The Court of Appeal struck appellant’s electronic search conditions as unreasonable under Lent. Appellant never contacted the victim through an electronic device, and the conditions’ burden on appellant’s privacy was substantially disproportionate to ensuring his compliance with his other probation conditions. The court also modified a condition restricting his association with minors under 14 years old to include a knowledge requirement.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A174435
- July 30, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Matthew Bedrick
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
A174472
- July 30, 2026
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Eleanor Mammen
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal modified a probation condition prohibiting appellant from “frequent[ing] any area where gang members are known to congregate, or areas known for gang-related activity.” To avoid a claim of unconstitutional vagueness, the court replaced “frequent” with “visit” and specified that the prohibited areas include those designated by the probation officer.
A171955
- July 27, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Michael McCormick
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal vacated the $200 restitution fine under PC 1465.9 because the trial court imposed the fine more than 10 years ago.
A172859
- July 24, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Robert Angres
- Categories: Credits, Criminal
The Court of Appeal remanded for the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting an additional day of presentence custody credit (PC 4019, subds. (b), (c); 2933.1, subd. (c)). The court otherwise affirmed the judgment.
A171122
- July 24, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Nicole Kalum
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a full resentencing under PC 1172.75. The 2011 sentencing court had never pronounced sentence on a prior prison term enhancement found true. Relying on People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050 and People v. Espino (July 2, 2026, S286987) __ Cal.5th __ [2026 Cal.Lexis 3418; 2026 WL 1902221]), the Court of Appeal held that a true finding neither stricken nor dismissed remains imposed under the statute.
A170674
- July 17, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Janice Lagerlof
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal stayed appellant’s sentence for conspiracy to commit murder after the trial court imposed concurrent sentences for both first-degree murder and conspiracy, a clear violation of PC 654.
A172040
- July 13, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Rex Williams
- Categories: Criminal, Diversion
The Court of Appeal remanded for reconsideration of appellant’s request for mental health diversion. The trial court had based its unsuitability finding on appellant’s poor performance on other forms of supervision. However, there was no evidence appellant would not succeed if placed in “more comprehensive, residential treatment” as proposed.
A173490
- July 10, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: George Schraer
- Categories: Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court erroneously imposed an indeterminate sentence on the PC 286(c)(2)(A)/664 conviction and failed to designate a principal term for appellant’s consecutive, determinate sentence.
A171196
- June 30, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Jenny Huang
- Categories: Criminal, Racial Justice Act
The Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to treat appellant’s denied motion for discovery under PC 745(d) of the RJA as a petition for writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ and remanded for the trial court to conduct a new hearing reconsidering the discovery motion, which was supported by charging and sentencing data and statistics. The Court of Appeal distinguished between the standard required to prevail on an RJA claim and the lesser threshold required to obtain discovery.
A171835
- June 30, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Michele Kemmerling
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court prejudicially relied on an aggravating factor not found true by a jury to sentence appellant to the high term. Specifically, a jury had not found true that appellant’s prior crimes were numerous or of increasing seriousness.