The Court of Appeal struck three one-year prison prior enhancements (Penal Code section 667.5, subd. (b)) in light of Senate Bill No. 136, which limited prior prison term enhancements to “sexually violent” offenses. (Pen. Code, § 1171.1, subd. (a).) In so doing, the Court rejected the Attorney General’s argument that a remand was the proper remedy, noting that Senate Bill No. 136 “shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement.” (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 1.)
A162555
- January 19, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Theresa Stevenson
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
A158366
- January 19, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: Stephen Greenberg
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
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 vacated its prior opinion affirming the denial of appellant’s 1170.95 petition, revered the order denying the petition, and remand the matter to the trial court to conduct further proceedings.
A160578
- January 13, 2022
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Charles Dell’Ario
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
[Published Opinion] Because appellant was 22 years old at the time of the offense, the Court of Appeal held that appellant’s six-year midterm sentence must be vacated and the matter remanded to the trial court with directions to resentence him under the newly amended version of section 1170, subdivision (b), which, among other things, now has a presumption in favor of a low prison term when a defendant is under 26 years of age at the time of the offense.
A160262
- January 12, 2022
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Sandra Gillies
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal reversed the order summarily denying appellant’s 1170.95 petition, finding that the trial court’s reliance on the Court of Appeal’s opinion in his case was improper, and that the record of conviction did not conclusively eliminate the possibility that the jury found appellant guilty of murder on a theory under which malice was imputed to him based solely on his participation in a crime. Accordingly, the Court remanded for the trial court to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing.
A160771
- January 11, 2022
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Cynthia Jones
- Categories: Criminal, Retroactivity of Changes in Law, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that appellant was entitled to remand for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 567, which requires that circumstances in aggravation used to justify imposition of the upper term be found true by the jury or admitted by the defendant. In this case, the Attorney General conceded that SB 567 applies retroactively.
A160837
- January 10, 2022
- Division: One
- Attorney: Elizabeth Grayson
- Categories: Delinquency
In this case, the juvenile court sustained allegations of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging a minor committed robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)). Relying on the holding of People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d, the Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s finding on a grand theft count as a lesser included offense of robbery.
A160718
- January 7, 2022
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Larenda Delaini
- Categories: Delinquency
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in imposing sentence on a misdemeanor count after not announcing a verdict on that charge. In deciding to vacate the misdemeanor count, the Court of Appeal rejected the Attorney General’s argument that the case should be remanded to allow the court to correct its error.
A159115
- December 30, 2021
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Catherine White
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
[Published Opinion] The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by denying appellant’s 1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage and not issuing an order to show cause. The Court further held that appellant was entitled to relief on his petition as a matter of law because the court that convicted him in a 2000 bench trial made a finding that he did not act with reckless indifference to human life.
A158743
- December 30, 2021
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Victor Morse
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal held that, pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a), the trial court was required to reduce appellant’s one-year terms for use of a deadly or dangerous weapon (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1)) to four months.
A161747
- December 30, 2021
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Paul Couenhoven
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
In this case, the jury rendered not true findings on the felony-murder and personal use of a weapon allegations. On appeal of the denial of appellant’s 1170.95 petition, the Court of Appeal agreed with appellant that the jury’s findings collaterally estopped the trial court from denying the 1170.95 petition based on a determination that rests on an implicit finding that appellant was the actual killer.