In light of People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 and People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by summarily denying appellant’s petition for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6) without appointing him counsel.
A157163
- February 6, 2023
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Janice Lagerlof
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
A165307
- February 3, 2023
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Sean Burleigh
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
In an appeal from the termination of parental rights, the Court agreed that the Department failed to satisfy its duties of initial inquiry and further inquiry under section 224.2 (b) and (e) and the juvenile court failed to ensure compliance with the ICWA.
- January 31, 2023
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Amanda Roze
- Categories: Delinquency
The Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court did not apply the correct standards in evaluating appellant’s requests to dismiss his juvenile petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 782 and to seal his records under WIC section 781 because the court did not consider appellant’s honorable discharge from DJJ as evidence of his rehabilitation. Therefore, the court remanded the matter for the juvenile court to exercise its discretion under section 782 and 781. However, in the event the court declines to dismiss the petitions under section 782, the Court ordered that it “shall then dismiss them under section 1179.” (§ 1179(d).)
A163744
- January 20, 2023
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Elizabeth Grayson
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
In light of recent amendments to Penal Code section 1170.91, which eliminated the language courts interpreted to categorially bar veterans serving indeterminate sentences from obtaining relief under the statute, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.91 and directed the court to conduct a new resentencing hearing. The Court further ordered the court to correct errors in the abstract or judgment.
A165112
- January 19, 2023
- Division: Three
- Attorney: S. Lynne Klein
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA, Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
There was no dispute amongst the parties that the Department erroneously failed to conduct an adequate inquiry of father or any other paternal relatives regarding possible Native American ancestry. The Court analyzed the various standards of prejudice applied in ICWA cases and determined the error was not harmless. The order terminating parental rights was conditionally reversed for the Department to fulfill its duty of inquiry.
A163906
- January 18, 2023
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Kelly Martin
- Categories: Criminal, Evidentiary
The Court of Appeal held that the admission of the alleged victim’s conditional examination violated appellant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights because the prosecution failed to establish it exercised due diligence in securing the alleged victim’s presence at trial. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that there was no evidence before the trial court (other than the prosecution’s unsubstantiated claim) that the alleged victim, who was living in Guatemala, had no plans of returning to California and, more importantly, the record did not establish that the prosecutor made any efforts to procure the witness’s attendance at trial. The Court further held that the error was prejudicial to the battery conviction where respondent could not point to any other evidence to support that conviction.
A160739
- January 13, 2023
- Attorney: Karriem Baker
- Categories: Credits, Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for resentencing to allow the trial court to (1) exercise the discretion conferred on it by Assembly Bill 518 and any other applicable recent changes to sentencing laws, (2) impose sentence on three counts and then stay the execution of those sentences pursuant to section 654, unless the court elects to impose sentence on one of these counts, in which case it should impose sentence and stay execution of the sentences on any remaining counts, (3) amend the abstract of judgment to show that appellant is entitled to additional presentence credits, and (4) amend the abstract of judgment to show that appellant’s conviction for making a criminal threat was reversed after appellant’s first appeal and never retried.
A164302
- January 12, 2023
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Michelle Danley
- Categories: Dependency, Review Hearings
In an appeal from the termination of reunification services, the Court finds mother’s limited progress was the result of the Agency’s delay in providing necessary individual and family therapy services, rather than mother’s lack of effort or cooperation. The order terminating service was remanded with directions, in the absence of contradictory evidence, to provide mother with an additional period of reunification services consistent with the opinion.
A164059
- December 30, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: Maureen Bodo
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in refusing to consider and rule on the merits of appellant’s claims of error in the probation report.
A161210
- December 28, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: Megan Hailey-Dunsheath
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
In light of recent amendments (Assembly Bill 1950) to Penal Code section 1203.1, which limited felony probation terms to two years except for certain offenses, the Court of Appeal held that appellant’s probation term must be reduced from three to two years. The Court also struck the balance of unpaid administrative fees that are no longer authorized under recent legislation.