First District Panel Victories

Results: 241 - 250 of 630
1 23 24 25 26 27 63

A162756

The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of a recent amendment (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) 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. In so holding, the Court rejected the prosecution’s harmless error argument, finding that the record does not clearly indicate the trial court necessarily would have imposed the upper term absent it consideration of all the aggravating factors it identified.

A164408

In this appeal from a WIC section 366.26 hearing, appellant argued the Department failed to conduct an adequate ICWA inquiry. The Department conceded there were “inadvertent omissions in the inquiry.” The Court agreed with the parties and conditionally reversed the order terminating parental rights to ensure ICWA compliance.

A157485

In a case in which appellant was convicted of, among other things, driving under the influence of alcohol and second-degree implied malice murder, the Court of Appeal held that substantial evidence did not support the jury’s true findings under Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (b) that two of the victims were rendered “comatose due to brain injury before they died.” In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the statute does not define the term “comatose,” but based on its ordinary usage, the Court concluded “more than a fleeting and unsubstantiated state [of unconsciousness] is anticipated.” However, here, no one testified that the victims were “comatose” before they died, the expert witness did not opine as to how long the victims survived their injuries, and most of the first responders testified that the victims were already dead when they arrived.  

A163106

In light of Assembly Bill No. 177, which eliminated certain fees in criminal cases and rendered the unpaid balance of any such fees unenforceable and uncollectible, the Court of Appeal vacated the trial court’s imposition of interest pursuant to former Penal Code section 1203.1, subdivision (l) and collection cost fees pursuant to former Penal Code section 1214.5.

A164016

In this case, the defense filed a motion under Assembly Bill No. 1950, which limited the probation term for felony offenses to two years, with exceptions that do not apply here, and the trial court terminated appellant’s probation as of AB 1950’s effective date. The prosecution appealed, arguing that the trial court should have given the prosecution the opportunity to withdraw from the original plea deal before reducing the probation term. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the change in appellant’s probation term did not deprive the prosecution of the benefit of the plea bargain and did not permit the prosecution to withdraw from bargain.

A162896

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 (1) 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; and (2) 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.

A164102

The Department conceded that the juvenile court failed to make any ICWA findings prior to terminating parental rights. The Court remanded the proceedings to determine if the Department discharged its duty of inquiry and notice under WIC sections 224.2 and 224.3.

A161139

A jury found appellant guilty of, among other things, two counts of first-degree murder and found true the special circumstance that he was convicted of more than one murder within the meaning of Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a)(3). The trial court sentenced appellant to life without the possibility of parole for the special circumstance of multiple murders in addition to two terms of 25 years to life for the murder convictions. The Court of Appeal held that, since section 190.2 applied, life without the possibility of parole is the only authorized punishment; therefore, the imposition of two additional terms of 25 years to life is unauthorized. The Court vacated the sentence and remanded the matter for a full resentencing.

A164230

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 was a youth or experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma and those factors contributed to the commission of the offense.

A162984

In a case in which appellant was convicted of carrying a concealed, loaded, and unregistered firearm (Pen. Code, § 25400, subd. (c)), the Court of Appeal held that, because appellant had not been convicted of a qualifying “strike” felony, the trial court erred by sentencing appellant to state prison instead of to a county jail term under section 1170, subdivision (h)(1).