[Published Opinion] Penal Code section 1172.75 (the SB 483 resentencing provision for prior-prison-term enhancements) provides that a court conducting a resentencing under the statute “shall apply . . . any . . . changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.” The Court of Appeal held that this language requires a court conducting a resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 to apply SB 620 and SB 1393, including where the defendant’s original judgment of conviction became final prior to those bills’ effective dates.
A164777
- November 16, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Leslie Prince
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
A164048
- November 15, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Carlo Andreani
- Categories: Criminal, General, Pleading and Proof
The Court of Appeal held that appellant’s admission to two prior strike convictions was invalid because the record does not reflect that appellant was informed of or expressly waived his constitutional rights to trial by jury and confrontation, and his privilege not to incriminate himself. The Court therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for correction of that error.
A164489
- November 10, 2022
- Attorney: Jeffrey Glick
- Categories: Delinquency
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal held that Welfare and Institutions Code section 1179, subdivision (d) requires a juvenile court to dismiss the minor’s wardship petition when the minor receives an honorable discharge from DJJ.
A163046
- November 10, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: John Schuck
- Categories: Criminal, General
[Published Opinion] In an appeal following resentencing, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defense a reasonable continuance in order to develop facts in support of a discovery motion under the Racial Justice Act (Pen. Code, § 745).
A164785
- November 9, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Janet Saalfield Jacob Olson
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA, Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
Despite a prior remand order, the Department failed to engage in an adequate investigation to obtain complete and accurate information regarding minor’s relatives for purposes of the ICWA. On appeal, the Department offered no argument substantively countering father’s claim of inadequate inquiry and prejudice. The Court conditionally reverses the order terminating parental rights and remands the matter for compliance with the inquiry and notice provisions of the ICWA.
A164095
- November 8, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Carolyn Hurley
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA, Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
In an appeal from the termination of parental rights, the Court finds that the Department and juvenile court did not satisfy their duty to inquire into mother’s possible Native American ancestry. The Court finds the error required reversal because the record contained no indication the Department made any further inquires after mother affirmatively told the social worker she believed she had Native American ancestry.
A163883
- November 8, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Danalyynn Pritz
- 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.
A163657
- November 2, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Simon Roberta
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
Finding that the term “dangerous drugs” was unconstitutionally vague, the Court of Appeal replaced that term with “controlled substances” in the probation condition that ordered appellant “not to use, own, possess, or traffic in narcotics or dangerous drugs or knowingly associate with anyone who does.” The court also held that the probation condition requiring appellant to “submit to education, counseling, treatments or test as directed by [his] probation officer” violated the separation of powers doctrine by delegating judicial authority to the probation department; thus, the court struck the condition and remanded the matter. Finally, the court held that appellant did not need a certificate of probable cause to challenge any of his probation conditions, although his plea form included a general appeal waiver from his conviction.
A162395
- November 2, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Sandra Gillies
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court gave an erroneous kill zone instruction because it did not require the jury to find, as is required for application of the kill zone theory, that appellant intended to kill everyone in the area around the primary target as a means of killing that primary target. Nor did the instruction enumerate the circumstances the jury should consider in assess a defendant’s intent to create a zone of fatal harm and the scope of that zone. The court further held that the error was prejudicial even under the less stringent Watson standard, and that one of appellant’s attempted murder convictions must be vacated as a result.
A160713
- November 1, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Richard Braucher
- Categories: Criminal, Habeas, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
[Published Opinion] In a habeas proceeding, the Court of Appeal held that the Parole Board’s denial of petitioner’s request to present witnesses at his parole rescission hearing violated the Board’s own procedural rules as well as petitioner’s due process rights. The court further found that the matter is not moot, despite petitioner having had two further parole suitability hearings, and that petitioner did not forfeit his due process challenge by failing to object at the rescission hearing to the denial of his request to present witnesses.