First District Panel Victories

Results: 1 - 10 of 325

A163259

May 17, 2022

Division: Two

Attorney: Heather Shallenberger

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of two amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) and Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) to Penal Code section 1170, which limited the court’s ability to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term and created a presumption in favor of the low term under certain circumstances.

A158563

May 17, 2022

Division: Two

Attorney: Jennifer Mannix

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

The Court of Appeal held that appellant’s prior prison term enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) must be stricken because, pursuant to statutory amendment made by Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), enhancements under this section are now limited to individuals who have served a prior sentence for a sexually violent offense as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600, subdivision (b), and that was not the case here.

A162845

May 12, 2022

Division: Two

Attorney: Tony Cheng

Categories: Delinquency   Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision   

The Court of Appeal held that, while an electronics search condition was appropriate in this case, the condition imposed by the juvenile court was too broad to survive scrutiny under In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113. The court, therefore, struck the condition and remanded the matter to the juvenile court to consider imposing a revised condition.

A164094

May 12, 2022

Division: One

Attorney: Rita Himes

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of two amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) and Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) to Penal Code section 1170, which limited the court’s ability to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term and created a presumption in favor of the low term under certain circumstances.

A162654

May 12, 2022

Division: One

Attorney: Jamie Moran

Categories: Dependency   Disposition   Jurisdiction   

The Court of Appeal found that there was not a sufficient basis to find a serious risk of physical harm or neglect supporting jurisdiction or clear and convincing evidence of substantial danger to the child’s physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being sufficient to support a removal order. The Court found father’s jurisdictional challenge to be justiciable because, even though there was a separate ground for jurisdiction, the jurisdictional findings at issue were the basis for the challenged dispositional order. The Court also noted the distinction between substance use and abuse finding that past or current substance use alone will not support a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b).

A164012

May 11, 2022

Division: Four

Attorney: Richard L. Braucher

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of two amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) and Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) to Penal Code section 1170, which limited the court’s ability to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term and created a presumption in favor of the low term under certain circumstances.

A163117

May 4, 2022

Division: Five

Attorney: Jason Szydlik

Categories: Delinquency   Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution   

As a condition of the minor’s probation, the juvenile court ordered the minor to pay a $200 restitution fine, which exceeded the maximum amount permitted by the applicable statute. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subds. (b), (b)(2).) The Court of Appeal, therefore, modified the disposition order to reduce the restitution fine.

A162703

April 29, 2022

Division: Three

Attorney: David Kaiser

Categories: Competency   Credits   Criminal   

[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal held appellant was entitled to presentence conduct credits for time spent in a state hospital receiving competency treatment. In so doing, the court reasoned that, while the 2021 amendments to Penal Code section 4019 (extending credits to defendants receiving competency treatment in state hospitals) do not apply retroactively, equal protection principles compel application of the 2019 amendments to Penal Code section 4019 (extending credits to defendants receiving competency treatment in county jails) to defendants receiving such treatment in state hospitals. The court disagreed with People v. Orellana (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 319

A161060

April 26, 2022

Division: Three

Attorney: Gene Vorobyov

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

In this case, the trial court resentenced appellant after the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation advised the court of an unlawful sentence. In so doing, the Court of Appeal held the trial court did not exercise its sentencing discretion in an informed manner because the court (1) failed to recognize it had to conduct a full resentencing hearing (and was required to merely strike the illegal component of the sentence); and (2) erroneously believed that a consecutive sentence for the attempted murder conviction was mandatory.

A162575

April 19, 2022

Division: Two

Attorney: Charles Holzhauer

Categories: Criminal   Sufficiency of the Evidence   

In a case in which appellant was convicted of domestic violence-related offenses against the mother of his daughter, the Court of Appeal reversed the criminal protective order as to appellant’s daughter because it was not supported by substantial evidence. Under Penal Code section 136, subdivision (3), a “victim” is defined as “any natural person with respect to whom there is reason to believe that any crime . . . is being or has been perpetrated or attempted to be perpetrated.” However, the evidence showed that the daughter was not present and did not witness the acts of domestic violence.

Results: 1 - 10 of 325

^