Results: 251 - 260 of 325
March 13, 2019
Division: Four
Attorney: Leila Moncharsh
Categories: Criminal Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal struck the probation condition requiring appellant to “be of good citizenship and good conduct.” The condition was vague and redundant of other conditions of the minor’s probation.
March 12, 2019
Division: Two
Attorney: Ean Vizzi
Categories: Delinquency General
The trial court erred in denying a motion to seal portions of a juvenile record on the basis that the appellant did not qualify as satisfactorily completing his probation under section 786, subdivision (c)(1). At the time of the adult conviction of appellant, he was on probation as a result of the first two juvenile petitions, but he was not yet on probation for the third. This means that appellant met the first part of the section 786, subdivision (c)(1). The court should have, therefore, addressed the second part of the test: determining whether appellant had substantially complied with the reasonable orders of his probation. The court did not reach this issue, so the Court of Appeal remanded the matter.
March 12, 2019
Division: Four
Attorney: Jeremy Price
Categories: Delinquency General Sentencing
Because the defendant committed his offense when he was 15 years old and his case was not yet final, the defendant was entitled to the benefit of Senate Bill 1391. The Court of Appeal, therefore, remanded the matter to the juvenile court, instructing the court to deem the criminal convictions and enhancements to be juvenile adjudications as of the date of the verdict. At that time, the juvenile court should also consider exercising its discretion to strike the firearm enhancements (pursuant to Senate Bill No. 620).
March 4, 2019
Division: Five
Attorney: Karlene Navarro
Categories: Criminal Evidentiary Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
At appellant’s probation revocation hearing, the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony without good cause. The basis for the revocation was appellant’s parole agent testifying that appellant had tested positive for drug use, but the People never presented any documentation confirming drug usage, nor was the parole agent’s testimony based on any documentation. Under such circumstances, the Court of Appeal found a showing of good cause was required under People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144 before appellant’s right of confrontation could be dispensed with and the hearsay testimony admitted.
February 28, 2019
Division: Three
Attorney: Jennifer Sheetz
Categories: Delinquency Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The probation condition authorizing police officers to search the minor’s electronic devices was unconstitutionally overbroad because, as phrased, it imposed no limit on the type of data subject to search. The court modified the probation condition so as to allow officers to only search text and voicemail messages, call logs, email and social media accounts, including any photographs or videos appended or attached to communications.
February 27, 2019
Division: Four
Attorney: Paul Couenhoven
Categories: Criminal Pleading and Proof Sentencing
Aggregating the value of stolen property taken in two distinct transactions and charging the defendant with a single felony (as opposed to multiple misdemeanor counts) based on that value was improper in light of the receipt theory of liability elected by the People at trial. Matter remanded to the trial court to reduce the receiving stolen property (Pen. Code § 496, subd. (a)) conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor and for resentencing.
February 27, 2019
Division: One
Attorney: Nathan Siedman
Categories: Credits Delinquency Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal found that the probation condition prohibiting appellant from having contact with a specific individual must be stricken because there was no basis in the record justifying its imposition. The Court further held that the probation condition prohibiting appellant from posting anything on the Internet that he wants certain named individuals to view was vague. Finally, the trial court was directed to specify the minor’s maximum term of confinement and calculate his pre-disposition credits.
February 20, 2019
Division: Two
Attorney: Leah Spero
Categories: Criminal Jury Instructions
Court of Appeal found that the trial court prejudicially erred by instructing a jury during deliberations on aiding and abetting liability although no evidence supported this theory, failing to instruct on the elements that had to be proven under this liability theory, and denying defense counsel’s request to address the jury regarding the theory. Reversed on two grounds: (1) the trial court committed instructional error and (2) the trial court should have given the defense an opportunity to address the jury on the new aiding and abetting theory.
February 6, 2019
Division: Three
Attorney: Erin Keefe
Categories: Criminal Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The probation condition prohibiting appellant from entering into a position of trust or authority with a minor unless under the authority and auspices of his school is unconstitutionally vague. Matter remanded for the trial court to modify or strike the condition.
February 6, 2019
Division: Five
Attorney: Dirck Newbury
Categories: Criminal Sentencing
The trial court erred in imposing a concurrent two-year term for a firearm possession conviction instead of staying the term under Penal Code section 654 because the firearm possession was incidental to and not separate from the primary offense of murder. The matter was also remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to strike the firearm enhancement and to allow appellant to make a record for a further youth offender parole hearing.
Results: 251 - 260 of 325