The Court of Appeal vacated an order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing under PC 1172.6 at the prima facie stage. Following a mistrial, appellant pled no contest to attempted murder and was sentenced to 30 years. The trial court then denied his resentencing petition because the jury instructions had not included the “natural and probable consequences” doctrine. But appellant was “never convicted based on those instructions,” and they thus could not preclude appellant from showing he “could not presently be convicted of attempted murder.”
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A171066
- October 17, 2025
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Deborah Hawkins
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
A172239
- October 15, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Nicole Kalum
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a full resentencing hearing in accordance with PC 1172.75. Based on its comments when striking appellant’s one-year enhancement, “[i]t is clear the trial court was unaware of [PC] 1172.75’s requirement that a full resentencing be conducted.” Further, appellant had “identified ameliorative changes” the lower court may have been required to apply.
A171064
- October 14, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Laura Petty
- Categories: Criminal, Evidentiary, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal reversed a judgment finding appellant in violation of his PRCS conditions. At a revocation hearing, a probation officer testified appellant had been discharged from a program to which he’d been referred. The trial court allowed the testimony, which was based on a letter the officer said he received from the program, finding the hearsay reliable. The Court of Appeal held the letter lacked “sufficient indicia of reliability” and was therefore inadmissible.
A170673
- October 14, 2025
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Paul DeMeester
- Categories: Criminal, Evidentiary, Pleading and Proof, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing, agreeing that the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Wiley entitled appellant to a jury trial on two aggravating factors charged in the information and tried by the trial court: 1) the numerosity and increasing seriousness of his prior convictions, and 2) his prior performance on probation. The lower court had relied on both factors when, having found no mitigating circumstances, it imposed the upper term of four years for appellant’s conviction of assault with a deadly weapon.
A169633
- October 14, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Amanda Roze
- Categories: Delinquency
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new dispositional order, striking the six-month suspended SYTF term imposed for the probation violation and the restitution fine, and directed the juvenile court to recalculate credits. The court held the six-month term was unauthorized under WIC 875 because the prior offense was no longer the “most recent offense” once a new WIC 707(b) offense was adjudicated.
A172107
- October 9, 2025
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Douglas Foster
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal struck the protective order issued under PC 136.2, holding the trial court lacked authority to issue it because the case did not involve domestic violence. The court also ordered the probation order modified to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement by eliminating references to residential treatment.
A170549
- October 2, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Nat Miller
- Categories: Criminal, Fourth Amendment
The Court of Appeal reversed the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress, holding that police unlawfully searched his residence under a vague search condition. The condition did not expressly permit a residential search and the prosecutor failed to prove it was objectively reasonable for an officer to believe it did. The court remanded to allow the appellant to withdraw his plea.
A171147
- September 24, 2025
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Michael Reed
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal struck several of appellant’s probation conditions as unconstitutionally overbroad. The Court noted that the struck conditions—pertaining to appellant’s online activity—had “no connection whatsoever” to her criminal conduct; moreover, these conditions purported to address concerns that were better targeted by other imposed conditions. As to the remaining challenged conditions relating to “costumes,” “toys,” and items that “may be used for the purpose of sexual arousal,” the Court remanded with instructions to impose “narrower,” “clearer” conditions.
A169874
- September 17, 2025
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Christopher Stansell
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue appellant’s non-violent felonies were a key mitigating circumstance “weigh[ing] greatly in favor of dismissing” a two-year on-bail enhancement under PC 1385(c)(2)(F).
A170390
- September 12, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Rudolph Alejo
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal vacated six probation conditions because the trial court impermissibly delegated authority to probation to decide the kinds of programming or treatment in which appellant was required to participate, including whether he was required to participate in a residential treatment program. On remand, the Court of Appeal directed the trial court to specify what kind(s) of programming or treatment are required for appellant because there was sufficient uncertainty in the record.