The Court of Appeal remanded for the trial court to consider resentencing under Penal Code section 654 in light of Assembly Bill 518, and to strike the fees imposed for preparation of appellant’s probation report and booking pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.9.
A160417 & A162829
- October 28, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Stephen Greenberg
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution, Sentencing
A160581 & A160566
- October 26, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Mark Greenberg & Kyle Gee
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that substantial evidence did not support the trial court’s findings that appellants acted with reckless indifference to human life and, therefore, revered the orders denying appellants’ petitions for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.
A161203
- October 26, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Shannon Chase
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that the firearm use enhancement (Pen. Code, § 2022.5(a)) attached to appellant’s conviction for shooting at an occupied vehicle must be stricken because firearm use is an element of the offense.
A161794
- October 25, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: J. Wilder Lee
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order summarily denying appellant’s Penal Code section 1172.6 petition and remanded the matter to the superior court for further proceedings in light of Senate Bill 775.
A163882
- October 19, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Aida Aslanian
- Categories: Dependency, General, Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
The Court of Appeal finds the juvenile court failed at multiple junctures and in multiple ways to afford proper notice to father of the dependency proceedings and his rights as an alleged father as required by law. The court violated father’s statutory and due process rights which cumulatively resulted in a process that was fundamentally unfair. The order terminating parental rights was reversed and remanded to the juvenile court.
A158288
- October 19, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Athena Shudde
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of recent amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 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.
A162353
- October 18, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Rachel Belden
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing due to the recent statutory amendments to Penal Code section 654, 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).
A162419
- October 17, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Jason Stenson
- Categories: Criminal, Discovery
Following Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, the Court of Appeal held that the minor established a plausible justification for discovery under Penal Code section 745(d) where, among other things, defense counsel provided statistical data specific to the Marin County juvenile justice system about vastly higher rates of referrals, wardship, and institutional placement for Latinos compared to white youth; attested based on information from two local high school students and police records that teens trespassing on school athletic facilities (one of the offenses in this case) are often let go with just a warning; and showed that the arresting officer in a subsequent shoplifting case made a comment suggesting the officer may have assumed the minor was in a gang. The Court of Appeal therefore reversed the denial of the minor’s discovery motion and remanded for the juvenile court to determine the scope of that discovery.
A161634
- October 12, 2022
- Attorney: Michelle Peterson
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In light of People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, the Court of Appeal reversed the denial of appellant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 because the denial was based on the jury findings that appellant was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life while engaged in the commission of felonies, which resulted in the two killings for which he was convicted, but those findings were rendered years before the Supreme Court clarified the law of felony murder liability in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522.
A162895
- October 11, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: Jennifer Mannix
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of recent amendments to Penal Code section 1170, which now requires that circumstances in aggravation used to justify imposition of the upper term be found true by the jury, admitted by the defendant, or based on prior convictions evidenced by a certified record of conviction. Agreeing with the majority of courts that have addressed the applicable standard for assessing prejudice, the Court also held that remand was necessary because there is a reasonable probability that the jury would not have found one aggravating factor true beyond a reasonable doubt and that the court would have imposed a sentence other than the upper term had it not relied on that factor.