Results: 1 - 10 of 325
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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