In light of Assembly Bill No. 1869, 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 criminal justice administrative fee (former Government Code, § 29550, subd. (c)).
A161578
- June 30, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Patricia Brisbois
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
A162953
- June 30, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Larenda Delaini
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for reconsideration of certain fees (account receivable fee and restitution interest) in light of Assembly Bill No. 177 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which, among other things, eliminating certain “court-imposed costs” in criminal cases. The Court remanded the matter, instead of just striking the fees, because the trial court failed to identify the statutory basis for the challenged fees. Upon remand, the Court held that the trial court should also reconsider the probation conditions that required appellant to obtain a drug and alcohol problem assessment or undergo outpatient treatment “if directed” and “if required” by probation. The court found that, as written, the conditions improperly give the probation department unfettered discretion to determine whether appellant must obtain an assessment or undergo treatment as a condition of probation, as opposed to just selecting the particular program.
A162198, A162415, A163649
- June 29, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Neale Gold Carol Koenig
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
In this appeal from the termination of parental rights, the Department conceded the Department and juvenile court failed to fulfill its duty to conduct an adequate inquiry under the ICWA. There was a reason to believe the children might be Indian which triggered the duty of further inquiry. The Court determined conditional reversal, not conditional affirmance, was appropriate.
A163926
- June 29, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Jesse Rodriguez
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
The Court found the Department failed to make a proper inquiry of mother and extended family members regarding the children’s possible Indian ancestry and the juvenile court failed to ensure the Department’s compliance with its duty of inquiry. The order terminating parental rights was conditionally reversed to allow the Department and the court to comply with ICWA and state law.
A164325
- June 29, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: Alex Green
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of two amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) and Assembly Bill No. 124 (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. Upon remand, the trial court must conduct a full resentencing, including recalculating appellant’s custody credits, which the AG conceded were inaccurate.
A162808
- June 29, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Jason Szydlik
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded the case for the trial court to reconsider appellant’s sentence in light of a recent amendment (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess) to Penal Code section 1170, which, among other things, 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.
A162706
- June 29, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Janice Lagerlof
- 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 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 A.G.’s argument that remand was not necessary because, upon remand, the trial court would impose the upper term based only on appellant’s history of convictions and unsatisfactory performance on probation and parole, without considering any of the factors relating to the offense on which the court previously relied.
A162432
- June 29, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Hilda Scheib
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by refusing to consider appellant’s request to reduce the restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)) because whether analyzed under principles of due process or the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment, appellant was entitled to present evidence regarding his inability to pay the restitution fine. Upon remand, the court directed the court to also reconsider appellant’s sentence in light of Assembly Bill No. 1540 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which changed the procedural and substantive law governing recall and resentencing recommendations (Pen. Code, § 1170.03).
A159338
- June 29, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Cliff Gardner
- Categories: Criminal, Evidentiary
In a case in which appellant was convicted of numerous sexual crimes, the Court of Appeal held that evidence supporting appellant’s defense – that he instigated a CPS investigation into the victim’s sexual abuse during the time the victim alleged appellant was sexually abusing her – was improperly excluded. The Court noted that the CPS investigation was “potentially powerful evidence” in support of the defense that the victim fabricated the abuse because a jury could reasonably believe that a person who was sexually abusing a child would be unlikely to encourage a CPS investigation. Also, since the victim reported sexual abuse during this investigation (not by appellant), the evidence showed the victim was willing and able to report abuse, potentially lending greater significance to the victim’s failure to report appellant’s alleged sexual abuse during subsequent CPS investigations.
A147925 & A147875
- June 29, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Michelle Peterson & Dirck Newbury
- Categories: Criminal, Evidentiary, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal vacated appellants’ first-degree murder convictions and remanded the case in light of Senate Bill 775, which, among other things, provided that a defendant whose conviction has not yet become final may challenge on direct appeal the validity of a murder conviction under Penal Code sections 188 and 189, as amended by Senate Bill No. 1437, without first petitioning the superior court. Here, the trial court’s felony murder instructions did not include the elements required to prove felony murder under Penal Code section 189 as amended by SB 1437 because those amendment had not yet been enacted. The Court also vacated the jury’s gang-related findings and convictions, on the basis that both the instructional error resulting from Assembly Bill No. 333’s amendments to Penal Code section 186.22 and the admission of significant amounts of inadmissible hearsay and testimonial hearsay in violation of Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 and People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 constituted error that prejudiced appellants. The Court further held that the Legislature’s amendment of Penal Code section 1170 in Senate Bill No. 567, required the Court to vacate the upper term sentence of one of the appellants. The Court also agreed that one of the cases should be remanded for the trial court to exercise its recently authorized discretion to strike or dismiss a firearm enhancement. Finally, the Court held that two stayed enhancements (Pen. Code, §§ 12022 & 186.22) must be vacated/stricken, and that the 10-year enhancement under Penal Code section 186.22 was improper.