August 20, 2019
Attorney: Kyle Gee
The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing because the record regarding juror misconduct was not sufficiently developed. The defendant moved for a new trial after collecting three juror declarations, which indicated the jury discussed the defendant’s failure to testify during deliberations. While the parties agreed that the jury’s discussions constituted misconduct, the record is not clear as to the scope of the misconduct and whether their discussion indicated that the jurors drew adverse inferences therefrom. Further, the record is silent as to whether the jurors were reminded that they should not consider the defendant’s decision not to testify.
November 20, 2019
Attorney: Stephen Bedrick
Court of Appeal remand the case to the trial court in light of Senate Bill No. 620, in order to permit the court to exercise its discretion whether to strike the firearm enhancements pursuant to amended Penal Code sections 12022.5, subdivision (c), and 12022.53, subdivision (h).
January 29, 2018
Attorney: Mara Bernstein
Categories: Dependency Disposition ICWA
Mother appealed from the juvenile court’s dispositional order changing the child’s placement, reducing mother’s visitation, and deficiencies in ICWA notice and inquiry. The Court of Appeal reversed the visitation order finding that mother was not given notice that a change in the visitation was sought. The Court agreed that mother’s due process rights were abrogated by the failure to provide her with notice of the request and an opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The Court also remanded for the Department to comply with notice provisions of the ICWA.
February 6, 2019
Attorney: Dirck Newbury
The trial court erred in imposing a concurrent two-year term for a firearm possession conviction instead of staying the term under Penal Code section 654 because the firearm possession was incidental to and not separate from the primary offense of murder. The matter was also remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to strike the firearm enhancement and to allow appellant to make a record for a further youth offender parole hearing.
April 2, 2019
Attorney: Candace Hale
The Court of Appeal remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to strike the conviction on one of the two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The convictions were based on two distinct incidents occurring two days apart. The court noted that this offense is a continuing offense, and there was no evidence that the defendant used two different guns or that he ever lost and regained control of the one gun. The Court further instructed the trial court to consider whether to exercise its discretion to strike the firearm enhancements and to hold a hearing in which the defendant can make an adequate record of any and all youth-related factors in anticipation of his eventual youth offender parole hearing.
December 18, 2018
Attorney: Jeffrey Kross
Appellant was entitled to resentencing because the recent amendments to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2 abolished sentence enhancements predicated on violations of certain drug statues, including those forming the basis of appellant’s two sentence enhancements. His convictions were not final and the amendment is retroactive; thus, the Court remanded the case for resentencing in light of it striking the enhancements.
November 9, 2018
Attorney: Peter Gold
Appellant entitled to transfer hearing per Prop 57 and People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299. If juvenile court retains jurisdiction, it will impose appropriate disposition. If transferred to adult court, convictions reinstated. Remand also for court to exercise discretion whether to strike gun-use enhancements.
July 5, 2017
Attorney: Donald Bergerson, Peggy Headley
Court of Appeal reversed misdemeanor conviction for recent use of a controlled substance where it was barred by one year statute of limitations and reversed all fines and fees associated with that count.
January 3, 2019
Attorney: Marylou Hillberg
Penal Code section 654 prohibited multiple punishment for burglary and assault where the assault was the intended felony. Even though the jury was instructed with alternative intents for entering the building (theft or assault or kidnapping), the record did not support the parsing of his intent into obtaining money and inflicting injury.
January 11, 2019
Attorney: Victor Blumenkrantz
The trial court awarded no presentence credits. Court of Appeal modified the judgment to award defendant 99 days of presentence conduct credit under Penal Code section 2933.1 (15% credit). Because there was no dispute as to the mathematical formula, the Court modified the judgment rather than remanding.