The Court of Appeal vacated appellant’s electronic search condition as unreasonable under Lent/Ricardo P. The trial court had imposed the condition because appellant had not acted alone in the underlying crime and most modern communication is by phone. The Court of Appeal found the stated justification for the condition too general and speculative and remanded for re-consideration of the probation condition.
**Between March and November 2024, there were many important unpublished panel victories in the First District.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.**
A172141
- November 25, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Asya Ovsepyan
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
A168306
- November 25, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: David Aram Kaiser
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal vacated appellant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. Following a jury trial, the trial court conducted a bench trial on the alleged aggravating factors, which it found true. The Court of Appeal (at the Supreme Court’s direction in light of Wiley) vacated its original affirmance, as a jury could have disagreed as to whether appellant’s criminal history was increasingly serious.
A170038
- November 24, 2025
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Steven Schorr
- Categories: Criminal, Evidentiary, Sufficiency of the Evidence
The Court of Appeal reduced one of appellant’s convictions and remanded for resentencing. A jury convicted appellant of several sexual offenses involving minors. As to one count, the court found that the evidence was insufficient to show force, duress, or fear as required under former PC 288a(c)(2)(C) (now PC 287(c)(2)(C)), notwithstanding that appellant’s actions were “inherently coercive.” The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the appropriate remedy was to reduce the conviction to the lesser include offense (former PC 288a(b)(1)).
A171438
- November 24, 2025
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Richard Schwartzberg
- Categories: Criminal, Discovery
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying transcripts of witness interviews that had been produced, in audio format, on remand from appellant’s motion for postconviction discovery. Holding that appellant had already established his entitlement to the interview, the Court of Appeal remanded for the trial court to ensure appellant’s “reasonable access” in prison.
A171153
- November 20, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Maria Leftwich
- Categories: Criminal, Pleading and Proof, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed, in part, the trial court’s order denying appellant’s “motion” for resentencing under PC 1172.6. The court erred by treating appellant’s pro per filing as a single omnibus habeas petition, when it included a separate “motion” for resentencing with its own title page and caption. The error was not harmless as to one count. Appellant’s admission to a multiple murder special circumstance did not conclusively prove he intentionally discharged a firearm causing the victim’s death, so he was not categorically ineligible for resentencing.
A171121
- November 4, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Lindsey Ball
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for a retrial of appellant’s enhancement under PC 667(a), which was based on a prior conviction for street terrorism (PC 186.22). Since the legislature narrowed liability for gang-related crimes, the sentencing court must determine whether the prior conviction (under the earlier law) qualifies as a prior serious felony for enhancement purposes.
A170503
- October 31, 2025
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Sterling Tipton
- Categories: Criminal, General
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of appellant’s request for a continuance because his application for mental health diversion constituted good cause to do so. The Court remanded the case with directions that appellant be given a reasonable opportunity to file an application for mental health diversion and to have it considered on its merits.
A167876
- October 31, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Scott Cameron
- Categories: Evidentiary, Pleading and Proof, Sentencing, Sufficiency of the Evidence
The Court of Appeal held there was insufficient evidence to prove separate prior strikes for appellant’s bank robbery and robbery convictions because a reasonable trier of fact could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the convictions were based on separate criminal acts. The Court remanded the case for retrial on the priors and full resentencing.
A159026
- October 23, 2025
- Division: Three
- Attorney: A. Charles Dell’Ario
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal, following the California Supreme Court’s remand in People v. Faial (2025) 18 Cal.5th 199, reversed the trial court’s orders revoking probation and executing a suspended sentence. Our high court held that AB 1950 retroactively shortened appellant’s probation to two years, which had expired before the violations. The Court of Appeal directed the trial court to vacate the revocation orders, vacate the PC 667.5(b) enhancements, and recalculate custody credits.
A170013
- October 23, 2025
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Heather Monasky
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court violated PC 1203(b)(1) by sentencing appellant without a probation report. The court held that the omission was prejudicial because it deprived the trial court of key mitigating information.