The Court of Appeal vacated appellant’s sentence and remanded the matter to the trial court for full resentencing under PC 1172.75. The trial court erred in imposing the 5-year upper term for each of two gun enhancements under PC 12022.5. The trial court was limited to imposing no more than the current 4-year midterm for each enhancement because the court did not identify any aggravating factors to justify imposing the upper term. Upon resentencing, the trial court must thoroughly consider the significant evidence of appellant’s rehabilitation and positive performance in prison.
**Between March and November 2024, there were many important unpublished panel victories in the First District. Unfortunately, we were not able to update our First District victories page during that time. Even though the victories are not on the website, we appreciate all of the hard work done by the panel and continued dedication to our clients.**
A172545
- December 30, 2025
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Leslie Prince
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
A171942
- December 29, 2025
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Micah Reyner
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with respect to a deadly weapon enhancement attached to one count of attempted carjacking. The trial court committed alternative theory error by instructing the jury that it could find the deadly weapon enhancement to be true if the knife was either “inherently deadly or dangerous or . . . used in such a way that [was] capable of causing and likely to cause death or great bodily injury.”
A172397
- December 19, 2025
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Courtney Reed
- Categories: Credits, Criminal
The Court of Appeal remanded for recalculation of appellant’s presentence credits pursuant to PC 4019, as the trial court had only awarded him custody credits.
A170482
- December 17, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Peter Goldscheider
- Categories: Criminal, Pleading and Proof
The Court of Appeal vacated two of three convictions for possessing a destructive device. The convictions were “for the same offense based on the same act” and therefore merged under PC 954.
A172181
- December 16, 2025
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Owen Martikan
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal vacated portions of a restitution award that were not proximately caused by appellant’s criminal act of receiving stolen property (a van). The trial court’s order included $17,373 of damages for lost property attached to and inside the van. But appellant’s conduct could not be deemed a substantial factor in causing those losses without evidence he possessed any property “other than the van itself[.]”
A172629
- December 16, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Sterling Tipton
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal vacated a lifetime ban on pet ownership imposed as part of appellant’s guilty plea to animal cruelty. The ban on appellant from owning, tending to, or handling animals “for life … not just [as] a term of the probation,” was unauthorized because it extended past the maximum statutory term of probation. The Court ordered the trial court to modify the condition to expire with appellant’s probation term or else allow withdrawal of the plea.
A169331
- December 16, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Jennifer Sheetz
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for a full resentencing because the trial court failed to impose any sentence on two of four counts for which appellant was convicted. As the government conceded, imposing “zero jail time, zero probation” was not allowable under the court’s strict duty to impose some form of punishment.
A171253
- December 12, 2025
- Attorney: Rita Himes
- Categories: Delinquency, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal remanded the juvenile court’s restitution order to correct calculation errors as to the restitution awarded to two of the three victims. The Court reversed the restitution award to the third victim because the juvenile court failed to consider appellant’s brief below challenging her liability for restitution to that victim. On remand, the juvenile court must consider appellant’s arguments regarding the interest awards to the three victims.
A166181
- December 3, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Brian McComas
- Categories: Criminal, Pleading and Proof, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal vacated and remanded appellant’s upper-term sentence because the trial court violated PC 1170(b). Reconsidering the case under People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, the court held the trial court improperly relied on the number of prior convictions without a jury finding or admission. Although the prejudice question was “debatably close,” the Court determined there was prejudice because numerosity is context dependent.
A169001
- December 1, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Anne Mania
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded appellant’s PC 1172.75 resentencing because the trial court failed to afford great weight to the prior-strike enhancement being based on a conviction older than 5 years (PC 1385(c)(2)(H)).