A153332 [Unpublished Opinion | Panel Attorney Janice Lagerlof] The Court of Appeal reversed (subject to retrial) the true finding on the criminal street gang enhancement in light of Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which, among other things, amended Penal Code section 186.22 by redefining key terms and requiring additional elements to establish a criminal street gang enhancement. The Court therefore remanded the matter and, upon remand, directed the trial court to also strike: the 75-year-to-life term (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (e)(2)(A)(i)), finding that the Three Strikes Law excludes LWOP sentences from being doubled or tripled; (2) one of two five-year prior serious felony enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)) because the convictions on which those enhancements rested were not brought and tried separately; (3) both of the three-year prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (a)), finding the same prior convictions cannot serve as the basis for both prior serious felony enhancements (§ 667) and the prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5); and (4) the 45-year minimum parole eligibility term (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subdivision (b)(5)) because appellant was sentenced to life without parole. Finally, the court directed the trial court to determine whether to exercise its discretion and strike the firearm enhancement.
A153332
- May 4, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Janice Lagerlof
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing, Sufficiency of the Evidence
A162906
- May 3, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Anne Mania
- Categories: Delinquency
Finding the record contained no evidence that appellant was provided notice of his eligibility for deferred entry of judgment as required under Welfare and Institutions Code section 790, the Court of appeal conditionally vacated the juvenile court’s findings and disposition order and remanded that matter for further proceedings, including notice to appellant of his eligibility for a DEJ.
A162703
- April 29, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: David Kaiser
- Categories: Competency, Credits, Criminal
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal held appellant was entitled to presentence conduct credits for time spent in a state hospital receiving competency treatment. In so doing, the court reasoned that, while the 2021 amendments to Penal Code section 4019 (extending credits to defendants receiving competency treatment in state hospitals) do not apply retroactively, equal protection principles compel application of the 2019 amendments to Penal Code section 4019 (extending credits to defendants receiving competency treatment in county jails) to defendants receiving such treatment in state hospitals. The court disagreed with People v. Orellana (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 319
A161725
- April 28, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: Richard Knight
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
In light of Assembly Bill 1869, which eliminated certain fees in criminal cases and rendered the unpaid balance of any such fees unenforceable and uncollectible, the Court of Appeal vacated the fees imposed pursuant to Government Code section 29550, subdivision (f) and Penal Code section 1203.1b (presentence report fee and supervised probation fee).
A163793
- April 28, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Michael Sampson
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal held that the probation condition prohibiting appellant from being present in a building that he knows contains firearms or weapons was invalid because the condition’s proximity limitation was not narrowly tailored or reasonably related to the state’s interest in protecting the public, preventing appellant’s future criminality, or rehabilitating appellant. The Court modified the condition as follows: “The Minor shall not be present in any building or vehicle in which he knowingly has ready access to a firearm, ammunition, or other dangerous or deadly weapon, whether it is lawfully possessed or was unlawfully acquired.”
A161060
- April 26, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Gene Vorobyov
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In this case, the trial court resentenced appellant after the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation advised the court of an unlawful sentence. In so doing, the Court of Appeal held the trial court did not exercise its sentencing discretion in an informed manner because the court (1) failed to recognize it had to conduct a full resentencing hearing (and was required to merely strike the illegal component of the sentence); and (2) erroneously believed that a consecutive sentence for the attempted murder conviction was mandatory.
A162575
- April 19, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Charles Holzhauer
- Categories: Criminal, Sufficiency of the Evidence
In a case in which appellant was convicted of domestic violence-related offenses against the mother of his daughter, the Court of Appeal reversed the criminal protective order as to appellant’s daughter because it was not supported by substantial evidence. Under Penal Code section 136, subdivision (3), a “victim” is defined as “any natural person with respect to whom there is reason to believe that any crime . . . is being or has been perpetrated or attempted to be perpetrated.” However, the evidence showed that the daughter was not present and did not witness the acts of domestic violence.
A163565
- April 15, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: Charles Holzhauer
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal held that the stay-away condition of appellant’s probation must be modified because it did not specify how far away from the victim appellant must stay and was therefore constitutionally overbroad. The Court further held that the term “weapon” in the weapons condition was vague and overbroad and must be modified to specify that “deadly or dangerous weapons” are prohibited. Finally, the court stuck the probation condition that prohibited “marijuana use even with a valid 215 card” because it conflicted with another condition the trial court imposed, that appellant “not use or possess drugs or drug paraphernalia unless he has a valid prescription.”
A162940
- April 14, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Richard Schwartzberg
- Categories: Criminal, General, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
[Published Opinion] 40 years after appellant’s judgment for conviction for murder was final, appellant filed a motion to correct information contained in his presentencing probation report. The Court of Appeal finds that the trial court erred when it denied the motion. Trial courts have jurisdiction under Penal Code, § 1203.01, as interpreted by In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, to correct the record transmitted to the Department of Corrections.
A161632
- April 12, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: Alex Coolman
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing, Sufficiency of the Evidence
[Published Opinion] In this case, a jury acquitted appellant of the charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm, but the trial court nevertheless denied his 1170.95 petition based on its belief that appellant possessed and fired a gun. The Court of Appeal held that a trial court cannot deny relief in a section 1170.95 proceeding based on findings that are inconsistent with a previous acquittal when no evidence other than that introduced at trial is presented. Thus, the Court reversed the order denying the petition and remanded for the trail court to hold a new hearing.