The Court of Appeal vacated appellant’s restitution fine and remanded for the opportunity to assert an excessive fines objection under Kopp, which was decided during the appeal’s pendency.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A173449
- October 30, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Naomi Svensson
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
A174699
- October 30, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Edward Haggerty
- Categories: Credits, Criminal
The Court of Appeal ordered that the abstract of judgment be corrected to accurately reflect the custody credits awarded by the trial court.
A169603
- October 30, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Candace Hale
- Categories: Criminal, Prosecutorial, Juror, and Judicial Misconduct
The Court of Appeal reversed appellant’s second-degree murder conviction and granted a new trial because a juror committed misconduct by intentionally concealing that his mother died by gun violence, and by discussing the case with a defense witness during deliberations. The Court of Appeal found that there was a substantial likelihood that the juror was actually biased against appellant.
A172399
- October 30, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: James Donnelly-Saalfield
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions
The Court of Appeal reversed appellant’s murder and attempted murder convictions where the trial court erroneously responded to a jury note. The court wrongly instructed the jury to use an objective standard as to the level of provocation required to reduce murder from first to second degree. The court should have instructed the jury that a subjective test — whether the defendant was actually provoked — is used.
A173499
- October 23, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Steven Schorr
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal remanded for further correction of appellant’s probation report, which still overstated the number of victims and the facts underlying appellant’s convictions after an earlier remand. Several statements in the report were inconsistent with the jury’s verdicts, including an acquittal on one count.
A174045
- October 23, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Eileen Manning-Villar
- Categories: Delinquency
The Court of Appeal remanded for the juvenile court to impose a single baseline term of confinement and recalculate appellant’s precommitment credits. WIC 875(b)(1) authorizes only one baseline term, and running a second four-year baseline concurrent to the first was error.
A176063
- October 21, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Konrad Lee
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
Appellant father appealed the order freeing his son from parental control and custody for stepparent adoption pursuant to FC 7822. The Court of Appeal agreed that the ICWA inquiry obligations were not complied with since no paternal relatives were questioned. The matter was conditionally reversed and remanded for ICWA compliance.
A174309
- October 19, 2026
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Michael Sampson
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the trial court’s order requiring appellant to submit to blood testing as a probation condition under PC 1202.1. Respondent conceded there was no probable cause for such testing. Under People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, appellant could raise the sufficiency challenge even though defense counsel had not objected below.
A173398
- October 14, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Matthew Alger
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal vacated the mandatory fees and remanded under Kopp for an excessive fines challenge to the restitution fine and an ability-to-pay hearing. It also ordered the abstract corrected to reflect additional custody credits, delete the concurrent sentences on the PC 654-stayed counts, and reduce the restitution fines to $300.
A173885
- October 12, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Samantha Schwartz
- Categories: Criminal, Diversion
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding the trial court abused its discretion by denying appellant’s request to continue trial to litigate her mental health diversion petition. Counsel filed the request six days before trial and the trial court denied it as untimely. Accepting the respondent’s concession, the Court of Appeal held the potentially enormous benefit to appellant outweighed the burden.