In light of the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Tirado (Jan. 20, 2022, S257658) ___ Cal.5th ___ [2022 WL 176411], which concluded that a court could strike a greater firearm enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53(d) and impose a lesser uncharged enhancement instead, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the case for resentencing because the record showed that the trial court did not fully understand the scope of its discretionary sentencing powers.
A162105
- February 7, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Victor Morse
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
A159805
- February 1, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Kelly Woodruff
- Categories: Criminal, Miranda and Voluntariness
The Court of Appeal held that the trial erred by admitting statements police obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436and Edwards v Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477, and that the error was not harmless. In so holding, the Court found that the officers continued to interrogate appellant after he unambiguously invoked his right to counsel, and that appellant’s decision to speak to the officers nine seconds after the officers stopped speaking was the result of the improper interrogation and not appellant’s voluntary initiation of discussion with police.
A151408
- January 31, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: James Donnelly-Saalfield
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal held that Proposition 47 applies to mail-theft convictions under Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (e), and that such convictions must be re-designated to petty theft.
A157271
- January 31, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: Walter Pyle
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The Court of Appeal held (and the A.G. conceded) that the court erred by imposing a parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45, subd. (a)) because a court cannot impose a parole revocation fine that exceeds the restitution fine imposed under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), which, in this case, was zero.
A160489
- January 31, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: James Donnelly-Saalfield
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Because section 1170.95, as amended by Senate Bill 775, now provides resentencing relief for individuals charged with attempted murder under certain circumstances, the Court of Appeal reversed the superior court’s order denying appellant’s 1170.95 petition and remanded the matter for the court to reconsider the petition in light of SB 775.
A160686
- January 31, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Victoria Stafford
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Because section 1170.95, as amended by Senate Bill 775, now provides resentencing relief for individuals convicted of voluntary manslaughter and 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.
A162268
- January 30, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Elizabeth Klippi
- Categories: Dependency, Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
The Court of Appeal reversed the order terminating mother’s parental rights and remanded the matter for a new WIC 366.26 hearing. The Court found the juvenile court misapplied the three-step beneficial relationship exception as articulated in In re Caden C. when it placed heavy weight on mother’s inability to overcome her drug problem.
A159406
- January 26, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Edward Haggerty
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing based on the new sentencing legislation that amended Penal Code sections 654 and 1170, subdivision (b). (See Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731), Assembly Bill No. 124 (Stats. 2021, ch. 695), and Assembly Bill No. 518 (Stats. 2021, ch. 441).) In so doing, the Court found that the amendments apply retroactively.
A160618
- January 24, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Gordon Brownell
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The trial court denied appellant’s 1170.95 petition for resentencing on the ground that he did not qualify for relief because his homicide conviction was for manslaughter rather than murder. In light of Senate Bill No. 775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.), which amended section 1170.95 to expressly authorize a person convicted of manslaughter to file a petition for resentencing, the Court of Appeal reversed the order denying the petition and remanded for the trial court to consider whether appellant has established a prima facie case for relief, and to conduct such further proceedings as may be required.
A156114
- January 20, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: David Polsky
- Categories: Criminal, Jury Instructions
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal found that the trial court misstated the law when it instructed the jury on Penal Code section 311.2, subdivision (b) because the instructions made it clear to the jury that the element of commercial consideration required nothing more than an intent to trade or induce others to trade in obscene matter over the Internet. However, based on the principals of statutory interpretation, the Court of Appeal concluded that the element of commercial consideration in Penal Code section 311.2, subdivision (b) requires proof that the defendant received or intended to receive payment at the time he or she distributed, exhibited or exchanged obscene matter involving minors performing or simulating sex acts.