First District Panel Victories

Results: 11 - 20 of 469

A161419

December 16, 2022

Division: Five

Attorney: John Ward

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   Sufficiency of the Evidence   

In accordance with People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of appellant’s Penal Code section 1172.6 petition for resentencing, holding that, where a petition is otherwise adequate, a pre-Banks/Clark felony-murder special-circumstance finding is not a basis to deny an order to show cause.

A163563

December 16, 2022

Division: Five

Attorney: Elizabeth Grayson

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

The Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court lacked authority to impose probation conditions, including an electronics search condition, after committing the minor to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice.

A162298

December 16, 2022

Division: Five

Attorney: Kathy Moreno

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

In accordance with People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, the Court of Appeal held that, where a Penal Code section 1172.6 petition is otherwise adequate, a pre-Banks/Clark felony-murder special-circumstance finding is not a basis to deny an order to show cause.

A163211

December 15, 2022

Division: Four

Attorney: Stephen Bedrick

Categories: Criminal   Retroactivity of Changes in Law   Sufficiency of the Evidence   

The Court of Appeal held that Assembly Bill 333 applies retroactively to gang enhancements imposed under Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a) insofar as it amends the substantive elements of the enhancement so that the true finding on the enhancement must be vacated and remanded for retrial.

A164229

December 14, 2022

Attorney: Kaiya Pirolo

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

In this case, the record established that the trial court was unaware it had the discretion to strike appellant’s five-year terms for prior serious felony convictions imposed under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a). The Court of Appeal concluded that remand is appropriate to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion as to whether to strike appellant’s prior serious felony convictions for sentencing purposes.

A160784

December 14, 2022

Attorney: Janice Wellborn

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing, once again, in light of recent amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) to Penal Code section 1170, which, among other things, created a presumption in favor of a low prison term for certain youthful offenders.

A163837

December 13, 2022

Attorney: Keith Fox

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of recent amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) and Assembly Bill No. 124 (2020–2021 Reg. Sess.)) to Penal Code section 1170, which limited the court’s ability to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term and created a presumption in favor of the low term where the defendant experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma and those factors contributed to the commission of the offense.

A164945

December 12, 2022

Division: One

Attorney: Geoff Jones

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   Sufficiency of the Evidence   

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of appellant’s Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition, finding insufficient evidence that appellant acted with reckless indifference to human life. While the Court noted that appellant’s statement that “he didn’t want to kill the [victim], however if he had to, he would,” might constitute substantial evidence of reckless indifference under different circumstances, here, there was no evidence that appellant was armed, knew the actual killer was armed, had previously talked to the actual killer about the use or a gun, or knew the actual killer had access to guns. Nor was it even apparent that appellant knowingly participated in an armed robbery. The Court, therefore, remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to grant the petition and resentence appellant.   

A164028

December 9, 2022

Division: Two

Attorney: Jeffrey Glick

Categories: Criminal   Evidentiary   

The Court of Appeal reversed appellant’s involuntary manslaughter conviction (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (b)) where the trial court erred in admitting extensive hearsay evidence describing the decedent’s attack and failed to provide a limiting instruction, despite correctly ruling in limine that only statements describing the decedent’s past or present pain (and not how he was injured and what happened) could be admitted for their truth under Evidence Code sections 1250 and 1251. The Court further held that the error was not harmless where the primary disputed issue at trial was the cause of the decedent’s death and where the prosecution heavily relied on the hearsay evidence at trial.

A165099

December 8, 2022

Division: Three

Attorney: John Ward

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, concluding that nothing in the record demonstrated appellant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law or refuted the allegations appellant set forth in his petition. The court therefore remanded the matter to the trial court to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 1172.6, subdivision (d)

Results: 11 - 20 of 469

^