The Court of Appeal reversed, in part, the trial court’s order denying appellant’s “motion” for resentencing under PC 1172.6. The court erred by treating appellant’s pro per filing as a single omnibus habeas petition, when it included a separate “motion” for resentencing with its own title page and caption. The error was not harmless as to one count. Appellant’s admission to a multiple murder special circumstance did not conclusively prove he intentionally discharged a firearm causing the victim’s death, so he was not categorically ineligible for resentencing.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A171153
- November 20, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Maria Leftwich
- Categories: Criminal, Pleading and Proof, Sentencing
A171121
- November 4, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Lindsey Ball
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for a retrial of appellant’s enhancement under PC 667(a), which was based on a prior conviction for street terrorism (PC 186.22). Since the legislature narrowed liability for gang-related crimes, the sentencing court must determine whether the prior conviction (under the earlier law) qualifies as a prior serious felony for enhancement purposes.
A170503
- October 31, 2025
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Sterling Tipton
- Categories: Criminal, General
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of appellant’s request for a continuance because his application for mental health diversion constituted good cause to do so. The Court remanded the case with directions that appellant be given a reasonable opportunity to file an application for mental health diversion and to have it considered on its merits.
A167876
- October 31, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Scott Cameron
- Categories: Evidentiary, Pleading and Proof, Sentencing, Sufficiency of the Evidence
The Court of Appeal held there was insufficient evidence to prove separate prior strikes for appellant’s bank robbery and robbery convictions because a reasonable trier of fact could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the convictions were based on separate criminal acts. The Court remanded the case for retrial on the priors and full resentencing.
A170013
- October 23, 2025
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Heather Monasky
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court violated PC 1203(b)(1) by sentencing appellant without a probation report. The court held that the omission was prejudicial because it deprived the trial court of key mitigating information.
A170103
- October 23, 2025
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Kyle Gee
- Categories: Criminal, Pleading and Proof, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed the summary denial of appellant’s PC 1172.6 resentencing petition, holding the trial court erred by denying relief without reviewing the record or following required prima facie procedures, and remanded for full reconsideration under subdivision (c).
A159026
- October 23, 2025
- Division: Three
- Attorney: A. Charles Dell’Ario
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal, following the California Supreme Court’s remand in People v. Faial (2025) 18 Cal.5th 199, reversed the trial court’s orders revoking probation and executing a suspended sentence. Our high court held that AB 1950 retroactively shortened appellant’s probation to two years, which had expired before the violations. The Court of Appeal directed the trial court to vacate the revocation orders, vacate the PC 667.5(b) enhancements, and recalculate custody credits.
A173031
- October 21, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Tracy DeSoto
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA, Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
In an appeal from the termination of parental rights, mother argued that the Agency failed to adequately inquire under ICWA and Cal-ICWA whether the children were Indian children. The Court agreed with mother that the follow up investigation regarding paternal extended family members was inadequate. In addition, the duty of further inquiry was not satisfied because the Agency did not contact the BIA to determine whether a tribe could be identified from the information provided to it.
A170305
- October 20, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: William Capriola
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal struck multiple fines and fees — including a $10,000 restitution fine — because they did not reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement at resentencing and remanded for recalculation of custody credits as of the resentencing date.
A172858
- October 17, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Ellen Ivens-Duran
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Sentencing
Appellant, who was 16 years old when he pled no contest to attempted murder in 2014, had his 17-year sentence recalled pursuant to PC 1172.1. He was resentenced to 17 years. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for certification to juvenile court for a transfer hearing. Because recall “effectively vacated the earlier judgment,” Prop. 57 requires that the juvenile court determine whether it would have transferred appellant’s case to adult criminal court under current law.