Results: 11 - 20 of 525
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
March 30, 2023
Division: Four
Attorney: Kathy Moreno
Categories: Criminal Sentencing
In an appeal from the denial of a PC 1172.6 petition, the Court of Appeal remanded for the trial court to clarify its findings regarding how it reconciled the required mental state for aiding and abetting implied malice murder with the court’s acknowledged possibility that appellant – a then 16-year-old runaway under the control of the actual killer, a man twice his age who raped a prostituted him – thought he was a participant in a vicious head game when the offense was committed.
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.
March 30, 2023
Division: One
Attorney: David Stanley
Categories: Criminal Retroactivity of Changes in Law Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing due the statutory amendment to Penal Code section 654 (Assembly Bill No. 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which now affords trial courts the discretion to choose the count on which to impose punishment (instead of having to choose the one that provided for the longest potential term of imprisonment). In so doing, the court rejected that a remand would be futile because, although the court “described defendant’s conduct as ‘frankly vicious and gratuitous,’ the court did not impose the upper term on any count.
March 29, 2023
Division: One
Attorney: Matthew Alger
Categories: Criminal Right to Counsel Sentencing
In this case, trial counsel admitted that he was unprepared for appellant’s resentencing hearing because he was unaware that it was on calendar for that day. The Court of Appeal held that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance because his failure to prepare for the sentencing hearing or ask for a continuance prejudiced defendant. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment and remanded to the trial court for resentencing.
Results: 11 - 20 of 525