First District Panel Victories

Results: 11 - 20 of 525

A162710

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.

A164745

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.

A165407

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. 

A165462

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.

A164669

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.   

A163558

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.

A164830

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.

A164294 & A164742

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.

A162658

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.

A165143

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

^