[Published Opinion] In 2016, appellant pled guilty to a violent felony in one case and to a non-violent felony in another, and the trial court suspended an aggregated sentence and placed appellant on five-years’ probation. In 2021, based on misconduct occurring after AB 1950 took effect, the trial court revoked probation in both cases and imposed the aggregated sentence. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court retained jurisdiction to revoke probation for the violent felony (which was exempt from AB 1950’s two-year limitation on probation), but lacked jurisdiction to do so for the non-violent felony (which was not exempt).
A162718
- June 14, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Randall Conner
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision, Retroactivity of Changes in Law
A162942
- June 14, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Rashida Harmon
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
Although the Court of Appeal concluded that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an electronic search condition, the Court held that the condition imposed was not proportionate to the legitimate interests it served (ensuring adherence to some of the minor’s other probation conditions). Therefore, the court struck the condition and remanded the matter to the juvenile court to consider whether to impose a narrower electronic search condition.
A162551
- June 13, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Robert Kane
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal found that a condition requiring appellant to “participate in any treatment/therapy/counseling program, including residential, as directed by the probation officer” improperly delegated judicial authority to the probation officer by giving the officer the discretion to decide whether appellant had to attend a residential program, as opposed to an outpatient program.
A152786
- June 13, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Marylou Hillberg
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In appellant’s prior appeal, the Court held that Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), which limited imposition of the Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement to prior prison terms for sexually violent offenses, rendered appellant’s plea agreement unenforceable. The Court, therefore, directed the trial court to dismiss the enhancement and to allow the parties to reconsider the plea agreement. In this appeal, the Court explained that recently enacted Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) makes clear that the proper remedy is to strike the invalid prior prison term enhancement while leaving the remainder of the plea agreement intact. Thus, the Court directed the trial court to dismiss the prior prison term enhancement, but also remanded the matter because the trial court did not impose the maximum sentence for the attempted murder to which appellant pled, and because appellant may request the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike the firearm use enhancement.
A162252
- June 13, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Lillian Hamrick
- 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, among other things, created a presumption in favor of a low prison term for certain youthful offenders.
A159104
- June 10, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Nathan Siedman
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In appellant’s prior appeal, the Court struck appellant’s prior prison term enhancement due to the enactment of Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), which limited imposition of the section 667.5, subdivision (b), enhancement for only sexually violent offenses. In this appeal, the Court directed the trial court to dismiss the prior prison term enhancement, while leaving intact the remainder of his sentence under the plea agreement. (Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.))
A162629
- June 7, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Joseph Crumbley
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In a case in which appellant twice failed to appear at sentencing – once because he was in custody and once because he felt sick and did not feel “safe” going to the courthouse –, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in finding appellant willfully violated the terms of his Cruz waiver. In so holding, the Court rejected the trial court’s assertion that, by using drugs, appellant “assumed the risk” that he might get arrested and miss his sentencing. With respect to the second failure to appear, the Court explained that appellant’s reasoning for not going to the courthouse supported a strong inference that he was experiencing COVID symptoms, and the court’s website instructed defendants who were experiencing COVID symptoms to “not come to the courthouse” and to contact their attorney, which is precisely what appellant did in this case.
A164056
- June 2, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: S. Lynne Klein
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
The Court of Appeal found the Agency failed to satisfy its inquiry and notice obligations under the ICWA and related California law. The Agency was informed that the maternal grandmother had Native American ancestry, but made no effort to investigate family members. Notice to the tribes was also incomplete. The “affirmative duty to gather relevant information…is critical to ensure that the notice requirements are satisfied in a meaningful way.” Pursuant to “established appellate practice,” the order terminating parental rights was conditionally reversed and remanded to ensure compliance with the ICWA.
A155287
- June 1, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: John Schuck
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In accordance with People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, where the Supreme Court held that trial courts do have the discretion to dismiss a greater enhancement for an uncharged lesser enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53, the Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the court to determine whether to strike the Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement and impose a lesser enhancement instead.
A162493
- May 27, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Carrie Kojimoto
- Categories: Delinquency
The Court of Appeal struck the probation condition requiring the minor to “[b]e of good conduct” as unconstitutionally vague and remanded the matter to the juvenile court. On remand, the Court directed the juvenile court to make an express declaration as to whether the minor’s wobbler offenses are felonies or misdemeanors, to calculate and record the minor’s maximum term of confinement, and to reconsider the calculation of the minor’s predisposition custody credits.