In accordance with the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, which held that a court could strike a greater firearm enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d) and impose a lesser uncharged enhancement instead, the Court of Appeal conditionally reversed and remanded the case for resentencing because the record showed that the trial court did not fully understand the scope of its discretionary sentencing powers.
A163499
- June 28, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Paul Couenhoven
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
A159651
- June 24, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Jeffrey Glick
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
In light of Assembly Bill Nos. 1869 and 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 probation services fee (former Pen. Code, § 1203.1b) and the administrative fee that previously covered the costs of collecting a restitution award (former Pen. Code, § 1203.1, subd. (l)).
A164228
- June 22, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: David Thompson
- 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 this case, it was undisputed that the trial court imposed the upper principal term in reliance on aggravating factors that do not meet the requirements of section 1170, subdivisions (b)(2) or (b)(3). The Attorney General conceded that SB 567 applies retroactively.
A162360
- June 21, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Stephen Bedrick
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In a case in which appellant was convicted of three first degree murders, conspiracy to commit murder, and assault with a deadly weapon, the Court of Appeal reversed the order summarily denying appellant’s Penal Code section 1170.95 petition without issuing an order to show cause and holding an evidentiary hearing, since the Court could not exclude the possibility that one or more of the murder convictions was based on the now-forbidden theory of natural and probable consequences.
A158609
- June 21, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Micah Reyner
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In light of Senate Bill 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), the Court of Appeal found appellant’s one-year prior prison term enhancement was invalid and remanded the case for the trial court to resentence appellant and determine whether his total sentence must be reduced.
A160025
- June 17, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Tiffany Gates
- Categories: Criminal, Sufficiency of the Evidence
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal held that insufficient evidence supported a conviction for dissuading a witness by threat (Penal Code, § 136, subd. (c)(1)) where the threat of violence only involved self-harm, and thus did not constitute a threat to any “witness or victim or any third person,” as required by section 136.1, subdivision (c)(1).
A162314
- June 17, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Ross Thomas
- Categories: Criminal, 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 limited the court’s ability to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term and created a presumption in favor of the low term under certain circumstances. The Court found that remand was necessary because the trial court relied on “so many” factors in aggravation, not all of which were stipulated to or found true beyond a reasonable doubt, and it appeared as though the court did not consider appellant’s youth at sentencing.
A161519
- June 16, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Christopher Haberman
- Categories: Civil Commitment
The Court of appeal held that the record did not affirmatively show that appellant’s waiver of his jury trial right was voluntary and intelligent where appellant said “yes” when the court asked if he understood his right to a jury trial and that, in waiving that right, the judge rather than a jury would decide whether a conservatorship should be granted, but the court gave no additional information explaining the nature of what appellant was giving up by having the judge alone decide his fate. The court reached this decision despite appellant having been the subject of conservator appointments in the past because “none in at least the prior decade had involved a trial at which he would have been informed of his jury trial rights.”
A159741
- June 16, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Stephen Bedrick
- Categories: Competency, Criminal
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in failing to hold a new competency hearing, despite defense counsel repeatedly declaring a doubt as to appellant’s competence after returning from Napa State Hospital, where the trial court became aware that appellant had stopped taking his psychotropic medication (a condition mental health experts reported and testified appellant’s competence depended on) and the court could see that appellant’s mental condition had deteriorated. The Court further found that a retrospective competency hearing would not be an appropriate remedy in this case and reversed the judgment of conviction.
A158649
- June 15, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Kevin Lindsley
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
In this case, the trial court ordered appellant to pay $10,466.92 in restitution to the Lake County Department of Adult Services to reimburse the department for payments it made to appellant for in-home support services she did not render. However, the Court of Appeal held that there was no evidentiary support for the trial court’s finding that appellant did not accompany one of her clients to her medical appointments and reduced the restitution amount accordingly.