The Court of Appeal remand this case pursuant to the parties’ stipulation that appellant is entitled to resentencing under recently enacted ameliorative amendments to Penal Code section 1170.1, which limits the court’s ability to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term and imposes a presumption that the court shall impose the lower term where the defendant was a youth or experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma and those factors contributed to the commission of the offense.
A162132
- March 21, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Micah Reyner
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
A162098
- March 17, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Jeffrey Kross
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
Because the domestic violence fund fee (Penal Code, § 1203.097) only applies to criminal defendants who are placed on probation and appellant was sentence to prison, the Court of Appeal struck this fee.
A163152
- March 15, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Richard Fitzer
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in sentencing appellant to state prison because at the time of his plea, appellant understood he would be serving his time in county jail.
A163116
- March 15, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Erin Keefe
- Categories: Criminal, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The Court of Appeal held that the circumstances of the minor’s offense (forcing a person out of his car and driving off with the car) did not satisfy the requirements for imposition of the firearm prohibition in Penal Code section 29820, subdivision (b), because the juvenile court did not find the minor personally used a firearm in the commission of the attempted second degree robbery.
A162734
- March 14, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: David Bernstein
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal held that the presentence report fee must be stricken in light of Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) which, among other things, makes the unpaid balance of that fee unenforceable and uncollectible as of July 1, 2021, and requires that any portion of the judgment imposing such a fee be vacated.
A153620
- March 10, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: James Donnelly-Saalfield
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which amended Penal Code section 1170 and constrains the sentencing court’s latitude to choose from among low, middle, and upper terms in a sentencing triad. The A.G. conceded retroactivity.
A160680
- March 9, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Ross Thomas
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which amended Penal Code section 1170 and limits the court’s ability to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term. The A.G. conceded retroactivity.
A159571
- March 4, 2022
- Attorney: Randi Covin
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing due to the recent statutory amendment to Penal Code section 654 (Assembly Bill No. 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which now affords trial courts the discretion to choose the count on which to impose punishment (instead of having to choose the one that provided for the longest potential term of imprisonment).
A159387
- March 1, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: J. Wilder Lee
- Categories: Criminal
Because section 1170.95, as amended by Senate Bill 775, now provides resentencing relief for individuals convicted of attempted murder under certain circumstances, the Court of Appeal reversed the superior court’s order summarily denying appellant’s 1170.95 petition and remanded the matter for the court to reconsider the petition in light of SB 775.
A157062
- March 1, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Hilda Scheib
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The trial court denied appellant’s Romero motion on the basis that residential burglary is rightfully a strike, without considering the facts and circumstances of appellant’s current and prior offense or her particular background, character, and prospects, as is required. Relying on People v. Avila (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1134, the Court of Appeal remanded the matter to allow the trial court to analyze appellant’s Romero motion in conformity with the spirit of the law. The court further held that the matter must be remanded for resentencing in light of Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which amended Penal Code section 1170 and limits the court’s ability to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term.