The Court of Appeal remanded for the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting an additional day of presentence custody credit (PC 4019, subds. (b), (c); 2933.1, subd. (c)). The court otherwise affirmed the judgment.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A172859
- July 24, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Robert Angres
- Categories: Credits, Criminal
A171122
- July 24, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Nicole Kalum
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a full resentencing under PC 1172.75. The 2011 sentencing court had never pronounced sentence on a prior prison term enhancement found true. Relying on People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050 and People v. Espino (July 2, 2026, S286987) __ Cal.5th __ [2026 Cal.Lexis 3418; 2026 WL 1902221]), the Court of Appeal held that a true finding neither stricken nor dismissed remains imposed under the statute.
A170674
- July 17, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Janice Lagerlof
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal stayed appellant’s sentence for conspiracy to commit murder after the trial court imposed concurrent sentences for both first-degree murder and conspiracy, a clear violation of PC 654.
A172040
- July 13, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Rex Williams
- Categories: Criminal, Diversion
The Court of Appeal remanded for reconsideration of appellant’s request for mental health diversion. The trial court had based its unsuitability finding on appellant’s poor performance on other forms of supervision. However, there was no evidence appellant would not succeed if placed in “more comprehensive, residential treatment” as proposed.
A173490
- July 10, 2026
- Division: Three
- Attorney: George Schraer
- Categories: Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court erroneously imposed an indeterminate sentence on the PC 286(c)(2)(A)/664 conviction and failed to designate a principal term for appellant’s consecutive, determinate sentence.
A171196
- June 30, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Jenny Huang
- Categories: Criminal, Racial Justice Act
The Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to treat appellant’s denied motion for discovery under PC 745(d) of the RJA as a petition for writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ and remanded for the trial court to conduct a new hearing reconsidering the discovery motion, which was supported by charging and sentencing data and statistics. The Court of Appeal distinguished between the standard required to prevail on an RJA claim and the lesser threshold required to obtain discovery.
A171835
- June 30, 2026
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Michele Kemmerling
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court prejudicially relied on an aggravating factor not found true by a jury to sentence appellant to the high term. Specifically, a jury had not found true that appellant’s prior crimes were numerous or of increasing seriousness.
A169449
- June 30, 2026
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Meredith Fahn
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying resentencing and remanded with directions to recall the sentence and resentence under PC 1172.75. Under People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, a prior prison term enhancement imposed as part of the original judgment is invalid and triggers resentencing regardless of whether it was stayed or executed.
A174004
- June 30, 2026
- Division: One
- Attorney: Jesse Rodriguez
- Categories: Dependency, Disposition
Father appealed from several orders, including those made at a combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing. The Court agreed that father’s due process challenges relating to notice were not forfeited on appeal even if they were not timely or adequately raised in the juvenile court. Father did not receive written notice of the hearing and the juvenile court’s “oral” notice was not explicit and clear. The Court found these defects violated his due process rights and the defects were consequential. The jurisdiction and disposition orders were reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
A172493
- June 30, 2026
- Attorney: Matthew Alger
- Categories: Criminal, General
The Court of Appeal modified the judgment and reversed the jury findings that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury (PC 12022.7(a)) when he committed three counts of murder because that statute does not apply to murder.