First District Panel Victories

Results: 21 - 30 of 630
1 2 3 4 5 63


The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by imposing a “flash incarceration” condition of probation with eliciting the waiver required under PC 1203.35.


The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by imposing multiple punishments for the same single act of possessing the same firearm on the same occasion in violation of PC 654. The Court remanded the matter for a full resentencing, at which time the trial court may also consider whether to exercise its discretion under PC 1385(c) and 12022(c).  


The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of the amendments 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 experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma and those factors contributed to the commission of the offense.


The Court of Appeal held that substantial evidence did not support appellant’s conviction for violating a domestic violence restraining order (PC 273.6(a)) because the only TRO admitted into evidence expired two days before appellant was served with it.  


In light of recent amendments to WIC 707 (AB 2361), the Court of Appeal held that the minor was entitled to a new juvenile transfer hearing. At the time of the minor’s initial hearing, the juvenile court applied the former preponderance of the evidence standard (as opposed to the now required clear and convincing evidence standard) and directed its analysis to whether “transfer[ ] is appropriate,” not whether the minor was “amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court,” as is required under amended WIC 707. Relying on In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, the Court further found that remand was necessary because applying Watson would be inappropriate, as it would require the Court to speculate as to how the juvenile court might apply the new legal standards.


[Published Opinion] In an appeal from a PC 1172.75 resentencing at which the trial court struck a prior-prison-term enhancement (PC 667.5(b)) but did not conduct a full resentencing, the Court of Appeal remands the matter for a full resentencing at which defendant may seek relief under SB 1393, SB 81, and “any other legislation that may reduce his sentence.” The court also holds, however, that under People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685,  because defendant was convicted pursuant to a plea agreement with an agreed-upon term, the prosecution may elect to withdraw from the agreement if the trial court decides to further reduce the sentence.


The Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to amend the sentencing minute order to reflect its oral pronouncement prohibiting appellant from possessing any “dangerous or deadly” weapons (as opposed to “any weapon”), and to impose the court operations fee and criminal conviction assessment as separate orders instead of as a condition of probation. The Court further ordered that the trial court vacate the portion of the judgment imposing a restitution collection fee pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 177 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.).


The Court of Appeal held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence appellant to prison because his probation terminated by operation of law before it was revoked with the passage of Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.)


The Court of Appeal reverses the order renewing appellant’s LPS conservatorship, finding that the record does not demonstrate that appellant was ever advised of or personally waived his right to a jury trial.


The Court of Appeal holds that appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel in pleading no contest to a felony count of meeting with a minor for lewd purposes (PC 288.4(b)), based on an adult decoy posing online as an underage girl, because it is reasonably probable that had appellant gone to trial and asserted the defense of entrapment at least one juror would have voted to acquit him.