The Court of Appeal held that the search of appellant’s person and truck was neither supported by probable cause or subject to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule where the sole justification for the search was an erroneous dispatch report that appellant was a convicted felon, but the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to show the error did not result from “deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct or recurring or systemic negligence.” In reaching this decision, the Court of Appeal rejected the A.G.’s attempt at burden shifting.
A162357
- May 24, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Roberta Simon
- Categories: Criminal, Fourth Amendment
A160328
- May 24, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Shannon Chase
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal held that appellant was entitled to retroactive application of the ameliorative changes effected by SB 567 and AB 518 and remanded for resentencing. The Court further held that appellant is entitled to a “full resentencing” on remand at which appellant “may present arguments as to any sentencing issue,” including appellant’s firearm and prior serious felony enhancements. The Court therefore declined to address whether SB 620 and SB 1393 – which took effect before appellant was sentenced – would themselves provide a basis for resentencing.
A163259
- May 17, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Heather Shallenberger
- 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.
A158563
- May 17, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Jennifer Mannix
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that appellant’s prior prison term enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) must be stricken because, pursuant to statutory amendment made by Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), enhancements under this section are now limited to individuals who have served a prior sentence for a sexually violent offense as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600, subdivision (b), and that was not the case here.
A162654
- May 12, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: Jamie Moran
- Categories: Dependency, Disposition, Jurisdiction
The Court of Appeal found that there was not a sufficient basis to find a serious risk of physical harm or neglect supporting jurisdiction or clear and convincing evidence of substantial danger to the child’s physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being sufficient to support a removal order. The Court found father’s jurisdictional challenge to be justiciable because, even though there was a separate ground for jurisdiction, the jurisdictional findings at issue were the basis for the challenged dispositional order. The Court also noted the distinction between substance use and abuse finding that past or current substance use alone will not support a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b).
A162845
- May 12, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Tony Cheng
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal held that, while an electronics search condition was appropriate in this case, the condition imposed by the juvenile court was too broad to survive scrutiny under In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113. The court, therefore, struck the condition and remanded the matter to the juvenile court to consider imposing a revised condition.
A164094
- May 12, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: Rita Himes
- 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.
A164012
- May 11, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Richard L. Braucher
- 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.
A159055
- May 10, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Maria Rogers
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal struck appellant’s two prior prison term enhancements in light of Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), which amended Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) by eliminating this enhancement except for sexually violent offenses as defined in the Welfare and Institutions Code. In so doing, the court rejected the A.G.’s argument that appellant was not entitled to remand at this time because Penal Code section 1171.1 states that resentencing for individuals, like appellant, who are still serving their base term, does not have to be completed until December 2023. To do nothing, the Court explained, would simply waste resources.
A163117
- May 4, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Jason Szydlik
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
As a condition of the minor’s probation, the juvenile court ordered the minor to pay a $200 restitution fine, which exceeded the maximum amount permitted by the applicable statute. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subds. (b), (b)(2).) The Court of Appeal, therefore, modified the disposition order to reduce the restitution fine.