First District Panel Victories

Results: 1 - 10 of 383

A164408

July 28, 2022

Division: Four

Attorney: Amy Grigsby

Categories: Dependency   ICWA   

In this appeal from a WIC section 366.26 hearing, appellant argued the Department failed to conduct an adequate ICWA inquiry. The Department conceded there were “inadvertent omissions in the inquiry.” The Court agreed with the parties and conditionally reversed the order terminating parental rights to ensure ICWA compliance.

A164102

July 25, 2022

Division: Five

Attorney: Aida Aslanian

Categories: Dependency   ICWA   

The Department conceded that the juvenile court failed to make any ICWA findings prior to terminating parental rights. The Court remanded the proceedings to determine if the Department discharged its duty of inquiry and notice under WIC sections 224.2 and 224.3.

A161139

July 22, 2022

Division: Two

Attorney: Alan Siraco

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

A jury found appellant guilty of, among other things, two counts of first-degree murder and found true the special circumstance that he was convicted of more than one murder within the meaning of Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a)(3). The trial court sentenced appellant to life without the possibility of parole for the special circumstance of multiple murders in addition to two terms of 25 years to life for the murder convictions. The Court of Appeal held that, since section 190.2 applied, life without the possibility of parole is the only authorized punishment; therefore, the imposition of two additional terms of 25 years to life is unauthorized. The Court vacated the sentence and remanded the matter for a full resentencing.

A162984

July 21, 2022

Division: Four

Attorney: Michael Sampson

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

In a case in which appellant was convicted of carrying a concealed, loaded, and unregistered firearm (Pen. Code, § 25400, subd. (c)), the Court of Appeal held that, because appellant had not been convicted of a qualifying “strike” felony, the trial court erred by sentencing appellant to state prison instead of to a county jail term under section 1170, subdivision (h)(1).

A162696

July 13, 2022

Division: Five

Attorney: David Polsky

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

Because Penal Code section 1170.95, as amended by Senate Bill 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), now provides resentencing relief for individuals convicted of voluntary manslaughter and attempted murder under certain circumstances, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order summarily denying appellant’s 1170.95 petition and remanded the matter for the court to reconsider the petition in light of SB 775.

A163567

July 12, 2022

Division: Two

Attorney: Helen Hoeffel

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of recent amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) to Penal Code section 1170, which now requires that circumstances in aggravation used to justify imposition of the upper term be found true by the jury, admitted by the defendant, or based on prior convictions evidenced by a certified record of conviction. The A.G. agreed the new version of section 1170 applies retroactively and that the matter should be remanded for resentencing “[b]ecause the trial court may have relied on factors that were neither admitted by [appellant] nor found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.”

A162151

July 12, 2022

Attorney: Amanda Roze

Categories: Credits   Delinquency   

[Published Opinion] Disagreeing with In re A.R. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1076, the Court of Appeal held that when a minor is committed to DJJ, the juvenile court must apply the minor’s pre-commitment credits against the “actual maximum custodial term” set under Welfare and Institutions Code, § 731(b), not the “theoretical maximum exposure term” set under section 726(d)(1).

A162469

July 11, 2022

Division: Two

Attorney: Janet Gray

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing. The Court held that appellant was eligible for relief under Senate Bill 1393 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.), which afforded trial courts discretion to strike prior serious felony enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667, sub. (a)(1)), because his judgment was not final when the statute became effective, and any objection to the timeliness of appellant’s petition was forfeited by the prosecution’s failure to object below. Although the court recognized that nether Penal Code sections 1170, subdivision (d)(1) or 1170.03 authorize defendants to self-petition for resentencing, any objection to the form of the petition was forfeited by the prosecution’s failure to object below and the denial of appellant’s petition without the provision of section 1170.03 procedures constituted error.

A161691

July 7, 2022

Division: Two

Attorney: Dirck Newbury

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of recent amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) to Penal Code section 1170, which, among other things, created a presumption in favor of the middle term and requires that circumstances in aggravation used to justify imposition of the upper term be found true by the jury, admitted by the defendant, or based on prior convictions evidenced by a certified record of conviction. Here, the Court found that the trial court relied on several aggravating circumstances that were neither admitted by appellant nor found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also rejected the A.G.’s harmless error argument.

A158608

July 7, 2022

Division: Four

Attorney: Lauren Dodge

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

The Court of Appeal remanded the case for the trial court to reconsider appellant’s sentence in light of recent amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) to Penal Code section 1170, which, among other things, created a presumption in favor of the low term where the defendant experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma and those factors contributed to the commission of the offense. Due to appellant’s plea agreement including a stipulated prison term, the Court further held that a limited remand in accordance with People v. Stamps (2020) 9  Cal.5th 685 was the appropriate remedy.  

Results: 1 - 10 of 383

^