A163610
March 29, 2022
Division: One
Attorney: Jeffrey Kross
Categories: Credits Criminal
In a prior opinion, the Court of Appeal ordered that appellant was entitled to a total of 1,841 days of actual credit and no local conduct credit against his sentence, as he was convicted of murder. Because the amended abstract of judgment and amended minute order did not reflect the judgment as modified by the Court’s prior opinion, the Court again remanded for the trial court to enter the correct award of credits.
A160852
March 29, 2022
Division: Three
Attorney: Leslie Prince
Categories: Criminal Retroactivity of Changes in Law Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court’s application of the People v Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 533 factors to what it considered “undisputed or clearly established . . . facts of this case” involved the prohibited weighing of evidence and the exercise of discretion at the prima facie stage. The court further held that the trial court had no valid basis for finding appellant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because the special-circumstance finding was made before Banks and Clark. Thus, the court reversed the order summarily denying appellant’s 1170.95 petition for resentencing.
A161850
March 29, 2022
Division: Five
Attorney: Eileen Manning-Villar
Categories: Delinquency Sentencing
Former Welfare and Institutions Code section 731, subdivision (c) authorized the juvenile court to commit a ward to the DJJ for a period not to exceed “the maximum term of imprisonment that could be imposed upon an adult for the same offense.” (Former § 731, subd. (c), italics added.) However, Senate Bill No. 823 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) amended the statute to limit the maximum time of confinement to “the middle term of imprisonment that could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the same offense.” In this case, the juvenile court calculated the minor’s maximum time of confinement in accordance with former section 731, subdivision (c). Thus, the Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the juvenile court to redetermine the minor’s maximum time of confinement and to prepare a corrected record of commitment.
A161761
March 29, 2022
Division: Two
Attorney: Carlo Andreani
Categories: Criminal General
The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying appellant’s motions under Penal Code sections 17, subdivision (b) and 1203.4, finding that it could not conclude based on the record that the trial court exercised its discretion impartially and with full consideration of the relevant circumstances. Specifically, the court noted that, when presented with motions to reduce and dismiss convictions, courts should consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s attitude toward the offense, character traits evidenced by the defendant’s behavior and demeanor, the defendant’s performance on probation, and the defendant’s post-probation conduct. But, here, the court’s consideration of appellant’s motions appeared to have been overwhelmingly influenced by its view of the vile and racist language appellant used during the offenses and in two incidents a few weeks prior to the offenses, and inferences drawn from that use of language about appellant’s character 10 years later.
A160142
March 28, 2022
Division: Two
Attorney: Gordon Brownell
Categories: Criminal Fourth Amendment
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress, holding that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to perform a traffic stop on appellant’s vehicle for failing to properly signal before making a right-hand turn.
A158809
March 28, 2022
Division: Four
Attorney: Lauren Dodge
Categories: Criminal Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded the case for the trial court to reconsider appellant’s sentence 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 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.
A161306
March 28, 2022
Division: Three
Attorney: Alex Green
Categories: Criminal General Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that appellant was deprived of his constitutional and statutory right to be present at his resentencing hearing where defense counsel merely told the court that appellant was not present and made no representation that appellant knew he had a right to be present or that he voluntarily waived that right. The Court further found that the error was not harmless, despite the fact that appellant bargained for a specified sentence and received the benefit of his bargain.
A160734
March 28, 2022
Division: One
Attorney: Eric Multhaup
Categories: Criminal Sentencing
In this appeal from the denial of appellant’s Penal Code section 1170.95 resentencing petition, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to consider the evidence appellant sought to present at the evidentiary hearing (a codefendant’s declaration against penal interest) because, under section 1170.95, subdivision (d)(3), appellant had a statutory right to offer “new or additional evidence.” While trial courts may properly exclude evidence if it is not admissible under the Evidence Code, here, the trial court failed to adequately analyze whether the evidence was sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible; rather, the trial court questioned the credibility of the evidence solely on the fact that it had not been offered at trial. Additionally, because section 1170.95, as amended by Senate Bill 775, now provides resentencing relief for individuals convicted of attempted murder under certain circumstances, the court vacated the court’s order denying appellant’s resentencing petition and remanded for further proceedings.
A158267
March 25, 2022
Division: Five
Attorney: Marylou Hillberg
Categories: Criminal Sentencing
Because section 1170.95, as amended by Senate Bill 775, now provides resentencing relief for individuals convicted of attempted murder under certain circumstances, the Court of Appeal reversed the superior court’s order denying appellant’s 1170.95 petition and remanded the matter for the court to reconsider the petition in light of SB 775.
A162591
March 24, 2022
Division: Two
Attorney: Deborah Rodriguez
Categories: Criminal Fourth Amendment
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal affirms the trial court’s suppression of evidence of a firearm found on appellant when he was patted down during a traffic stop, finding that the officer’s pat search was not supported by reasonable suspicion. The court explains that neither “knowledge of a suspect’s past arrests or convictions” nor “knowledge that a suspect is merely under investigation” is sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion.
