A166310
October 18, 2023
Division: Two
Attorney: Linda Harvie
Categories: Delinquency
In light of recent amendments to WIC 707 (AB 2361), the Court of Appeal held that the minor was entitled to a new juvenile transfer hearing. At the time of the minor’s initial hearing, the juvenile court applied the former preponderance of the evidence standard (as opposed to the now required clear and convincing evidence standard) and directed its analysis to whether “transfer[ ] is appropriate,” not whether the minor was “amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court,” as is required under amended WIC 707. Relying on In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, the Court further found that remand was necessary because applying Watson would be inappropriate, as it would require the Court to speculate as to how the juvenile court might apply the new legal standards.
A166124
October 17, 2023
Division: One
Attorney: Justin Behravesh
Categories: Criminal Sentencing
[Published Opinion] In an appeal from a PC 1172.75 resentencing at which the trial court struck a prior-prison-term enhancement (PC 667.5(b)) but did not conduct a full resentencing, the Court of Appeal remands the matter for a full resentencing at which defendant may seek relief under SB 1393, SB 81, and “any other legislation that may reduce his sentence.” The court also holds, however, that under People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, because defendant was convicted pursuant to a plea agreement with an agreed-upon term, the prosecution may elect to withdraw from the agreement if the trial court decides to further reduce the sentence.
A164286
October 11, 2023
Division: Five
Attorney: Lauren Dodge
Categories: Criminal Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to amend the sentencing minute order to reflect its oral pronouncement prohibiting appellant from possessing any “dangerous or deadly” weapons (as opposed to “any weapon”), and to impose the court operations fee and criminal conviction assessment as separate orders instead of as a condition of probation. The Court further ordered that the trial court vacate the portion of the judgment imposing a restitution collection fee pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 177 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.).
A167396
October 9, 2023
Division: Five
Attorney: Richard Schwartzberg
Categories: Criminal Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision Retroactivity of Changes in Law
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence appellant to prison because his probation terminated by operation of law before it was revoked with the passage of Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.)
A167485
October 5, 2023
Division: One
Attorney: Gerald Miller
Categories: Civil Commitment
The Court of Appeal reverses the order renewing appellant’s LPS conservatorship, finding that the record does not demonstrate that appellant was ever advised of or personally waived his right to a jury trial.
A163114
October 3, 2023
Division: Two
Attorney: Geoff Jones & Robert Bryzman
Categories: Criminal Right to Counsel
The Court of Appeal holds that appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel in pleading no contest to a felony count of meeting with a minor for lewd purposes (PC 288.4(b)), based on an adult decoy posing online as an underage girl, because it is reasonably probable that had appellant gone to trial and asserted the defense of entrapment at least one juror would have voted to acquit him.
A166068
September 29, 2023
Division: Five
Attorney: Richard Braucher
Categories: Delinquency
In light of recent amendments to WIC 707 (AB 2361), the Court of Appeal held that the minor was entitled to a new juvenile transfer hearing. At the time of the minor’s initial hearing, the juvenile court applied the former preponderance of the evidence standard (as opposed to the now required clear and convincing evidence standard) and directed its analysis to whether “transfer[ ] is appropriate,” not whether the minor was “amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court,” as is required under amended WIC 707. Relying on In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, the Court further found that remand was necessary because applying Watson‘s harmless error analysis would be inappropriate, as it would require the Court to speculate as to how the juvenile court might apply the new legal standards.
A166534
September 29, 2023
Division: Four
Attorney: Christopher Stansell
Categories: Criminal Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by terminating appellant’s probation as unsuccessful based on his failure to report to his probation officer upon reentry to the country after being deported because there is no evidence in the record that appellant reentered the country during his probation period.
A166203
September 28, 2023
Division: Four
Attorney: Sangeeta Sinha
Categories: Criminal Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed the court’s ruling declining to dismiss appellant’s misdemeanor conviction for sexual battery (PC 243.4(a)), and its ruling limiting appellant’s registration period under PC 290 to his period of parole. The Court remanded for resentencing because the record showed the court’s ruling declining to dismiss the conviction was tied to the mistaken belief that the court could limit the duration of appellant’s PC 290 registration.
A166653
September 27, 2023
Division: One
Attorney: Kaiya Pirolo
Categories: Delinquency Dependency
The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s WIC 241.1 order subjecting the minor to delinquency jurisdiction under WIC 602. The Court found that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ruling the minor did not meet any WIC 300 criteria because the evidence showed the minor had been sexually abused by “a member of [his] household,” and that his parents should have known he was in danger of sexual abuse. The court remanded the matter for the juvenile court to exercise its discretion to determine whether dependency or delinquency jurisdiction would best serve the minor’s interests and the protection of society.
