First District Panel Victories

Results: 181 - 190 of 241


January 15, 2019

Division: Three

Attorney: Rudolph Alejo

Categories: Criminal   Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision   

Probation condition prohibiting possession of obvious burglary tools was unconstitutionally vague. Modified to prohibit possession of items the defendant knows are to be used or that he intends to use as burglary tools.


January 14, 2019

Attorney: Louise Collari

Categories: Dependency   Disposition   Jurisdiction   

The Court of Appeal found there was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional and dispositional findings. The Court directed the juvenile to vacate its prior order and enter an order terminating jurisdiction over the minor. Even though the child had been returned to the care of mother during the appeal, the Court found that the appeal was not moot. The Court also stated that mother had not forfeited the right to challenge the jurisdictional findings even though her attorney conceded jurisdiction was appropriate and only asked the court to conform the petition to proof.


January 11, 2019

Division: One

Attorney: Victor Blumenkrantz

Categories: Credits   Criminal   

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.


January 11, 2019

Division: Two

Attorney: Jennifer Peabody

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

Appellant’s nineteen-year sentence and matter was remanded for trial court to exercise sentencing discretion for two five-year enhancements imposed pursuant to sections 667, subdivision (a) (SB 1393).


January 11, 2019

Division: Two

Attorney: Bobbie Stein

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

Remanded for resentencing so that the court can exercise its new discretion to determine whether to strike appellant’s five-year enhancement, pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1).


January 10, 2019

Division: Five

Attorney: Victor Blumenkrantz, Ronald Boyer, Kyle Gee

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

Case remanded to the trial court so the court can consider exercising its discretion to strike the Penal Code section 12022.53 firearm enhancements (SB 620) and 667, subd. (a) five-year enhancement (SB 1393).


January 3, 2019

Division: Four

Attorney: Marylou Hillberg

Categories: Criminal   General   

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.


December 27, 2018

Division: Four

Attorney: Lauren Dodge

Categories: Criminal   General   Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision   

The court improperly delegated the judicial authority to decide sentencing (whether a defendant will participate in a treatment program) to the probation department, in violation of Article III, section 3 of the California Constitution. Delegation to a probation officer of a ministerial act or support service is lawful, but the ultimate responsibility of imposing sentence is a judicial function. However, the Court of Appeal did not strike the condition, choosing instead to remand the case for the trial court to reconsider it.

The Court also found that a related drug/chemical testing condition likely violated Lent because drugs were not involved in the underlying offense, and that the condition could be construed as being both overbroad and vague. Thus, the Court remanded with directions that the trial court reconsider the condition and/or modify it.


December 21, 2018

Division: One

Attorney: Leslie Prince

Categories: Criminal   Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution   General   

While substantial evidence supported the issuance of a protective order in a simple battery on a former cohabitant case, the record did not indicate that the judge considered the factors set forth in Penal Code section 136.2(i)(l) before determining the 10-year duration of that order. The case was remanded to the trial court to assess the appropriate length of the protective order. Some fines were also struck because they were imposed in connection with the unauthorized probationary term.


December 18, 2018

Division: Two

Attorney: Garrick Byers

Categories: Criminal   Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision   

In a published opinion, the Court of Appeal held that PRCS supervisory period is not automatically extended when PRCS is reinstituted after revocation, although a trial court may choose to extend the original expiration date for PRCS within the maximum statutory period.
The length of a supervisory period is not automatically extended when postrelease community supervision (PRCS) is reinstituted after revocation; however, a trial court may choose to extend the original expiration date for PRCS within the maximum statutory period.

Results: 181 - 190 of 241