The Court of Appeal reversed the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress, holding that police unlawfully searched his residence under a vague search condition. The condition did not expressly permit a residential search and the prosecutor failed to prove it was objectively reasonable for an officer to believe it did. The court remanded to allow the appellant to withdraw his plea.
**Between March and November 2024, there were many important unpublished panel victories in the First District. Unfortunately, we were not able to update our First District victories page during that time. Even though the victories are not on the website, we appreciate all of the hard work done by the panel and continued dedication to our clients.**
A170549
- October 2, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Nat Miller
- Categories: Criminal, Fourth Amendment
A171147
- September 24, 2025
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Michael Reed
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal struck several of appellant’s probation conditions as unconstitutionally overbroad. The Court noted that the struck conditions—pertaining to appellant’s online activity—had “no connection whatsoever” to her criminal conduct; moreover, these conditions purported to address concerns that were better targeted by other imposed conditions. As to the remaining challenged conditions relating to “costumes,” “toys,” and items that “may be used for the purpose of sexual arousal,” the Court remanded with instructions to impose “narrower,” “clearer” conditions.
A169874
- September 17, 2025
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Christopher Stansell
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue appellant’s non-violent felonies were a key mitigating circumstance “weigh[ing] greatly in favor of dismissing” a two-year on-bail enhancement under PC 1385(c)(2)(F).
A170390
- September 12, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Rudolph Alejo
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal vacated six probation conditions because the trial court impermissibly delegated authority to probation to decide the kinds of programming or treatment in which appellant was required to participate, including whether he was required to participate in a residential treatment program. On remand, the Court of Appeal directed the trial court to specify what kind(s) of programming or treatment are required for appellant because there was sufficient uncertainty in the record.
A171029
- September 10, 2025
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Kelly Woodruff
- Categories: Criminal, General
The Court of Appeal reversed convictions on 51 counts of misdemeanor petty theft because they were necessarily included in appellant’s conviction for grand theft. The grand theft conviction was based on aggregating the petty thefts, which were all part of single plan, so the greater and necessarily included offenses arose out of the same course of conduct.
A170502
- September 8, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Sibyl Day
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded regarding two of appellant’s probation conditions related to substance abuse treatment as they were contradictory and one condition impermissibly delegated judicial authority. The condition stating that “treatment may involve an outpatient program or a more intensive residential program” contradicted with the condition stating that the “[c]ourt orders residential treatment,” so both could not be operable. Additionally, the condition allowing a substance abuse specialist to determine whether appellant attends an outpatient or a residential program impermissibly delegated judicial authority.
A171290
- September 5, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Michael Reed
- Categories: Criminal, General
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for the trial court to convene an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellant’s treatment facility was “sufficiently restrictive” or “custodial” to entitle him to credits pursuant to PC 2900.5. The trial court erred by denying appellant’s request for 60 days credit for time spent in a residential treatment facility.
A165613A
- September 2, 2025
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Brad O’Connell
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
“In light of the California Supreme Court’s decision in this matter, dated June 26, 2025, and the People’s decision not to seek reimposition of an upper term sentence, the judgment is modified to impose the midterm sentence for appellant’s conviction for criminal threats (resulting in a total sentence of two years eight months). The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect this modification.”
A170520
- August 26, 2025
- Division: One
- Attorney: Douglas Foster
- Categories: Criminal, General
The Court of Appeal reversed two two-year bail enhancements imposed under PC 12022.1 and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the enhancements violated the federal constitution under Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821. Erlinger established a jury trial right on such enhancements as they went beyond the mere existence of other convictions. The lack of a jury trial was not harmless error because there was no conclusive evidence in the record to indicate appellant’s bail status when he committed the crimes at issue.
A172161
- August 19, 2025
- Division: Three
- Attorney: William Farber
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal vacated a victim restitution order awarded to an insurance company because it was not the “direct victim” of the vehicle theft offense under PC 1202.4.