First District Panel Victories

Results: 261 - 270 of 383

A154635

July 31, 2019

Division: Four

Attorney: Janice Wellborn

Categories: Criminal   General   

In a case arising from an altercation with a tow truck driver attempting to repossess appellant’s car, the Court of Appeal directed the trial court to vacate a protective order because protective orders issued pursuant to Penal Code section 136.2 are limited to the pendency of the criminal action in which they are issued or to probation conditions, and appellant was sentenced to state prison.

A154052

July 31, 2019

Division: Two

Attorney: Shannon Chase

Categories: Criminal   Prosecutorial, Juror, and Judicial Misconduct   

The trial court improperly discharged a juror during deliberations based on what it perceived to be the juror’s inability to set aside a speculative scenario he had imagined rather than evidence presented in court. However, the Court of Appeal viewed the evidence differently, agreeing with defense counsel that the juror’s comments to the trial court suggested a very real possibility that the juror was actually expressing doubt as to appellant’s guilt due to the absence of evidence. Judgment reversed.

A154371

July 26, 2019

Division: Two

Attorney: Robert Angres

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

Because lewd conduct within the meaning of Penal Code section 288, subd. (a) already has an age-range factor for the victim as an element of the offense, the trial court erred by relying on the victim’s age by itself in setting the defendant’s upper term sentence. (See Penal Code section 1170, subd. (b)). The Court of Appeal, therefore, vacated the defendant’s sentence and remanded the matter for resentencing.

A155354

July 25, 2019

Division: Three

Attorney: Nathaniel Miller

Categories: Criminal   General   

The Court of Appeal found that, under the totality of the circumstances, the record did not affirmatively demonstrate that the defendant voluntarily and knowingly admitted the prior conviction allegation. In this case, the trial court accepted the defendant’s admission without advising him of his constitutional rights and obtaining waivers of those rights. The court also failed to advise the defendant of the specific consequences of his admission. The matter was, therefore remanded for a new adjudication of the prior conviction allegation, by admission after proper waivers or trial, and for resentencing.

A153826

July 24, 2019

Division: Three

Attorney: Brian McComas

Categories: Delinquency   Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision   

The Court of Appeal found that the electronic search condition was overbroad because the condition did not limit the type of data on or accessible through the minor’s electronic devices that may be searched for permissible purposes. The Court modified the condition to limit warrantless searches of the minor’s electronic devices and accounts to data and communications reasonably likely to reveal whether he is violating his probation conditions.

A153363

July 15, 2019

Division: Five

Attorney: Jamie Weyand

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

Because the Court of Appeal affirmed a robbery conviction on the ground that the criminal threats supplied the requisite use of force or fear, the Court determined that Penal Code section 654 bars the defendant from being punished for both the criminal threats and robbery convictions.

A151406

July 12, 2019

Division: One

Attorney: Cynthia Jones

Categories: Criminal   Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution   Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision   

The Court of Appeal found that the trial court improperly imposed 400 days in custody as a condition of probation, in excess of the statutory maximum of one year, for a conviction under Vehicle Code section 23153. The trial court further erred by imposing a higher probation revocation fine than the restitution fine, in violation of Penal Code section 1202.44. Finally, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court exceeded the maximum base fine allowed, under Vehicle Code section 23556, subdivision (a)(1), for a first-time offender of section 23153 who is placed on probation.

A151363

July 11, 2019

Division: Four

Attorney: Janet Gray

Categories: Criminal   Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution   

The Court of Appeal found that the restitution award, which was based on the amount of parking tickets the defendant received while in possession of the victim’s car, was excessive. Because the tickets (with the exception of one), and the victim’s resulting losses, were not the result of the defendant’s criminal acts in committing rape and domestic battery, the Court found that restitution under Penal Code section 1202.4 was not available for any ticket that occurred prior to the offense.

A153489

June 28, 2019

Division: Four

Attorney: Kelly Martin

Categories: Criminal   Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution   

In light of People v. Duenas, the Court of Appeal remanded the case so as to give the defendant an opportunity to request a hearing on his ability to pay the court-imposed fines, fees, and assessments. The Court declined to find that the defendant had forfeited this issue by failing to raise it at the sentencing hearing, choosing to follow the reasoning in People v. Johnson (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 134.

A137905

June 28, 2019

Division: Three

Attorney: Cara Devito

Categories: Criminal   Sufficiency of the Evidence   

The Court of Appeal found that, given the lack of substantial evidence showing the defendant took a vehicle from the victim’s immediate presence by use of force or fear, the defendant’s convictions for carjacking (Penal Code section 215, subd. (a)) and conspiracy to commit carjacking (Penal Code section 182, subd. (a)(1)) could not stand.

Results: 261 - 270 of 383

^