Read on for important information about recently-enacted legislation, upcoming trainings, and panel victories.
Recently-Enacted Legislation: Competency Procedures
New year, new laws! The majority of the legislation passed last year has now gone into effect as of January 1st. As a reminder, FDAP keeps track of new legislation on our Pending Issues & Legislation webpage. One such law we want to highlight is SB 1323, which amended PC 1369, 1370, and 1370.1 to significantly change some aspects of competency procedures.
Amongst other changes, PC 1369 now provides that the defense may request that the psychologist’s and/or psychiatrist’s report(s) include an opinion as to the defendant’s PC 1001.36 diversion eligibility. Furthermore, a competency hearing is not required when neither party objects to the evaluative reports.
PC 1370 now mandates that the court determine whether restoration is in the interests of justice when the defendant is found not competent and not charged with a PC 1001.36(d) offense. If restoration is not in the interests of justice, there must be a hearing to determine if the defendant is eligible for PC 1001.36 diversion. If they are eligible, then the court shall order diversion. If the defendant is not eligible, the court must hold a hearing to determine whether to modify the treatment plan, refer for outpatient treatment, refer for possible conservatorship proceedings, refer to the CARE program, or reinstate competency proceedings.
PC 1370.1 now provides that if the defendant is returned to court, and the prosecution elects to dismiss and refile charges pursuant to PC 1387, the court shall presume the defendant is incompetent unless there is relevant and credible evidence they are competent. If the defendant is found incompetent after the refiling of charges, the defendant may be further committed only for the balance of time remaining.
Upcoming Trainings From the Appellate Projects
In a collaborative effort, the appellate projects (CCAP, FDAP, ADI, SDAP & CAP-LA) will be providing MCLE trainings open to the statewide panel.
Upholding Civility in Appellate Advocacy: Professionalism and Respect in the Practice of Law (Hosted by ADI)
February 19, 2025, 12:00 – 1:00 p.m.
In this virtual program, ADI Staff Attorney Donna Chirco will discuss the definition of civility, its impact on our practice and advocacy, and more. 1.0 Civility in the Legal Profession MCLE credit is offered.
Potential Issues on Appeal and Habeas in Sex Crime Cases (Hosted by FDAP)
February 25, 2025, 12:00 – 1:30 p.m.
While many sexual offense cases can seem hopeless, there are areas where we can attack injustice and overzealous prosecution in order to try to bring some fairness back to this challenging area of criminal law practice. Join SDAP Executive Director, Jonathan Grossman, and FDAP Staff Attorney, Bill Robinson, for a presentation that will address a range of issues in sex crime cases. 1.5 hours of general MCLE credit and appellate and criminal specialization will be offered.
Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions (Hosted by FDAP)
March 13, 2025, 12:00 – 1:15 p.m.
Please join us for an online training on how appellate counsel can identify and address the immigration consequences triggered by a client’s criminal conviction. We are pleased to have Alameda County Deputy Public Defender and Supervising Immigration Defense Attorney Raha Jorjani join us for a presentation on immigration consequences and the tools available to post-conviction counsel when the client did not receive proper advisements from the court or counsel. Raha will also provide us with key updates regarding applicable immigration law changes put in place by the new federal administration. 1.25 hours of general MCLE credit and appellate and criminal specialization will be offered.
Save the date for FDAP’s Annual Seminar! The seminar will be held in person on October 10, 2025 at the California Endowment’s conference center in downtown Oakland. Join us for a day of criminal and dependency breakout sessions, a keynote speaker, lunch, and the opportunity to connect with your colleagues. Approximately 5 hours of MCLE credit, including appellate and criminal specialization, will be provided.
Other Trainings
Racial Justice Act Legal Updates (OSPD)
Feb 4, 2025 12:15 – 1:15 p.m.
2024 was a busy year for the RJA! In this webinar, we will review the year’s appellate court opinions addressing RJA issues. We will also identify hot pending issues and provide tips on how defenders can respond to the arguments we are seeing from prosecutors, in both prospective and retroactive RJA cases, at the trial and appellate levels. Speakers: Lisa Romo & Brooke McCarthy. 1 hour of MCLE Credit is offered for this training. Register here.
The New Age of Sentencing Part I: Aggravating Factors (OSPD)
February 11, 2025 3:00-4:00 p.m.
The New Age of Sentencing Part 2: Enhancements and Beyond (OSPD)
February 12, 2025 3:00-4:00 p.m.
This two-part series will cover the most recent statutory and case law updates in the ever-changing landscape of felony sentencing. From dealing with aggravating circumstances to preserving the best record for appeal, this series will provide attorneys with the tools necessary to best represent clients at felony sentencing.
Panel Victories
Below are a few noteworthy First District victories from this past month. There were other victories that could not be included.
A168626 – [Unpublished Opinion | Christopher Stansell] The Court of Appeal reversed the order extending appellant’s civil commitment under PC 1026.5. Relying on People v. Collins (2001) 26 Cal.4th 297, the Court found that appellant did not voluntarily waive his right to a jury trial where appellant had been diagnosed with borderline intellectual functioning, and the record suggests that his waiver may have been based on a misunderstanding that he could only obtain the benefit of appearing remotely at trial if he waived his right to a jury.
A170168 – [Unpublished Opinion | David Beaudreau] The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing, finding that that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a full resentencing under PC 1172.75. During the initial resentencing hearing, the trial court struck four enhancements for prior prison terms and reduced the restitution fine. But the record showed that the trial court was not aware of its discretion to strike firearm enhancements or consider post-conviction factors to reduce appellant’s sentence.
A164502 – [Unpublished Opinion | Joy Maulitz] The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing under People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730. Here, in imposing the upper term, the trial court relied on several aggravating factors that were not found true by the jury, and the Court of Appeal could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found true all the aggravating factors. Additionally, the court determined that appellant’s claim of sentencing error was not moot because he was still on parole, so it was possible that he would receive a shorter sentence on remand, which would reduce his parole period.