢņ ņThe€Court€of€Appeal€reversed€the€defendantsšš€convictions€for€theft€from€an€elder€orŠ Ō $  Šdependant€adult€under€Penal€Code׃ ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀section€368(d)€because€the€trial€court€erred€bothŠ Ņ"  Šby€admitting€opinion€testimony€by€a€police€officer€that€the€defendants€committedŠ Š  Štheft€and€fraud€and€by€failing€to€define€a€number€of€technical€terms€closelyŠ Ī  Šconnected€to€the€case.ó óŠ Ģ  Šņ ņó óĢMs.€Shelton,€the€alleged€victim€and€an€elderly€woman€with€possible€dementia,€signed€aŠ Ź Šdocument€giving€her€son,€Cox,€and€her€pastor,€Clites,€power€of€attorney.€€In€Ms.€SheltonššsŠ Ź Špresence,€her€account€of€$108,000€was€then€closed€and€the€money€was€transferred€intoŠ Ź ŠCoxššs€account.€€Clites€was€designated€beneficiary€if€Cox€and€Shelton€died.€€Cox€thenŠ Ź Šwithdrew€approximately€$104,000€from€the€account,€gave€about€$40,000€of€it€to€ClitesššŠ Ź Šchurch,€wrote€additional€checks€to€himself,€and€used€a€portion€of€the€money€to€pay€for€hisŠ Ź Šdental€work€and€a€computer.Š Ź ŠĢThe€prosecutor€and€Cox€asked€a€series€of€questions€of€the€investigating€officer,€Hoskings,Š Ź Šwhich€elicited€his€opinions€that€Cox€and€Clites€were€guilty€of€fraud€and€theft€because€theyŠ Ź Šhad€promised€to€act€in€Ms.€Sheltonššs€best€interest€when€they€signed€the€power€of€attorneyŠ Ź Šand€had€used€š šundue€influence.šš€€Clites€objected€to€these€lines€of€questioning€and€movedŠ Ź Što€strike€the€officerššs€testimony.€€On€appeal,€Cox€joined€Clitesšš€claim€that€the€court€erredŠ Ź Šin€admitting€the€testimony.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€agreed€that€Hoskings€should€not€haveŠ Ź  Šbeen€allowed€to€testify€that€the€defendants€were€guilty€and€as€to€the€statutory€definitionsŠ Ź! Šof€crimes.Š Ź" ŠĢThe€Court€of€Appeal€also€found€instructional€error.€€The€jury€was€instructed€on€theft€byŠ Ź$  Šlarceny€and€theft€by€false€pretenses.€€The€prosecutor€during€closing€argued€that€the€powerŠ Ź%!! Šof€attorney€was€the€document€used€to€commit€theft€by€false€pretenses€and€that€theft€byŠ Ź&"" Šlarceny€was€shown€because€the€power€of€attorney€required€the€defendants€to€act€in€Ms.Š Ź'## ŠSheltonššs€best€interest.€€Cox€argued€in€response€that€Ms.€Shelton€was€competent€toŠ ° Šexecute€the€power€of€attorney,€he€had€a€good€faith€belief€he€could€transfer€the€money€intoŠ ° Šhis€account,€he€did€not€have€the€state€of€mind€required€for€theft,€and€Ms.€Shelton€wantedŠ ° Šmuch€of€her€money€given€to€Clitesšš€church.€€Clites€similarly€argued€that€Ms.€Shelton€hadŠ ° Šgiven€the€money€as€a€gift€to€her€son€and€then€later€regretted€it,€so€that€no€crime€wasŠ ° Šcommitted.€Š °  ŠĢClites€had€asked€the€trial€court€to€instruct€that€there€was€no€legal€provision€establishing€aŠ °  Šmandatory€fiduciary€duty€on€a€person€who€has€power€of€attorney.€€The€trial€courtŠ °  Šconducted€research€and€denied€the€request€after€finding€that€one€who€has€a€power€ofŠ °  Šattorney€does€undertake€some€fiduciary€duties.€€On€appeal,€Clites€did€not€claim€that€theŠ °  Štrial€court€should€have€instructed€as€defense€counsel€requested.€€Instead€he€argued,€andŠ °  ŠCox€joined€in€the€argument,€that€the€trial€court€should€have€sua€sponte€defined€certainŠ °  Šgeneral€principles€of€law€closely€and€openly€connected€with€the€facts€of€the€caseŠ °  Šregarding€the€legal€effect€of€a€power€of€attorney.€Š ° ŠĢThe€Court€of€Appeal€agreed€and€found€that€the€omitted€instructions€would€have€bothŠ ° Šassisted€the€defense,€by€demonstrating€that€Ms.€Shelton€had€given€her€attorney„in„fact€theŠ ° Šauthority€to€make€gifts,€and€assisted€the€prosecution,€by€demonstrating€that€Cox€andŠ ° ŠClites€were€under€fiduciary€duties€and€that€a€person€holding€a€power€of€attorney€may€beŠ ° Šguilty€of€theft€by€false€pretenses.€€On€balance,€considering€the€credibility€disputes€at€trial,Š ° Šthe€Court€of€Appeal€found€the€errors€prejudicial€under€the€ņņPeople€v.€Watsonóó€(1956)€46Š ° ŠCal.2d€818,€836€standard€of€review€and€reversed€both€defendantsšš€convictions.Š ° ŠĢņņņ ņPeople€v.€Jeromeóóó ó,€ņ ņA119737€(Division€Three)Š ° ŠSubjects:€Improper€Restriction€of€Voir€DireŠ “ ŠDate€Filed:€April€24,€2009Š ² ŠAttorney:€Joseph€ShippŠ ° ŠFDAP€Buddy:€Richard€BraucherŠ ® ž ŠĢThe€Court€of€Appeal€reversed€the€defendantššs€convictions€for€kidnaping€to€commitŠ Ŗ"ś Šrobbery€and€second€degree€robbery€because€the€trial€court€improperly€prohibitedŠ Ø#ų Šdefense€counsel€from€voir€diring€the€jurors€regarding€whether€they€would€be€biasedŠ ¦$ö  Šor€prejudiced€if€they€heard€evidence€of€an€alleged€prior€offense€committed€by€theŠ ¤%ō ! Šdefendant.Š ¢&ņ!" ŠĢó óThe€defense€was€based€on€the€defendantššs€statement€to€arresting€officers€and€his€trialŠ ž(ī#$ Štestimony€that,€contrary€to€the€alleged€victimššs€testimony,€he€never€pointed€a€gun€andŠ ž)ī$% Šthreatened€the€alleged€victim€in€the€defendantššs€moving€car€in€order€to€steal€a€SonyŠ ž*ī%& ŠPlaystation€3€video€game.€€Rather,€defendant€testified,€he€offered€the€alleged€victim€anŠ ž+ī&' Šamount€of€money€plus€some€marijuana€for€the€game,€and,€after€contentious€negotiations,Š ° Šthey€were€unable€to€agree€on€a€price.Š ° ŠĢThe€original€record€on€appeal€showed€that€the€prosecutionššs€evidence€included€EvidenceŠ ° ŠCode€section€1101€testimony€that€the€defendant€allegedly€committed€a€1996€robbery€forŠ ° Šwhich€he€was€arrested€but€never€prosecuted.€€After€the€defendant€was€convicted,€trialŠ °  Šcounsel€moved€for€a€new€trial€on€the€grounds€that€the€court€had€prohibited€counsel€fromŠ °  Švoir€diring€the€jurors€regarding€bias€or€prejudice€they€may€have€based€on€learning€of€theŠ °  Š1996€incident.€€When€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion,€it€stated€that€it€had€not€restrictedŠ °  Švoir€dire€as€described€by€defense€counsel.Š °  ŠĢAppellate€counsel€obtained€the€transcript€of€the€voir€dire€in€light€of€the€claim€made€in€theŠ °  Šnew€trial€motion.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€found€that€the€discussions€between€court€andŠ °  Šcounsel€at€the€voir€dire€demonstrated€that€the€trial€court€had€prohibited€any€voir€dire€onŠ °  Šwhether€the€jurors€would€be€able€to€follow€the€courtššs€instructions€that€the€1996€incidentŠ ° Šwould€come€in€for€a€limited€purposes€and€that€they€were€not€to€use€the€evidence€asŠ ° Ševidence€of€bad€character.Š ° ŠĢRelying€in€part€on€ņņPeople€v.€Ranneyóó€(1931)€213€Cal.€70,€74€and€on€its€own€precedent€inŠ ° ŠņņPeople€v.€Chapman€óó(1993)€15€Cal.App.4th€136,€Division€Three€found€that€the€courtššsŠ ° Šimproper€limitation€on€the€scope€of€voir€dire€failed€to€provide€a€reasonable€assurance€thatŠ ° Šjuror€prejudice€would€be€discovered€if€present€and€therefore€that€the€court€committedŠ ° Šreversible€error.Š ° Šņ ņó óĢĢņ ņņņPeople€v.€Lieskeóóó ó,€ņ ņA121402€(Division€Three)Š ° ŠSubjects:€Instructions€on€Legally€Inadequate€Theory€of€LiabilityŠ “ ŠDate€Filed:€June€22,€2009Š ² ŠAttorney:€Richard€NeuhoffŠ °  ŠFDAP€Buddy:€Stephanie€ClarkeŠ ®!ž ŠĢThe€Court€of€Appeal€reversed€the€defendantššs€conviction€for€maintaining€a€place€forŠ Ŗ#ś Šselling€or€using€a€controlled€substance€(Health€and€Saf.€Code,€šš€11366).€€The€CourtŠ Ø$ų  Šof€Appeal€found€that€the€trial€court€had€instructed€on€an€inadequate€theory€ofŠ ¦%ö ! Šliability€by€instructing€the€jury€that€personal€use€of€heroin€on€a€repeated€basis€whileŠ ¤&ō!" Šin€oneššs€own€home€constitutes€a€violation€of€section€Ō_Ō11366Ō_ŌŌ_ŌŌ_ŌŌ_Ō.Ō_ŌŠ ¢'ņ"# Šó óĢAfter€a€woman€walked€out€of€the€defendantššs€hotel€room€and€dropped€a€bag€containingŠ  )š$% Šheroin,€officers€entered€the€room,€found€approximately€58€grams€of€heroin,€a€digital€scale,Š  *š%& Šbaggies,€and€a€š šhide„a„can.šš€€Defendant€testified€on€his€own€behalf€that€he€was€a€long„Š  +š&' Štime€heroin€addict€who€needed€to€use€a€large€amount€of€heroin€and€inject€it€into€hisŠ ° Šmuscles€and€that€he€had€purchased€the€heroin€the€day€before€his€arrest€in€bulk€because€itŠ ° Šwas€less€expensive.€€He€denied€selling€heroin€and€said€he€did€not€need€to€do€so€because€heŠ ° Šhad€inheritance€money.Š ° ŠĢInitially,€the€trial€court€gave€the€standard€instruction€on€maintaining€a€place€for€sale€or€useŠ °  Šof€a€controlled€substance,€CALCRIM€2440.€€During€deliberations,€the€court€received€aŠ °  Šnote€from€the€jury€questioning€whether€the€charge€of€opening€or€maintaining€a€place€forŠ °  Šsale€or€use€of€heroin€is€š šintended€to€include€personal€use€within€your€own€home.šš€€OverŠ °  Šdefense€counselššs€objection,€the€trial€court€responded:€š š[Y]es,€it€can€include,€ššpersonalŠ °  Šuse€within€your€own€home,šš€if€it€has€been€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€to€be€on€a€Š °  Šcontinuous€or€repeated€basis€at€that€place.ššŠ °  ŠĢThe€Court€of€Appeal€conducted€an€in„depth€legislative€history€analysis€and€concludedŠ °  Šthat,€in€context,€the€term€š šusešš€in€section€11366,€while€not€expressly€confined€to€use€byŠ ° Šothers,€refers€to€use€by€persons€other€than€or€in€addition€to€the€defendant.€€The€Court€ofŠ ° ŠAppeal€also€relied€on€two€cases€which€had,€in€other€contexts,€opined€that€section€11366Š ° Šdoes€not€encompass€mere€personal,€sequential€use€of€a€specified€substance€at€home.€Š ° Š(ņņPeople€v.€Veraóó€(1999)€69€Cal.App.4th€1100€[holding€section€11366€is€a€crime€of€moralŠ ° Šturpitude];€ņņPeople€v.€Ferrando€óó(2004)€115€Cal.App.4th€917€[offender€convicted€ofŠ ° Šsection€11366€violation€is€not€eligible€for€Proposition€36€probation€because€the€offenseŠ ° Šinvolves€more€than€simple€possession].)€€€The€Court€of€Appeal€further€relied€on€the€š šruleŠ ° Šof€lenity,šš€which€requires€that,€when€a€statute€defining€a€crime€is€susceptible€of€twoŠ ° Šequally€reasonable€interpretations€and€it€is€impractical€to€resolve€the€ambiguity,€courtsŠ ° Šshould€ordinarily€resolve€the€doubt€in€the€defendantššs€favor.€€(ņņPeople€v.€Averyóó€(2002)€27Š ° ŠCal.4th€49,€57.)Š ° ŠĢThe€error€constituted€instruction€on€a€legally€inadequate€theory€of€liability€and€wasŠ ° Štherefore€federal€constitutional€error.€€(ņņPeople€v.€Perezóó€(2005)€35€Cal.4th€1219,€1232;Š °  ŠņņGriffin€v.€United€Statesóó€(1991)€502€U.S.€46,€59.)€€Reversal€was€required€because€thereŠ °! Šwas€š šnothing€in€the€record€to€establish€that€the€jury€necessarily€rejected€[the€inadequate]Š °" Štheory€and€instead€convicted€appellant€on€a€proper€theory.ššŠ °# ŠĢĢņ ņó óĢŠ  °'## ŠÓ  Óņņņņņ ņŌ‡ BˆŠĶwŌSELECTED€JUVENILE€DELINQUENCY€VICTORIESŌ#†ŠĶwˆ B C#Ōó óóóóóŠ ° ŠÓ‹CÓĢņņņ ņIn€re€E.G.óó,€A121535€(Division€One)ó óŠ ę6 Šņ ņSubjects:€Insufficient€Evidence;€Felony€Vandalism;€Gang€ParticipationŠ ä4 ŠDate€Filed:€April€13,€2009Š ā2 ŠAttorney:€Anne€ManiaŠ ą 0 ŠFDAP€Buddy:€Jonathan€SoglinŠ Ž . Šó óĢņ ņThe€Court€of€Appeal€reversed€the€Juvenile€Courtššs€findings€that€the€minorŠ Ü , Šcommitted€felony€vandalism€(Pen.€Code,€šš€594(a))€with€a€street€gang€enhancementŠ Ś *  Š(186.22(b)(1)(A))€and€a€related€gang€participation€offense€(186.22(a)),€because€thereŠ Ų(  Šwas€š ša€complete€failure€of€proof€of€the€amount€of€damagešš€caused€by€the€allegedŠ Ö&  Švandalism.Š Ō$  ŠĢó óThe€charges€were€based€on€testimony€that€the€minor,€with€a€group€of€other€š šgangŠ Š  Šbangers,šš€broke€Alvaroššs€car€window,€apparently€by€throwing€a€bat.€€Alvaro€neitherŠ Š  Šreplaced€the€window€nor€got€an€estimate€of€the€cost€of€replacement.€Š Š  ŠĢThe€Court€of€Appeal€found€that€there€was€no€evidence€that€the€damage€to€the€windowŠ Š  Šwas€$400€or€more,€as€required€by€section€594(b)(1),€and€reduced€the€jurisdictional€findingŠ Š  Što€misdemeanor€vandalism.€€Since€the€related€substantive€offense€of€gang€participationŠ Š  Šalso€required€felony€behavior,€the€true€finding€as€to€that€charge€needed€to€be€stricken€inŠ Š  Šits€entirety.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€rejected€the€attorney€generalššs€argument€that€sectionŠ Š  Š186.22(b)€elevated€vandalism€and€the€gang€participation€offenses€to€felonies.Š Š  ŠĢĢņņņ ņIn€re€J.C.óó,€A122665€(Division€One)ó óŠ Š  Šņ ņSubjects:€Juvenile€Deferred€Entry€of€Judgment,€Manzy€W.Š Ī ŠDate€Filed:€April€28,€2009Š Ģ  ŠAttorney:€Robert€AngresŠ Ź! ŠFDAP€Buddy:€Jonathan€SoglinŠ Č" ŠĢThe€Court€of€Appeal€reversed€the€dispositional€order€and€remanded€for€aŠ Ä$  Šdetermination€by€the€Juvenile€Court€whether€the€minor€was€suitable€for€deferredŠ Ā%!! Šentry€of€judgment€(š šDEJšš)€under€Welfare€and€Institutions€Code€section€790,€et.€seq.Š Ą&"" ŠĢó óAt€age€six,€the€minor€had€been€declared€a€dependent€ward€of€the€court.€€After€placementsŠ ¼( $$ Šwith€relatives€were€terminated€due€to€non„violent€behavioral€problems,€he€was€placed€in€aŠ ¼) %% Šgroup€home€in€2007.€€According€to€the€dispositional€report,€he€admitted€that€while€he€wasŠ ¼* && Šliving€at€the€group€home€and€going€to€school,€he€found€and€kept€a€loaded€firearm€forŠ ¼+ '' Šthree€weeks€because€š šscary€things€happen€in€Richmondšš€and€he€felt€safer€having€it.€€€Š ° ŠĢThe€wardship€petition,€alleging€the€minor€was€in€possession€of€a€concealable€firearm€inŠ ° Šviolation€of€section€12101(a)(1),€was€originally€filed€in€Contra€Costa€County.€€The€ContraŠ ° ŠCosta€County€District€Attorneyššs€Office€also€filed€a€š šdetermination€of€eligibility€formššŠ ° Šindicating€that€the€minor€was€eligible€for€DEJ.€€The€minor€then€admitted€the€firearmŠ °  Šoffense,€and€the€case€was€thereafter€transferred€to€Alameda€County.€€Š °  ŠĢIn€Alameda€County,€the€Juvenile€Court€failed€to€perform€its€statutory€duty€to€determineŠ °  Šwhether€the€minor€was€suitable€for€DEJ.€€The€probation€officer€recommended€escalatingŠ °  Šhis€dependency€under€section€300€to€section€602€status,€the€Juvenile€Court€terminated€theŠ °  Šminorššs€section€300€dependency,€and€declared€him€a€minor€under€section€602.Š °  ŠĢThe€Court€of€Appeal€observed€that€it€was€unclear€from€the€record€whether€in€ContraŠ °  ŠCosta€County€the€minor€even€received€notice€of€the€prosecutionššs€determination€that€heŠ ° Šwas€eligible€for€DEJ.€€But,€regardless€of€whether€notice€was€provided,€the€trial€courtššsŠ ° Šfailure€to€either€grant€DEJ€summarily€or€hold€a€hearing€on€suitability€required€reversal.€Š ° Š(ņņIn€re€Luis€B.€óó(2006)€142€Cal.App.4th€1117,€1123.)€€The€Court€of€Appeal€distinguishedŠ ° Šcases€in€which€waiver€was€found€because€a€minor€exhibited€no€interest€in€DEJ.€€(ņņIn€reŠ ° ŠUsef€S.óó€(2008)€160€Cal.App.4th€276,€281,€283;€ņņIn€re€Kenneth€J.óó€(2008)€158€Cal.App.4thŠ ° Š973,€977.)Š ° ŠĢNOTE:€The€Court€of€Appeal€also€agreed€that,€if€DEJ€was€not€granted,€the€trial€courtŠ ° Šneeded€to€exercise€its€discretion€to€declare€the€offense€a€felony€or€misdemeanor€under€ņņInŠ ° Šre€Manzy€W.óó€(1997)€14€Cal.4th€1199,€1201.Š ° ŠĢÓ  ÓŌ‡ BˆŠĶwŌņ ņņņņņŠ  ° ŠSELECTED€VICTORIES€IN€PROBATION€REVOCATION€CASESóóóóó óŌ#†ŠĶwˆ BSW#ŌŠ ° ŠÓGWÓņ ņĢņņPeople€v.€Footsóó,€A124697€(Division€Two)Š ä4 ŠSubjects:€€Failure€to€Order€Probation€ReportŠ ā2 ŠDate€of€Issuance:€December€28,€2009Š ą0 ŠAttorney:€Stephanie€ClarkeŠ Ž . ŠĢņņPeople€v.€Buelnaóó,€A12420,€(Division€Five)Š Ś * ŠSubjects:€Failure€to€Order€Probation€ReportŠ Ų ( ŠDate€of€Issuance:€October€26,€2009Š Ö &  ŠAttorney:€William€FarberŠ Ō$  ŠFDAP€Buddy:€Jonathan€Soglinó óŠ Ņ"  ŠĢņ ņIn€each€of€these€cases,€after€the€Ō_ŌdefendantsššŌ_Ō€probation€was€revoked€the€Court€ofŠ Š  ŠAppeal€reversed€and€remanded€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing€because€the€trial€courtŠ Ī Šprejudicially€erred€by€failing€to€order€an€updated€probation€report.ó óŠ Ģ ŠĢIn€ņņFootsóó,€the€court€revoked€probation€based€on€the€defendantššs€first€probation€violationŠ Ź Šand€sentenced€the€defendant€to€state€prison€for€sale€or€transportation€of€marijuana€inŠ Ź Šreliance€on€a€probation€report€that€was€almost€two€years€old.€€In€ņņBuelnaóó,€the€defendantŠ Ź Šhad€pleaded€guilty€to€commercial€burglary,€and€the€court€revoked€probation€for€theŠ Ź Šdefendantššs€second€probation€violation,€but€the€only€probation€report€in€existence€wasŠ Ź Štwo€and€one-half€years€old.Š Ź ŠĢBoth€cases€relied€on€ņņPeople€v.€Dobbinsóó€(2005)€127€Cal.App.4th€176,€which€found€that€aŠ Ź Štrial€court€must€order€a€probation€report€in€preparation€for€sentencing€proceedings€thatŠ Ź Šoccur€a€significant€period€of€time€after€the€original€report€is€prepared,€and€that€a€claim€ofŠ Ź Šerror€in€failing€to€do€so€is€not€waived€by€defense€counselššs€failure€to€object€below.€€(SeeŠ Ź Šsection€1203(b)(2)(E)€&€(b)(4)€[right€to€preparation€of€probation€report€may€be€waivedŠ Ź  Šonly€by€written€stipulation€between€the€parties€or€an€oral€stipulation€made€in€open€court].)€Š Ź! ŠĢIn€finding€the€error€prejudicial,€Division€Two€in€ņņFootsóó€additionally€relied€on€olderŠ Ź# Šprecedent:€š š[W]here€a€current€probation€report€is€required,€that€right€is€consideredŠ Ź$  Šfundamental€and€its€abridgment€is€generally€treated€as€reversible€error.šš€€(ņņPeople€v.Š Ź%!! ŠMarianoóó€(1983)€144€Cal.App.3d€814,€824-825;€see€also€ņņPeople€v.€Mercantóó€(1989)€216Š Ź&"" ŠCal.App.3d€1192,€1196;€ņņPeople€v.€Rojas€óó(1962)€57€Cal.2d€676,€682-683.)€€Division€FiveŠ Ź'## Šin€ņņBuelnaóó€opined€that€such€errors€are€prejudicial€š šabsent€ššpeculiar€factsšš€demonstratingŠ Ź($$ Šthat€the€ššresult€would€have€been€the€same€if€a€supplemental€probation€report€had€beenŠ Ź)%% Šprepared.šš€€(Quoting€ņņDobbinsóó,€ņņsupraóó,€at€127€Cal.App.4th€at€183.)€€Both€opinions€alsoŠ Ź*&& Šnoted€the€bind€this€type€of€error€places€the€defendant€in€in€attempting€to€show€prejudice€š!šŠ Ź+'' Šbecause€of€the€lack€of€a€probation€report€it€is€difficult€to€point€to€facts€demonstrating€aŠ ° Šdifferent€result€would€be€likely€to€occur€in€the€absence€of€the€error.Š ° ŠĢĢņņņ ņņņÓ  ÓŌ‡ BˆŠĶwŌSELECTED€VICTORIES€IN€GUILTY€PLEA€CASESŌ#†ŠĶwˆ BCe#Ōóóó óóóŠ ° ŠĢÓ7eÓņņņ ņPeople€v.€Harperóó,€A120099€(Division€Four)ó óŠ ę 6 Šņ ņSubjects:€Guilty€Plea;€Invalid€Admission€to€Prior€ConvictionŠ ä 4 ŠDate€Filed:€February€20,€2009Š ā 2 ŠAttorney:€€Roberta€SimonŠ ą 0  ŠFDAP€Buddy:€€Richard€SuchŠ Ž.  ŠĢThe€Court€of€Appeal€vacated€the€judgement€and€remanded€to€permit€appellant€toŠ Ś*  Šwithdraw€his€guilty€plea€to€dissuading€a€witness€(šš€136.1)€because€at€sentencing€theŠ Ų(  Štrial€court€had€doubled€the€sentence€for€that€offense€for€a€prior€š šstrikešš€conviction,Š Ö& Šbut€appellant€had€never€personally€admitted€the€prior€conviction€allegation.Š Ō$ ŠĢó óPursuant€to€a€negotiated€disposition,€appellant€pleaded€guilty€to€dissuading€a€witness.€€AtŠ Š  Šthe€time,€his€attorney€also€said€that€he€agreed€to€admit€one€of€two€prior€alleged€strikeŠ Š  Šconvictions.€€However,€appellant€never€admitted€the€strike€conviction€in€open€court,€andŠ Š  Šthe€Court€of€Appeal€found€that€the€transcript€of€the€plea€proceeding€did€not€demonstrateŠ Š  Šthat€appellant€authorized€or€adopted€his€counselššs€statement.€€At€sentencing€,€appellantŠ Š  Špersonally€moved€to€withdraw€his€plea,€and€the€court€denied€the€motion.€€AppellantŠ Š  Šsubsequently€obtained€a€certificate€of€probable€cause€to€appeal€the€validity€of€the€plea.Š Š  ŠĢBased€on€the€authority€of€ņņIn€re€Brainóó€(1924)€70€Cal.App.€334,€ņņIn€re€Breenóó€(1958)€162Š Š  ŠCal.App.2d€235,€236,€and€ņņIn€re€Martinezóó€(1959)€52€Cal.2d€808,€815,€the€Court€of€AppealŠ Š  Šfound€that€the€defendant€had€to€admit€or€authorize€admission€of€the€strike€conviction€inŠ Š  Šopen€court.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€also€found€that€the€defendantššs€failure€to€admit€the€priorŠ Š  Šconviction€fundamentally€changed€the€character€of€the€negotiated€disposition.€Š Š!  ŠAccordingly,€the€Court€of€Appeal€reversed€the€judgement€to€allow€the€defendant€anŠ Š"  Šopportunity€to€withdraw€his€plea.ņ ņŠ Š#  ŠĢó óĢĢņ ņņņŌ‡¼¬H»ˆŠĶwŌŠ  Ī'## ŠŌ#†ŠĶwˆ»¼¬H|n#ŌIn€re€Garciaóó,€A119677€(Division€Three)ó óŠ ° Šņ ņSubjects:€ņņBrady€v.€Marylandóó;€Habeas€Corpus;€Guilty€Pleas€Š ®ž ŠDate€Filed:€July€17,€2009Š ¬ü ŠAttorney:€Richard€SuchŠ Ŗś ŠĢThe€Court€of€Appeal€found€a€prima€facie€case€that€the€prosecution€had€violatedŠ ¦ ö ŠņņBrady€v.€Marylandóó€(1963)€373€U.S.€83€and€issued€an€order€to€show€cause€returnableŠ ¤ ō Šbefore€the€superior€court.ó 󀀩 ¢ ņ ŠĢDefendant€was€charged€withņņóó€failure€to€register€as€a€sex€offender€after€his€release€fromŠ ¦ ö  Šprison€(šš€290(e)(2)),€failure€to€register€his€change€of€address€(šš€290(a)(1)(A)),€assaultŠ ¦ö  Šwith€a€deadly€weapon€on€a€police€officer€(šš€245(c)),€and€resisting€an€officer€with€use€of€aŠ ¦ö  Šdeadly€weapon€(šš€69).€€The€assault€and€resisting€arrest€charges€were€based€on€allegationsŠ ¦ö  Šmade€by€Sergeant€Sean€Yates€of€the€Contra€Costa€County€Sheriffššs€Office.€€Š ¦ö  ŠĢDefendant€pleaded€guilty€to€the€failure€to€register€offenses€and€proceeded€to€jury€trial€onŠ ¦ö Šthe€assault€and€resisting€arrest€charges.€€Prior€to€trial,€he€alleged€that€Yates€had€usedŠ ¦ö Šexcessive€force,€and€he€filed€a€ņņPitchess׃ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś2Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ×óó€motion€seeking€records€of€misconduct€by€Yates.€Š ¦ö ŠThe€court€limited€its€ņņin€cameraóó€review€to€Yatesšš€personnel€records€from€the€previous€fiveŠ ¦ö Šyears€and€found€no€records€discoverable€to€the€defense.Š ¦ö ŠĢAt€trial,€the€defense€theory€continued€to€be€that€Yates€had€used€excessive€force€in€hisŠ ¦ö Šattempt€to€arrest€defendant,€who€had€an€outstanding€no„bail€parole€warrant.€€The€defenseŠ ¦ö Šwas€based€on€evidence€that€during€his€arrest€defendant€suffered€multiple€fractures€to€hisŠ ¦ö Šleft€forearm€requiring€surgery€that€involved€re„fusing€the€bone€fragments€by€installing€aŠ ¦ö Šrod€and€screws,€leaving€defendant€with€a€large€bump€on€his€arm,€which€was€shown€to€theŠ ¦ö Šjury.Š ¦ö ŠĢDefendant€appealed,€raising€instructional,€evidentiary,€and€credits€claims€in€addition€toŠ ¦ ö Šseeking€review€of€the€ruling€on€the€ņņPitchessóó€motion.€€While€preparing€the€reply€brief,Š ¦!ö Šappellate€counsel€decided€to€do€a€Westlaw€search€on€Sergeant€Yates€and€discovered€thatŠ ¦"ö Šin€an€unpublished€2005€opinion€in€a€Division€One€case,€People€v.€Abusafieh,€A101890,€Š ¦#ö Šthe€defendant€had€proffered€evidence€implicating€Yates€in€three€thefts€of€cash€fromŠ ¦$ö  Šsuspects.€€Appellate€counsel€contacted€both€appellate€and€trial€counsel€in€Abusafieh,Š ¦%ö ! Šobtained€documentation€supporting€the€three€theft€allegations€as€well€as€an€additionalŠ ¦&ö!" Štheft,€uncovered€evidence€of€two€alleged€instances€of€excessive€force€by€Yates,€andŠ ¦'ö"# Šlearned€that€in€1999€Yates€had€been€terminated€due€to€one€theft€allegation,€but€he€wasŠ ¦(ö#$ Šthen€reinstated€in€2001€after€an€arbitration.€Š ° ŠĢThe€Court€of€Appeal€consolidated€the€appeal€and€habeas€cases.€€It€rejected€all€but€theŠ ° Šcredits€claim€raised€on€appeal,€but€in€the€habeas€proceedings€it€found€a€prima€facie€caseŠ ° Šthat€by€failing€to€disclose€evidence€of€Yatesšš€prior€misconduct€the€prosecution€violatedŠ ° ŠņņBrady€v.€Maryland,€supraóó.€€Notably,€the€Court€of€Appeal€agreed€that€Yatesšš€prior€theftŠ °  Šand€excessive€use€of€force€incidents€were€material€in€that,€if€the€allegations€wereŠ °  Šestablished,€the€defendant€might€have€been€able€to€achieve€a€more€favorable€result€in€theŠ °  Šform€of€a€more€favorable€plea€bargain,€an€acquittal,€or€a€guilty€verdict€of€a€lesser€includedŠ °  Šoffense.€Š °  ŠĢNOTE:€In€the€related€appeal,€A119677,€the€Court€of€Appeal€agreed€that€the€trial€court€hadŠ °  Šerred€in€concluding€that€defendant€was€entitled€only€to€15%€conduct€credits€for€816€actualŠ °  Šdays€under€section€2933.1.€€Instead,€he€was€entitled€to€full€section€4019€conduct€and€workŠ °  Šcredits,€for€a€total€of€286€days€(approximately€9€and€šš€months)€additional€presentenceŠ ° Šcredits.Š ° ŠĢĢņ ņņņPeople€v.€Doyleóó,€A122874€(Division€Four)Š ° ŠSubjects:€Decision€Not€to€Withdraw€Plea€Induced€by€MisrepresentationŠ ®ž ŠDate€of€Issuance:€August€28,€2009Š ¬ü ŠAttorney:€Paula€Rudmanó óŠ Ŗś ŠĢņ ņThe€Court€of€Appeal€reduced€the€defendantššs€prison€sentence€from€four€to€threeŠ Øų Šyears€because€he€had€agreed€not€to€withdraw€his€plea€based€on€the€understanding€heŠ ¦ö Šwould€be€sentenced€to€the€middle€term€of€three€years.ó óŠ ¤ō ŠĢDefendant€agreed€to€plead€guilty€to€one€count€of€unlawful€intercourse€with€a€minor€(ššŠ ¢ņ Š261.5(d))€with€the€understanding€that€he€would€not€be€sent€to€state€prison.€The€probationŠ ¢ ņ Šdepartment,€however,€recommended€a€three-year€state€prison€sentence.€The€trial€courtŠ ¢!ņ Šindicated€that€it€was€inclined€to€follow€this€recommendation€and€therefore€provided€theŠ ¢"ņ Šdefendant€with€the€opportunity€to€withdraw€his€plea.€Defendant€decided€not€to€withdrawŠ ¢#ņ Šhis€plea.Š ¢$ņ  ŠĢAfter€hearing€argument€from€counsel,€the€trial€court€opted€for€the€upper€term€of€fourŠ ¢&ņ!" Šyears.€The€Court€of€Appeal€concluded€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€sentencing€defendant€toŠ ¢'ņ"# Šthe€upper€term€instead€of€the€three€years€he€understood€he€would€receive€if€his€guilty€pleaŠ ¢(ņ#$ Šwere€not€withdrawn.€(ņņPeople€v.€Manchenoóó€(1982)€32€Cal.3d€855,€861.)€Accordingly,€theŠ ¢)ņ$% ŠCourt€of€Appeal€modified€the€judgment€to€impose€the€middle€term€state€prison€sentenceŠ ¢*ņ%& Šof€three€years.Š ¢+ņ&' ЇĢÓ  Óņ ņņņŌ‡ BˆŠĶwŌSELECTED€1538.5€SEARCH€AND€SEIZURE€VICTORIESŌ#†ŠĶwˆ BT‡#Ōóóó óŠ ° ŠÓB‡ÓĢņ ņņņPeople€v.€Colbertóó,€A121876€(Division€Two)Š ź: ŠSubjects:€Search€and€Seizure,€Patsearches,€Inevitable€DiscoveryŠ č8 ŠDate€of€Issuance:€November€13,€2009Š ę 6 ŠAttorney:€Patricia€BrisboisŠ ä 4 ŠFDAP€Buddy:€Jonathan€SoglinŌ‡¼¬H»ˆŠĶwŌŠ ā 2 ŠŌ#†ŠĶwˆ»¼¬H‰#Ōó óŠ Šņ ņThe€Court€of€Appeal€reversed€the€defendant's€conviction,€based€on€a€no€contest€plea,Š ą 0  Što€possession€of€a€controlled€substance€(Health€and€Saf.€Code,€šš€11350)€and€being€aŠ Ž.  Šfelon€in€possession€of€a€firearm€(šš€12021(a)(1))ó ó.Š Ü,  ŠŠ ŠAn€officer€had€stopped€the€defendantššs€vehicle€for€an€inoperative€rear€license€plate€light,Š ą0  Šrequested€the€defendant€exit€the€car,€conducted€a€patsearch€for€weapons,€smelledŠ ą0 Šmarijuana€on€the€defendant€during€the€patsearch,€and€told€the€defendant€he€smelledŠ ą0 Šmarijuana€and€was€not€worried€if€the€defendant€possessed€a€little€of€it.€€Defendant€repliedŠ ą0 Šthat€he€had€a€little€marijuana.€€The€officer€asked€to€see€it,€and€defendant€said€it€was€in€hisŠ ą0 Špocket.€€During€a€subsequent€search€of€defendantššs€pockets,€during€which€he€wasŠ ą0 Šhandcuffed€for€š šsafetyšš€reasons,€the€officer€found€marijuana€and€cocaine.€€In€defendantššsŠ ą0 Šcar,€the€officer€found€more€evidence€of€marijuana€use€and€a€semiautomatic€handgun.Š ą0 ŠĢThe€Court€of€Appeal€agreed€that€the€patdown€search€was€not€justified€by€any€specificŠ ą0 Šfacts€or€circumstances€giving€the€officer€reason€to€believe€the€defendant€was€armed€andŠ ą0 Šdangerous€and€therefore€reversed€the€trial€courtššs€denial€of€the€defendantššs€suppressionŠ ą0 Šmotion.€The€Court€of€Appeal€rejected€the€attorney€generalššs€argument€that€the€officerŠ ą0 Šwould€have€inevitably€smelled€the€marijuana€on€the€defendant,€since€the€officer€wasŠ ą0 Šentitled€to€stand€as€close€to€the€defendant€as€he€chose,€and€thus€would€have€inevitablyŠ ą0 Šasked€him€about€it€and€discovered€it.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€observed€that€there€wasŠ ą 0 Šš šnothing€but€speculationšš€to€suggest€the€officer€would€have€smelled€the€marijuana€if€heŠ ą!0 Šhad€not€moved€close€enough€to€conduct€the€patsearch€and€that€the€odor€of€marijuanaŠ ą"0 Šapparently€came€from€š šgreen€plant€materialšš€in€a€glass€jar€in€the€defendantššs€pocket.Š ą#0 ŠĢĢņ ņņņÓ  ÓņņŌ‡ BˆŠĶwŌŠ  ą&0"" ŠSELECTED€HABEAS€VICTORIESŌ#†ŠĶwˆ Bf’#ŌóóŠ ° ŠÓW’ÓĢIn€re€Sandersóó,€A126477€(Division€Five)ó óŠ ą0 Šņ ņSubjects:€Right€to€Presence,€Counsel,€Notice,€and€a€Hearing€atŠ Ž. ŠSentencing/ResentencingŠ Ü, ŠDate€Filed:€November€23,€2009Š Ś * ŠAttorney:€Alan€Siracoą0  ąŠŲ ((#(# ŠĢThe€Court€of€Appeal€granted€habeas€corpus€relief€because€the€trial€court€had,€inŠ Ō $ Šviolation€of€the€petitionerššs€rights€to€counsel,€presence,€notice,€and€an€opportunity€toŠ Ņ "  Šbe€heard,€responded€to€a€letter€from€the€Department€of€Corrections€suggesting€thereŠ Š  Šwere€errors€in€an€amended€abstract€of€judgment€by€increasing€the€petitionerššsŠ Ī  Šprison€sentence€by€1€year€and€8€months.Š Ģ  ŠĢó óFollowing€an€earlier€appeal€in€which€petitioner€was€represented€by€panel€attorney€GailŠ Č ŠHarper€and€in€which€Division€Five€ordered€sentences€for€two€of€petitionerššs€convictionsŠ Č Šstayed€under€section€654,€the€court€held€a€resentencing€hearing€and€reduced€his€sentenceŠ Č Šfrom€9€years,€8€months€to€7€years,€8€months€in€state€prison.€€In€a€subsequent€letter,€theŠ Č ŠCDC€suggested€that€the€courtššs€amended€abstract€of€judgment€contained€numerous€errors.€Š Č ŠWithout€holding€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€responded€by€amending€the€abstract€ofŠ Č Šjudgment€to€increase€the€sentence€to€9€years,€4€months.Š Č ŠĢAppellate€counsel,€upon€receiving€the€initial€documents€regarding€the€resentencing€inŠ Č Špetitionerššs€absence€and€before€the€record€on€appeal€was€complete,€filed€a€habeas€petitionŠ Č Šalleging€a€denial€of€his€right€to€a€properly€noticed€resentencing€hearing€under€ņņPeople€v.Š Č ŠMoraóó€(2002)€99€Cal.App.4th€397.€€He€also€alleged€that€petitionerššs€appellate€remedy€wasŠ Č Šinadequate€because€under€the€previous€sentence€of€7€years,€8€months€he€would€be€entitledŠ Č Što€release€from€prison€before€the€appeal€would€conclude.€€In€fact,€he€alleged,€he€wouldŠ Č Šhave€already€been€entitled€to€release€based€on€that€lesser€sentence.Š Č  ŠĢThe€Court€of€Appeal€ordered€the€attorney€general€to€file€an€informal€response€to€theŠ Č" Špetition.€€The€attorney€general€conceded€that€relief€was€warranted,€both€parties€waivedŠ Č# Šissuance€of€an€order€to€show€cause€and€oral€argument,€and€the€parties€stipulated€toŠ Č$  Šimmediate€issuance€of€the€remitittur.€€Accordingly,€the€Court€of€Appeal€granted€habeasŠ Č%!! Šrelief,€vacating€the€sentence€and€ordering€the€trial€court€to€hold€a€new€sentencing€hearing.Š  Č&"" Šņ ņņņIn€re€Chiaraóó,€A124488€(Division€Two)Š ° ŠSubjects:€Batson/Wheeler,€Habeas€Corpus€Relief€After€Change€in€the€LawŠ ®ž ŠDate€of€Issuance:€December€4,€2009Š ¬ü ŠAttorney:€Stephen€BedrickŠ Ŗś ŠFDAP€Buddy:€Jonathan€SoglinŌ‡Xõ˜XˆŠĶwŌó óŠ Øų ŠĢŌ#†ŠĶwˆXXõ˜Ÿ#ŌIn€1993,€petitioner€Chiara€and€two€co„defendants€were€convicted€in€Humboldt€County€ofŠ ’ ā Šfirst€degree€murder€with€special€circumstances€and€sentenced€to€LWOP.€€Division€TwoŠ ’ ā Šaffirmed€their€convictions€in€1995,€rejecting,€among€other€claims,€their€argument€that€theŠ ’ ā Šprosecutor€had€violated€ņņBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó€(1986)€476€U.S.€79€and€ņņPeople€v.€WheeleróóŠ ’ ā  Š(1978)€22€Cal.3d€258€by€peremptorily€challenging€Native€Americans,€Filipinos,€andŠ ’ā  ŠJapanese€on€the€basis€of€group€bias.€€At€the€time,€Division€Two€did€not€conduct€aŠ ’ā  Šcomparative€juror€analysis€because€ņņPeople€v.€Johnsonóó€(1989)€47€Cal.3d€1194,€1221Š ’ā  Šprecluded€review€courts€from€doing€so€for€the€first€time€on€appeal.€€It€did€find€some€of€theŠ ’ā  Šprosecutorššs€stated€reasons€for€peremptorily€challenging€one€Native€AmericanŠ ’ā  Šprospective€juror,€Rindels,€š šcause€for€concernšš€because€the€prosecutor€mentioned€theŠ ’ā ŠŌ_ŌjurorŌ_Ō€had€worked€for€an€Indian€Tribe€for€12€years€and€he€had€concerns€about€the€ability€ofŠ ’ā ŠNative€Americans€who€work€for€a€tribe€being€able€to€function€in€the€criminal€justiceŠ ’ā Šsystem.€€However,€the€prosecutor€had€described€other€race„neutral€reasons€for€theŠ ’ā Šperemptory€challenge,€and€the€Court€of€Appeal€accordingly€found€no€ņņBatson\WheeleróóŠ ’ā Šviolation.Š ’ā ŠĢAfter€his€conviction€was€affirmed€on€appeal,€Chiara€did€not€file€a€federal€habeas€petition.€Š ’ā ŠChiaraššs€co„defendants€did,€and€in€September€2006€they€prevailed€on€theirŠ ’ā ŠņņBatson\Wheeleróó€claim€before€the€Ninth€Circuit,€sitting€ņņen€bancóó,€in€ņņKesser€v.€Cambraóó€(9ņņthóóŠ ’ā ŠCir.€2006)€465€F.3d€351.€€Specifically,€the€Ninth€Circuit€employed€comparative€analysisŠ ’ā Što€find€that€the€prosecutor€improperly€peremptorily€challenged€three€Native€AmericanŠ ’ā Šjurors.€€Chiara€learned€of€the€decision€in€2007€and€filed€a€ņņpro€per€óóstate€habeas€petition€inŠ ’ā Šsuperior€court.€€The€Humboldt€County€District€Attorney€requested€that€the€petition€beŠ ’ ā Šgranted€under€the€š šconcept€of€fairnessšš€and€because€pending€before€the€CaliforniaŠ ’!ā ŠSupreme€Court€was€a€case€involving€the€question€of€whether€reviewing€courts€couldŠ ’"ā Šconduct€comparative€analysis.€€However,€the€trial€court€denied€the€petition€on€the€groundsŠ ’#ā Šit€was€untimely.Š ’$ā  ŠĢChiara€retained€counsel,€panel€member€Stephen€Bedrick,€who€filed€a€habeas€petition€inŠ ’&ā!" Šthe€Court€of€Appeal.€Division€Two€denied€the€petition,€and€it€was€again€filed€in€theŠ ’'ā"# ŠCalifornia€Supreme€Court€.€€Subsequently,€the€California€Supreme€Court€decided€ņņPeopleŠ ’(ā#$ Šv.€Lenixóó€(2008)€44€Cal.4th€602,€which€allowed€for€comparative€juror€analysis€on€appeal.€Š ’)ā$% ŠIn€Chiaraššs€case,€the€California€Supreme€Court€shortly€thereafter€issued€an€order€to€showŠ ’*ā%& Šcause€returnable€before€the€Court€of€Appeal.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€then€grantedŠ ’+ā&' Špetitionerššs€counselššs€request€for€appointment€of€Stephen€Bedrick€as€counsel.Š ° ŠĢThe€attorney€general€argued€both€that€the€ņņBatson\Wheeleróó€claim€had€been€presentedŠ ° Špreviously€on€appeal€and€was€thus€barred€by€ņņIn€re€Waltreusóó€(1965)€62€Cal.2d€218€and€thatŠ ° Špetitioner€had€failed€to€raise€it€on€appeal,€and€it€was€thus€barred€by€ņņIn€re€Dixonóó€(1953)€41Š ° ŠCal.2d€756.€€With€respect€to€the€latter€claim,€the€attorney€general€argued€that€on€appealŠ °  ŠChiara€had€to€specifically€request€that€the€Court€of€Appeal€conduct€a€comparative€analysisŠ °  Šin€order€to€be€able€to€raise€the€claim€on€habeas.€€Division€Two€rejected€this€argument€onŠ °  Šthe€grounds€that€Chiara€was€not€required€to€raise€an€appellate€argument€that€was€contraryŠ °  Što€controlling€California€Supreme€Court€authority.€€Moreover,€the€Court€of€Appeal€foundŠ °  Šthat€ņņLenixóó€represented€a€change€in€the€law€affecting€the€ņņBatson\Wheeleróó€claim,€triggeringŠ °  Šthe€exception€to€the€ņņWaltreusóó€rule€which€allows€defendants€to€raise€on€habeas€corpusŠ °  Šissues€previously€rejected€on€direct€appeal.€Š °  ŠĢDivision€Two€conducted€a€comparative€analysis,€and€found€unsupported€the€apparentlyŠ ° Šrace„neutral€reasons€the€prosecutor€had€given€for€peremptorily€challenging€Rindels.€Š ° ŠAccording€to€the€prosecutor,€he€excused€Rindels€because€her€request€for€hardship€excusalŠ ° Šon€the€grounds€that€she€was€the€only€person€who€could€perform€her€job€was€š špretentious,ššŠ ° Šshe€was€š šemotional€about€the€systemšš€because€she€š šteared€upšš€about€her€daughterššsŠ ° Šmolestation,€and€her€family€was€š šdysfunctionalšš€because€her€daughter€was€molested€byŠ ° Šher€father.€€But€the€prosecutor€had€not€stricken€other€jurors€who€claimed€they€were€theŠ ° Šonly€employee€who€could€perform€their€jobs,€who€had€negative€attitudes€to€the€criminalŠ ° Šjustice€system,€and€who€had€š šdysfunctionalšš€family€dynamics.€€Division€Two€emphasizedŠ ° Šthat€the€comparative€analysis€provided€it€with€strong€circumstantial€evidence€that€theŠ ° Šreasons€for€excusing€Rindels€were€pretextual,€and€that€the€finding€of€ņņBatson\WheeleróóŠ ° Šerror€was€also€supported€by€the€fact€that€the€prosecutor€had€explicitly€cited€impermissibleŠ ° Šracial€stereotypes.Š ° Šņ ņó ó