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 low term where the defendant experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma and those factors contributed to the commission of the offense. The Court reasoned that the amendments are retroactive and that the record is not clear that the court on remand would find that none of the enumerated circumstances in section 1170( b)(6) were contributing factors in the commission of the offense or that the court would necessarily select the middle term.
A161234
- April 26, 2023
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Rashida Harmon
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
A161995
- April 26, 2023
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Kieran Manjarrez
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of recent amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) to PC 1170, which requires imposition of the middle term in the absence of appropriate findings regarding aggravating factors. The Court further held that remand was necessary under the two-part test identified in People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5ht 459.
A162710
- April 26, 2023
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Matthew Watts
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by finding it was “procedurally bound” from resentencing appellant other than as directed by the Court of Appeal’s opinion. The Court reasoned that, at a resentencing hearing, a trial court is entitled to consider the entire sentence and is not limited to merely striking illegal portions.
A162567
- April 26, 2023
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Matthew Watts
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) and Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) to PC 1170, which limited the court’s ability to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term and created a presumption in favor of the low term under certain circumstances.
A165407
- April 24, 2023
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Joseph Elford
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In this case, the trial court sentenced appellant to a term in excess of that which was negotiated in his original plea agreement after he violated his Cruz waiver. The Court of Appeal remanded, finding that the Cruz waiver was invalid because it was obtained three months after appellant’s plea (and not at the time of his plea). Upon remand, the Court ordered the trial court to either give appellant the opportunity to withdraw his plea (if the court decides to impose a sentence in excess of the plea agreement), or resentence him in accordance with the original plea bargain.
A164745
- April 24, 2023
- Division: One
- Attorney: Karriem Baker
- Categories: Delinquency
In this case, the juvenile court prohibited the minor from owning or possessing a firearm until the age of 30 in accordance with Penal Code section 29820. The Court of Appeal struck the firearm restriction, finding that section 29820 is inapplicable because the minor’s offense, being a minor in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29610), is not included in any of the statutory provisions which trigger section 29820.
A165462
- April 20, 2023
- Division: One
- Attorney: Jeremy Price
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal found appellant was entitled to a remand for resentencing under SB 567 where he received a stipulated upper term pursuant to a plea agreement. Citing the reasoning of People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, the court noted that if the trial court grants relief and sentences appellant to a lower term, the prosecutor may elect to withdraw from the plea bargain.
A164669
- April 11, 2023
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Christopher Stansell
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that, because the record reflects that the trial court was unaware of the scope of its discretion under amended PC 1170, remand for resentencing was required.
A163558
- April 4, 2023
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Mark Greenberg
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions, Prosecutorial, Juror, and Judicial Misconduct
[Published Opinion] After recording the jury’s guilty verdict on the charged offenses, the trial court discharged the jurors and expressly released them from their obligation to not discuss the case with anyone else. The prosecutor then notified the court that the matter of a prior strike allegation had not yet been tried, and, nearly four hours after being discharged, the jury reconvened in the courtroom and returned a true finding on the allegation. The Court of Appeal vacated this finding on the ground that the jury did not “remai[n] within the court’s control” between being discharged and reconvening.
A164294 & A164742
- March 30, 2023
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Randall Conner
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In this case, the court found that Penal Code section 654 prohibited double punishment for robbery and carjacking because the “minor accomplished both these offenses through precisely the same show of force – that is, pointing a gun at the [victims] as he told them to empty their pockets.” Thus, the Court of Appeal remanded for the juvenile court to recalculate the maximum term of confinement that does not reflect consecutive terms for these offenses.