First District Panel Victories

Results: 21 - 30 of 241

A161062

September 30, 2021

Division: One

Attorney: Jeffrey Glick

Categories: Delinquency   Sentencing   

The Court of Appeal reduced a minor’s maximum term of confinement at DJJ by one year, finding that the minor was entitled to the ameliorative benefit of amended Welfare and Institutions Code sections 730, subdivision (a)(2) and 731, subdivision (c), which states that a juvenile court “shall not commit a ward to the Division of Juvenile Justice for a period that exceeds the middle term of imprisonment that could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the same offense.”  (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 731, subd. (c).)

A161303

September 29, 2021

Division: Two

Attorney: Sibyl Day

Categories: Criminal   Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision   Retroactivity of Changes in Law   

The Court of Appeal remanded the case for reconsideration of various probation conditions that required appellant to enroll in and complete various assessments and treatment programs “if required by the Probation Officer.” According to the Court, the use of the “if required by the probation officer” language improperly granted to “the probation officer unfettered authority to decide in the first instance whether [appellant] should be required to participate in multiple treatment programs and/or mental health and drug and alcohol assessments, not merely to select a particular program that has been ordered by the court.” The Court further held that, upon remand, the trial court must comply with AB1950, which limited the probation term for felony offenses to two years (except in cases of certain violent felonies), in imposing any period of probation. Finally, because the Court was remanding the matter for resentencing, the Court also directed the trial court to entertain any inability-to-pay objection.

A153332

September 29, 2021

Division: Two

Attorney: Janice Lagerlof

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in several ways in imposing appellant’s sentence. First, the Court held that the Three Strikes Law excludes LWOP sentences from being doubled or tripled. To the contruary, the Three Strikes Law permits doubling (§ 667, subd. (e)(1)) or tripling (§ 667, subd. (e)(2)) only of the determinate term or minimum term for an indeterminate term. (People v. Smithson (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 480, 503; People v. Coyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 209, 219; People v. Mason (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 355, 368-369.) Second, the Court struck two (of four) prior prison term enhancements, finding that prior convictions cannot serve as the basis for both a five-year prior serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)) and a three-year prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (a)). Third, the Court held that the trial court erred by imposing a minimum parole eligibility term (and tripling it), and that it must be stricken on remand. Finally, upon remand, the Court held that the trial court should consider whether to exercise its discretion to strike the firearm enhancement.

A161973

September 29, 2021

Division: Two

Attorney: Rachel Belden

Categories: Dependency   Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)   

[Published decision] The Court reversed the order terminating parental rights and remanded the matter for a new section 366.26 hearing in light of the legal standards articulated in Caden C. The Court stated that to prove the existence of a beneficial relationship, the parent was not required to prove that the child’s attachment to her was his primary bond. The quality of the parent-child attachment must be evaluated in the context of the contact the parent was permitted to have with the child during the course of the dependency proceedings. Based on the record, the Court could not be certain whether the juvenile court relied on improper factors in assessing the Caden C. elements.

A160563

September 28, 2021

Division: Five

Attorney: Meredith Fahn

Categories: Criminal   Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution   Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision   Retroactivity of Changes in Law   

Appellant contended that his three-year probationary term must be reduced to two years pursuant to AB 1950 and that his fines and fees should be stricken or stayed or an ability-to-pay hearing should be held. The Attorney General agreed that remand was appropriate for resentencing and an ability-to-pay-hearing. Given the  parties’ agreement, the record of appellant’s financial conditions, and the fact that the matter must be remanded to the trial court anyway for adjustment of the probationary period, the Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to hold a hearing on appellant’s ability to pay.

A157778

September 27, 2021

Division: Four

Attorney: Karriem Baker

Categories: Criminal   General   

The Court of Appeal found that the record did not affirmatively show that appellant’s jury trial waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. While the Court noted that the record showed appellant may have had some discussion with trial counsel prior to the jury waiver, and that trial counsel indicated to the trial court that appellant wanted to waive his right to a jury trial, the record did  not show whether the attorney ever discussed the nature of a jury trial with his client.  Nevertheless, the trial court took “no steps” to ensure appellant comprehended what a jury trial entailed, which was especially concerning considering appellant’s mental competency had been questioned at one point.

A160460

September 27, 2021

Division: Four

Attorney: Nathaniel Miller

Categories: Civil Commitment   

Relying on Conservatorship of A.B. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 384, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred when it improperly delegated to the County its duty to consider whether granting the County’s petition for compensation under Probate Code section 2942, subdivision (b) would be a hardship on the conservatee.

A158256

September 24, 2021

Division: Two

Attorney: William Capriola

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

The Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred by summarily denying appellant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95  without issuing an order to show cause and conducting an evidentiary hearing.

A162067

September 24, 2021

Division: One

Attorney: Sangeeta Sinha

Categories: Delinquency   

In violation of Welfare and Institutions Cede section 700.1, the juvenile court held a suppression hearing at the same time as a jurisdictional hearing. Defense counsel did not object to the unitary hearing or request a deferred entry of judgment although the minor was eligible for such relief. Thus, the Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the jurisdictional and dispositional orders, and remanded the matter for the juvenile court to evaluate the minor for a deferred entry of judgment.

A160911

September 21, 2021

Division: One

Attorney: Jonathan Roberts

Categories: Criminal   Retroactivity of Changes in Law   Sentencing   

In a case in which appellant entered into a negotiated disposition that involved admitting six prior prison terms and resulted in a 10-year split sentence, the Court of Appeal held that, pursuant to People v. Esquivel (2021) 11 Cal.5th 671 and People v. McKenzie (2020) 9 Cal.5th 40, appellant’s case was not final for purposes of retroactive application of SB 136 – which restricted one-year prison term enhancements to terms served for violent sexual offenses – under Estrada. However, after noting that “Courts of Appeal are split as to whether remand under [People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685] is required where, as here, legislation has eliminated (rather than left to the trial court’s discretion) a sentencing enhancement imposed in connection with a negotiated disposition that included a specific, agreed-to sentence,” the Court held that the case must be remanded. But the Court ordered that, upon remand, the trial court may not impose a longer term than that to which the parties originally agreed.

Results: 21 - 30 of 241

^